Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Appeals court reinstates suit against US gov’t. warrantless wiretapping program

By Stephen C. Webster
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011 -- 12:19 pm

The Bush Administration's contention that Americans couldn't challenge its warrantless wiretapping law because no one could prove they were spied upon was thrown out by an appeals court Monday afternoon, allowing a challenge of the program's constitutionality to proceed.

In a unanimous decision, judges on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that the surveillance program could be challenged on the grounds that its existence caused an assortment of journalists, attorneys and human rights groups to fear their privileged communications may be intercepted.

An earlier lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which sought to challenge the FISA Amendments Act, was thrown out by a lower court judge who accepted the government's argument that if one cannot prove one was the target of electronic surveillance, one cannot sue over it.

It was that argument in particular which was roundly rejected on Monday afternoon, in a ruling that effectively reinstated the ACLU's challenge to the FISA Amendments Act.


That challenge was originally filed on behalf of a series of journalists and activists who claimed their livelihoods were affected by the existence of the wiretapping program.

Although a lower court rejected their claims, the plaintiffs were able to show on appeal that the laws forced them to take "costly and burdensome steps" to prevent the interception of their communications.


"The appeals court have overturned that decision, finding that our plaintiffs have standing because they've been injured by the law," ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer explained. "They have had to take costly and burdensome steps to prevent their privileged communications from being intercepted and the costs were enough to give the plaintiffs standing."

Their next step is to challenge the constitutional standing of the FISA Amendments Act.

"Our argument is that this statute, the FISA Amendments Act, gives the government sweeping power to wiretap without adequate oversight procedures," Jaffer added.

Groups party to the suit included Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, along with journalists Naomi Klein and Christopher Hedges.

"Americans shouldn't have to accept as a fact of life that the government may be monitoring their international emails and phone calls and they can do nothing about it," the ACLU said in an advisory.

The wiretapping program, revealed in 2005, caused public outcry for appearing to contradict not only standing law, but also President George W. Bush's own words from a speech in which he told Americans warrants were required for wiretapping. Opponents argued that US privacy guarantees meant the intelligence agencies should seek court warrants from the FISA court to conduct such spying inside the country.

The FISA court was set up after the administration of Republican President Richard M. Nixon, as a response to his use of wiretapping capabilities to spy on his political opponents.

President Obama, as a candidate, vowed to "filibuster" the FISA Amendments Act, but instead voted for it after securing the Democratic nomination to the presidency. He's since vowed to conduct a full review of the nation's wiretapping program, but had not done so at time of this writing.

The Obama Justice Department has upheld the Bush administration's arguments in defense of the program.

Read the court's full decision here (PDF).


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/22/appeals-court-reinstates-suit-against-bushs-warrantless-wiretapping-program/

Stop Federal Funding Of Fox News

Posted by Mark on March 21, 2011 at 1:44 pm.

A few weeks ago video pimp and propagandist, James O’Keefe, released a heavily edited and deliberately deceptive video that purported to expose an institutional bias at National Public Radio. It was quickly debunked and denounced as a fraud by analysts across the political spectrum, including those at Glenn Beck’s web site, The Blaze.

Nevertheless, partisans in Congress and agenda-driven conservatives in the press continue to behave as if the video were legitimate. The House of Representatives, on a party-line vote, passed a resolution to defund NPR – a purely symbolic gesture as the Senate is not likely to concur.

The latest attack comes from former NPR correspondent, and confessed bigot, Juan Williams, in an op-ed for The Hill. After first conceding that “NPR is an important platform for journalism,” Williams joins his conservative comrades in calling for federal defunding of NPR. But he also reveals his self-serving and vengeful motivation by slandering NPR in saying that…

“They’re willing to do anything in service of any liberal with money. This includes firing me and skewing the editorial content of their programming.”

Nowhere in the article did Williams support his contention that “liberal money” was behind either his termination or any of its reporting. This is nothing more than a personal vendetta on Williams’ part. He is merely using the funding debate to strike his own blows against a former employer for whom he obviously bears a deep resentment.

However, if the right wants to introduce the issue of federal funding of the media into the public debate, they should be prepared to see their own Fox gored. Fox News has been the beneficiary of government largess for years and it is time stop it and make Fox pay its own way. As far back as 1999, there have been reports documenting how News Corp, Fox’s parent company, exploited loopholes in tax laws that permitted them to avoid levies that all other citizens have to pay. From The Economist:

“…News Corporation and its subsidiaries paid only A$325m ($238m) in corporate taxes worldwide. In the same period, its consolidated pre-tax profits were A$5.4 billion. So News Corporation has paid an effective tax rate of only around 6%. By comparison, Disney, one of the world’s other media empires, paid 31%. Basic corporate-tax rates in Australia, America and Britain, the three main countries in which News Corporation operates, are 36%, 35% and 30% respectively.”


The article goes on to describe how News Corp used a complex network of accounting dodges including as many as 60 shell companies that were incorporated in such tax havens as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the Netherlands Antilles and the British Virgin Islands. More recently, an investigation by the New York Times revealed that…

“By taking advantage of a provision in the law that allows expanding companies like Mr. Murdoch’s to defer taxes to future years, the News Corporation paid no federal taxes in two of the last four years, and in the other two it paid only a fraction of what it otherwise would have owed. During that time, Securities and Exchange Commission records show, the News Corporation’s domestic pretax profits topped $9.4 billion.”

When giant, prosperous, multinational corporations weasel out of their tax obligations, ordinary citizens are the ones who are forced to make up the shortfall. That is effectively a tax subsidy for the corporations funded by you and me and all of the indignant Tea Partiers who claim to oppose special interest favors for the elite.

What’s more, federal bailouts to corporations like General Motors and Citigroup provided them with billions of taxpayer dollars, some of which are eventually spent on advertising that appears on Fox News, in the Wall Street Journal, and other Murdoch assets. Additionally, financial institutions that receive bailout funds use some that money to acquire shares of News Corp and to finance and insure News Corp activities including billion dollar motion picture projects like Avatar and capitalizing mergers and expansions.

USUncut is mounting a campaign to expose this sort of corporate welfare. They should add News Corp/Fox News to their list. But why aren’t there more voices objecting to these handouts? Why aren’t Democrats in Congress drafting legislation to prohibit bailout and stimulus funds from being used to enrich partisan political operations like Fox News by funneling cash into their accounts disguised as advertising expenditures. Every time you see a commercial on the Fox News Channel for a Chevy Tahoe or a Citibank Visa you are watching your tax dollars flow into the pockets of Rupert Murdoch and his wealthy associates.

The right wants to defund NPR despite the fact that they have utterly failed to demonstrate any journalistic bias on the part of NPR. On the other hand, Fox News has been documented to be brazenly one-sided over and over again, yet they receive hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer financed subsidies. Well, no more.

Stand Up! Fight Back! It is time to end the federal funding of Fox News NOW!

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=4087