Tag Archives: citizen

Should Immigration Reform Be Tearing Apart the Democratic Party?

Mother Jones

Jonah Goldberg says he’s puzzled: immigration reform is tearing apart the Republican Party, but for some reason it’s not doing the same to the Democratic Party. But is he puzzled, or “puzzled”? After noting that Sen. Bernie Sanders registered some discomfort with the bill but was eventually assuaged by a $1.5-billion youth jobs program, Goldberg says this:

Last week, when the Congressional Budget Office issued a report that the immigration bill would increase GNP per capita by 0.2% and slightly reduce the deficit in 20 years, Democrats hailed it as a vindication.

It fell to Republicans to note that the same CBO report assumed the legislation would reduce immigration by a mere 25% and would very modestly reduce average wages in the first decade….Liberal wonks raced to defend the bill on the wage issue by noting that average wages wouldn’t necessarily go down for existing workers (if 10 people make $100 a day, and you add an 11th who makes $50 a day, the average goes down even if everyone’s wages don’t). But arguing about how much wages will or won’t go down is a far cry from claiming wages will go up.

Goldberg says that conservatives are suspicious of the bill because it makes big promises about things like border security and tough citizenship requirements, but “the right is just not in a trusting mood.” A big 10-4 to that, good buddy. But why does that leave him puzzled about liberals? The left is in about as trusting a mood as ever; the economic effects of the bill on native Americans are either tiny or zero (as Goldberg himself points out); and big chunks of the Democratic base are strongly in favor of passage. So why should immigration be tearing Dems apart?

See more here: 

Should Immigration Reform Be Tearing Apart the Democratic Party?

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Should Immigration Reform Be Tearing Apart the Democratic Party?

Jumping the Shark on Edward Snowden

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Some random thoughts on the latest Edward Snowden news:

Do I blame the Obama administration for charging him with a crime and seeking his extradition? Of course not. Snowden broke the law in spectacular fashion and then went as public as he possibly could about it. There’s no way that any government in any country in the world wouldn’t prosecute someone who did that. To leave him alone would be to tacitly give permission for any low-level intelligence worker to release anything they wanted anytime they wanted. No intelligence service can work like that.

Should Snowden have been charged with espionage? Of course not. Maybe unauthorized distribution of government property, or something along those lines. But based on what we know so far, he’s plainly not a spy and plainly not working in the service of a foreign power. He’s an American citizen who thinks the American surveillance state has gotten out of control.

Do I blame Snowden for leaving the country instead of sticking around to pay the price for his civil disobedience? Of course not. It’s one thing to accept jail time as the price of civil disobedience if the jail time in question can be measured in months in a low-security facility. It’s quite another when it can probably be measured as a life sentence in a federal Supermax facility. Snowden had every reason to fear the latter.

Should Glenn Greenwald be charged with a crime because he “aided and abetted” Snowden, as NBC’s David Gregory suggested on Sunday? Of course not. A friend emailed this morning to ruminate about the “weird goings-on with Gregory,” and here’s how I answered:

The whole thing is even weirder than it seems at first glance. Greenwald works for the Guardian! If a guy working for the Guardian isn’t a “real” reporter, who is? What’s more, the Post published some of the same stuff. But no one’s asking Bart Gellman if he’s a spy.

It’s just crazy. Lots of magazines, newspapers, and cable news channels (ahem) have specific points of view, and lots of them do crusading reporting. But no one ever says that this blackballs them from the journalist club. To hear Gregory tell it, I.F. Stone wasn’t a journalist either. It’s nuts.

I know, I know: Gregory was just “asking the question.” Whatever. I can guarantee you that he wouldn’t have asked Barton Gellman that question if he’d been a guest on the show.

Anyway, it’s not coincidence that my answer to all of these questions is the same. Of course not! I’m not a deep-dyed supporter of everything Snowden has done, and I have lingering questions about his motivations, his timing, his actual knowledge of NSA programs, and his judgment. That said, some of the stuff making the rounds of the chattering classes is just crazy. Settle down, folks.

View original:  

Jumping the Shark on Edward Snowden

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Jumping the Shark on Edward Snowden

Ecuador’s Edward Snowden Problem

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

As of Monday afternoon (Eastern time), the whereabouts of on-the-run NSA leaker Edward Snowden remained unknown. But it seemed the onetime contractor might be headed to Ecuador. There’s little doubt that the country’s president, Rafael Correa, would relish the chance to welcome Snowden and irritate Washington. Correa has been a leading purveyor of anti-United States rhetoric in Latin America, reviving the down-with-gringos banner-waving once so popular in the region. But Correa’s embrace of Snowden—if it comes to be—could produce blowback for the heavy-handed Ecuadorean leader by focusing global attention on his own, far-from-laudable policies regarding transparency, press freedoms, and refugees.

Just two weeks ago, his party passed a law in the National Assembly that, according to Human Rights Watch, “undermines free speech.” HRW official José Miguel Vivanco notes, “This law is yet another effort by President Correa to go after the independent media. The provisions for censorship and criminal prosecutions of journalists are clear attempts to silence criticism.”

Here’s how HRW describes the law:

It prohibits so called “media lynching” which is defined as “the dissemination of concerted and reiterative information, either directly or by third parties, through media outlets, with the purpose of undermining the prestige” of a person or legal entity or “reducing their credibility.” The provision would allow the authorities to order the media outlet to issue a public apology and states that they are also subject to criminal and civil sanctions, imposed by the courts.

It requires media outlets to issue their own codes of conduct to “improve their internal practices and their communications work” based on a series of requirements such as to “respect people’s honor and reputation.” Although self-regulation of this nature is not in itself problematic, the law provides that any citizen or organization can report that a media outlet violated the requirements, and government authorities can issue a written warning, or impose sanctions.

It says that journalists must “assume the subsequent administrative consequences of disseminating content through the media that undermines constitutional rights, in particular the right to communication, and the public security of the State.” Journalists deemed to violate this responsibility could be subject to civil, criminal or other sanctions.

The law would essentially allow Correa’s government to criminalize journalism that inconveniences the president and his allies. HRW points out that human rights advocates generally oppose granting government the power to charge journalists with a crime for publishing derogatory information about public figures: “International bodies from the Inter-American, European, and United Nations human rights systems have long criticized the use of criminal charges to respond to media allegations made against public officials, as contrary to the interest of promoting vibrant public debate necessary in a democratic society.” But that’s what Correa’s party has sought to do. Vivanco puts it this way: “Giving the government the power to decide whether or not information is ‘truthful’ will open the door to unlawful censorship. This is an especially alarming provision in a country where the president has a track record of using his powers to target critics in the press.”

This is not Correa’s first stab at media intimidation. In July 2011, an Ecuadorean court sentenced a reporter for El Universo, a newspaper based in Guayaquil, and three members of the paper’s board to three years in prison for defamation because the paper criticized Correa. The reporter, Emilio Palacio, had written an opinion piece that referred to the president as a “dictator” for having considered pardoning people involved in a police rebellion that included an attack on a hospital. The criminal case was triggered by a defamation suit filed by Correa.

With the suit and the recent law, Correa has shown he’s no fan of a free media and a vibrant national debate—at least not when he and his actions might be the focus. In its most recent ranking of international press freedoms, Reporters Without Borders scored Ecuador toward the bottom: “Ecuador fell 15 places to 119th after a year of extreme tension between the government and leading privately-owned media.” In its annual report on Ecuador, Amnesty International notes that “there were concerns that laws dealing with the crime of insult were being used against journalists in violation of the right to freedom of expression and could deter other critics of government authorities from speaking out” and that “indigenous and community leaders faced spurious criminal charges aimed at restricting their freedom of assembly.” And HRW has also assailed Correa for not respecting the due process rights of asylum seekers. (Snowden’s standing as a persecuted refugee is far from certain.)

Correa might boost his anti-Yankee creed by sheltering Snowden and seek to portray himself as a protector of the persecuted. “Human rights will take precedence over any other interests or pressure that some might want to exert,” Ecuador Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño said on Monday regarding the possibility Snowden would find asylum in Ecuador. But by bear-hugging Snowden, Correa would draw attention to his own history of opposing a robust press that dares to challenge the powers that be.

Originally posted here:

Ecuador’s Edward Snowden Problem

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ecuador’s Edward Snowden Problem

Rewilding the American West

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website.

My home sits at the gateway to a national park in Utah, a source of envy among tourists who gather along Capitol Reef’s “scenic drive.” But after 40 years of living in one desert or another, I know firsthand that America’s iconic desert landscapes, places like Monument Valley and Arches National Park, are the exceptions, not the rule. The rule is that we dig up, dump on, dam, bomb, drill, over-graze, and otherwise abuse our deserts, most of them public lands owned by you, the taxpaying citizen. Generally, our management of the nation’s public lands is a disgrace and deserts are exhibit A.

But let’s skip the grim survey of how humans are overloading the carrying capacity of our original earthly Eden that usually opens a report like this. The intent of such a recitation of folly is to compel the reader’s attention by underlining the dire importance of the topic at hand. But I assume you understand by now that you woke up this morning on an overheated planet of slums threatened by ecological collapse.

So instead, let’s get right to the point: what do we do about it? How do we begin to heal the wounds?

Continue Reading »

Original article: 

Rewilding the American West

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Rewilding the American West

Apparently Edward Snowden Was Never a Big Fan of the NSA

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The LA Times reports on Edward Snowden:

A self-taught computer whiz who wanted to travel the world, Snowden seemed a perfect fit for a secretive organization that spies on communications from foreign terrorism suspects.

But in hundreds of online postings dating back a decade, Snowden also denounced “pervasive government secrecy” and criticized America’s “unquestioning obedience towards spooky types.”

At least online, Snowden seemed sardonic, affably geeky and supremely self-assured. In 2006, someone posted to Ars Technica, a website popular with technophiles, about an odd clicking in an Xbox video game console. A response came from “TheTrueHOOHA,” Snowden’s pen name: “NSA’s new surveillance program. That’s the sound of freedom, citizen!”

If you were applying for a job at Mother Jones, that wouldn’t be a red flag. But for a job with the NSA? Kinda seems like it might be.

Original post: 

Apparently Edward Snowden Was Never a Big Fan of the NSA

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Apparently Edward Snowden Was Never a Big Fan of the NSA

A Quick Recap on NSA’s Ability to Spy on Americans

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I got some reactions to my post last night about NSA minimization procedures that I didn’t expect. You can click the link for the background, but for now I just want to summarize things in a few quick bullet points:

For technical reasons, it’s sometimes impossible to know with certainty whether a phone call or email is domestic or foreign. This means that even if NSA is 100 percent sincere about surveilling only non-U.S. persons, sometimes it will make mistakes. I think this point is uncontroversial.
On paper, NSA’s procedures for dealing with inadvertent collection of domestic communications are fairly strict. They have to jump through a fair number of hoops to start surveillance in the first place, and if they make a mistake they’re required to immediately stop the surveillance and destroy the information they’ve collected.
That said, there are several problems. First, even on paper there are plenty of loopholes. NSA is allowed to retain and disseminate content if they decide it has intelligence value, suggests a threat of harm, or contains evidence of a crime. That covers quite a bit of territory, as Alex Tabarrok points out here.

Second, in practice these loopholes might even be bigger than that. A lot of these decisions are based on the judgment of analysts, not judges, and oversight is very weak. There’s essentially no outside oversight on a day-to-day basis, and the inspector general has specifically declined to investigate how many U.S. persons end up being spied on.
This all creates big problems with incentives. Glenn Greenwald tweets that incidental collection of US citizens may have been “a key point/objective” of the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, and that’s quite possible. The number of loopholes, combined with weak oversight, gives NSA an incentive to “accidentally” collect a lot of domestic surveillance so that they can trawl through it and keep the stuff allowed by the minimization procedures. Needless to day, other agencies, such as the FBI, would applaud this.

Glenn believes that the key takeaway from all this is that President Obama just wasn’t telling the whole truth when he said that NSA programs “do not involve listening to people’s phone calls, do not involve reading the e-mails of U.S. citizens.” I think that’s fair enough. Even if you grant some leeway for legitimate mistakes, the size of the loopholes and the lack of oversight make a mockery of that statement. Obama can accurately say that this doesn’t happen without a warrant—a broad 702 warrant, but a warrant nonetheless—but he can’t say it doesn’t happen.

Source:

A Quick Recap on NSA’s Ability to Spy on Americans

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on A Quick Recap on NSA’s Ability to Spy on Americans

Here’s How the NSA Decides Who It Can Spy On

Mother Jones

The NSA isn’t allowed to spy on Americans, but the nature of modern communication doesn’t always make it obvious whether a phone call or email is foreign or domestic. This means that in the course of its normal business of spying on foreigners, NSA will inevitably collect information it shouldn’t have. Certain rules, called “minimization procedures,” define what NSA is required to do when it discovers that its surveillance dragnet has inadvertently captured a U.S. person in its dragnet.

Today, in the latest release of classified NSA documents from Glenn Greenwald, we finally got a look at these minimization procedures. Here’s the nickel summary:

The top secret documents published today detail the circumstances in which data collected on US persons under the foreign intelligence authority must be destroyed, extensive steps analysts must take to try to check targets are outside the US, and reveals how US call records are used to help remove US citizens and residents from data collection.

I have a feeling it must have killed Glenn to write that paragraph. But on paper, anyway, the minimization procedures really are pretty strict. If NSA discovers that it’s mistakenly collected domestic content, it’s required to cease the surveillance immediately and destroy the information it’s already collected. However, there are exceptions. They can:

Retain and make use of “inadvertently acquired” domestic communications if they contain usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity.

The Guardian has posted two classified documents online. The first one describes the procedure for determining whether a surveillance target is legitimate (i.e., a non-U.S. person located outside the country). The second one describes the minimization procedures in case of inadvertent targeting of a U.S. person. There are a few obvious things to say about them:

The determination document repeatedly emphasizes that NSA bases its decisions on the “totality of the circumstances.” There are quite a few safeguards listed to make sure that only foreigners are targeted, but in the end these are often judgment calls from analysts.
The minimization procedures are fairly strict, but they do allow retention and dissemination of domestic data—without a warrant—under quite a few circumstances. “Threat of harm” is pretty broad, as is “criminal activity.” The latter, in fact, seems like a loophole the size of a Mack truck. It suggests that NSA could have a significant incentive to “inadvertently” hoover up as much domestic information as possible so it can search for evidence of criminal activity to hand over to the FBI.
The oversight procedures are pretty thin. Analysts have quite a bit of discretion here.

It’s genuinely unclear how big a problem this stuff is. It’s plainly true that determining whether someone is a U.S. person is sometimes a judgment call, and it’s possible that mistakes are rare. What’s more, if collection of domestic content genuinely is inadvertent, and is only occasionally turned over to other agencies when there’s evidence of serious crime, we should all feel better about this. But we really have no way of knowing. That would require, say, an inspector general to gather this kind of information, and the IG has specifically declined to do this.

Also, note that the documents posted by the Guardian are from 2009. It’s quite possible that procedures have changed since then.

Original article:  

Here’s How the NSA Decides Who It Can Spy On

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Here’s How the NSA Decides Who It Can Spy On

Virtually Everyone Favors a Path to Citizenship for Undocumented Immigrants

Mother Jones

This is really a helluva mystery. A new Gallup poll shows that 87 percent of Americans favor a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are currently in the country. Only 12 percent oppose it. So where’s the opposition to comprehensive immigration reform coming from? I realize that intensity of feeling matters, but it doesn’t matter much when the opposition is so minuscule. If Gallup’s numbers are right, even a majority of tea partiers favor a path to citizenship.

So what’s going on here? Why are House Republicans apparently feeling so much pressure over this?

This article:

Virtually Everyone Favors a Path to Citizenship for Undocumented Immigrants

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Virtually Everyone Favors a Path to Citizenship for Undocumented Immigrants

VIDEO: Elizabeth Warren Opposes Obama’s Nominee for Trade Representative

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) asked her colleagues Wednesday to oppose Michael Froman, President Barack Obama’s pick for US Trade Representative, charging that he is not committed to giving the American public information about a sweeping trade deal now being negotiated between the US and 11 other countries.

The massive free trade agreement, called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, would affect everything from intellectual property rights, to product safety standards, to financial regulations. Many lawmakers criticized the previous trade representative, Ron Kirk, for the secrecy surrounding the deal; certain members of Congress can see the proposed text of the deal, but the public cannot. Warren has called on the office of the US Trade Representative to release the full text of the TPP deal to the public. But in a floor speech Wednesday, she said Froman has made clear he would not release the text of the deal and is not interested in making the negotiations more transparent:

I asked the President’s nominee to be Trade Representative—Michael Froman—three questions: First, would he commit to releasing the composite bracketed text the full text of the TPP as it currently stands? Or second, if not, would he commit to releasing just a scrubbed version of the bracketed text that made anonymous which country proposed which provision…

Third, I asked Mr. Froman if he would provide more transparency behind what information is made available to the trade office’s outside advisors. Currently, there are about 600 outside advisors that have access to sensitive information, and the roster includes a wide diversity of industry representatives and some labor and NGO representatives too. But there is no transparency around who gets what information and whether they all see the same things, and I think that’s a real problem.

Mr. Froman’s response was clear: No, no, no.

Warren has raised concerns that Wall Street is trying to weaken financial regulations through the TPP. Rep. Darrell Issa (D-Calif.) is worried that the deal could imperil an open internet. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) says the trade agreement could move jobs overseas. The TPP is not final yet, so no one can say for sure what will be in it. But Warren says the American public deserves to be a part of the discussion.

“The American people have the right to know more about the negotiations that will have dramatic impact on the future of the American economy,” Warren said. “I believe in transparency and democracy, and I think the U.S. Trade Representative should too.” A vote is expected Wednesday afternoon.

Continue at source: 

VIDEO: Elizabeth Warren Opposes Obama’s Nominee for Trade Representative

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on VIDEO: Elizabeth Warren Opposes Obama’s Nominee for Trade Representative

Ron Paul’s Immigration Conspiracy Theory

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Wednesday, Ron Paul continued his push against immigration reform with an email promoting a conspiratorial video released in May by the Campaign for Liberty, the former Texas congressman’s 501(c)(4) non-profit. In the video, Paul warns, without evidence, that “it’s only a matter of time before ‘ID scans’ will be required to travel, attend public events, or even make routine purchases.” Paul also claims that the Senate’s bipartisan Gang of Eight immigration bill is a sneaky collaboration with President Barack Obama to create “by far the worst National ID scheme the statists have come up with yet.”

The video was first posted to YouTube in May, and Paul’s anti-immigration views are no secret. But the new email is notable given that Ron Paul’s son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), has said he could support the Senate bill if it includes an amendment addressing Republican concerns about border security. Rand Paul has said repeatedly that he supports immigration reform, but has expressed concerns about a national ID system and wants the bill to include triggers that would restrict immigrants’ path to citizenship if certain border security goals aren’t met. But he hasn’t echoed his father’s most conspiratorial claims.

“Not only does this bill increase federal spending,” the elder Paul says in the video, “it mandates every American carry a National ID card with their photo and creates a new federal database containing biometric information on every American, such as fingerprints and retinal scans. The card would be required for all US workers regardless of place of birth, making it illegal for anyone to hold a job in the United States who doesn’t obtain an ID card.”

That’s not true. In reality, the Senate bill explicitly prohibits a national ID card. Some privacy advocates have argued the bill would create a de facto national ID system by requiring mandatory electronic employment checks against a federal database containing some biometric information, such as fingerprints and photographs. Ron Paul goes much further than the privacy groups, though, arguing, “This is exactly the type of battle that often decides whether a country remains free or continues down a slide to tyranny.”

This article is from:

Ron Paul’s Immigration Conspiracy Theory

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ron Paul’s Immigration Conspiracy Theory