The US government is an illegitimate criminal enterprise. It violates written law, destroys evidence, and refuses to enforce the laws of war. In concert, it agrees with others to do the same.
There is a remedy: Those abused powers can be lawfully revoked, and redelegated.
National Security Oversight
FISA is a statute. It regulates government behavior. FISA defines how the US government will secure a warrant before collecting information. Government officials are given access to sensitive information about American citizens. The rules govern how this personal information is used.
Contrast those assumptions about FISA with:
Lanny Breuer, DOJ CrimDiv Head “Individuals who are granted special access to our nation’s most sensitive information cannot unilaterally decide to disregard the law and agreements they make with the government on how that information may be handled.”
This implies that there was no “unilateral” agreement to violate FISA, but an multi-lateral agreement between many people -- A conspiracy – to defy written law. Individual actors, by definition, are conspiring to perpetuate illegitimate government.
The government claims thee can be no litigation. Then there should be nothing this government fears in having that information publicly disclosed.
This government says “the information we collect illegally will not be used at trial.” Then there should be no reason this government fears having this information disclosed. Unless the government has a different view on whether information really can be used a trial.
Perhaps the reluctance to disclose information related to FISA violations says more about the government’s lack of faith in the Judiciary, than its trust in CrimDiv to properly handle evidence of Geneva or FISA violations.
The public needs to know about the alleged illegal agreements to violate FISA.
It would be appropriate to know how – despite FISA restrictions – the US government (apparently) created agreements to mishandle data connected with American citizen.
Who authorized the routing of American telephone calls outside the United States so those calls may be intercepted, monitored, and analyzed by foreign contractors allied with the United States?
Project Palisades establishes internet networks which bypass official government monitoring. I would like to know what plan the United States has to provide this system to American citizens so that our communications are not monitored.
I have several concerns with the arrogant position of the Lanny Brewer. His statement (indirectly) suggests that there are multi-lateral agreements between US government officials, contractors, and others to disregard US laws. It is troubling that there appear to be agreements to mishandle sensitive, private communications of American citizens.
The US government was not granted the unilateral power to compel protection of only its data, but breach or not fully protect the same for American citizens. American citizens, when they are lawfully conducting their business, should have assurances that their communications, records, and other things will not be tampered with. Yet, this reasonable inference from the Bill of Rights is not one DOJ Crim Div appears to fully support.
Put aside the oath of office and the alleged breaches of FISA. The US government claims that American citizen’s communications need not be fully protected, that the government retains the right to monitor those communications merely on the assertion of “someone” who asserts there “might” be a connection with “something.”
The same excuses used to breach the data-privacy of American citizens should be codified to similarly monitor law enforcement and the intelligence community. If there is no balanced monitoring, CrimDiv should explain why there is a difference applied to the investigations of American citizens over those who break our laws and enjoy sinecure positions within the intelligence community.
It appears, after a plain reading of the excuses to breach FISA, there is a “presumption of guilt until proven innocent by other data.” That (invalid) standard should (on balance) apply to personnel assigned to CrimDiv, law enforcement, and the intelligence community. If not, CrimDiv should explain why there is a difference.
Innocent Americans can be prosecuted for lying. Yet, law enforcement lies to the public. Who says that that double standard should continue or be respected? Those who claim they are doing the “public work” should accept that innocent Americans should be allowed to do the same: Protect their privacy.
It is wrong that law enforcement lies to the innocent public. On balance, the innocents should – without fear of consequences – be allowed to lie. Yet, this government says that law enforcement can make a statement – lie – but We the People can only assert our silence and cannot lie to law enforcement.
Government agents claim they must be able to deceive to gather information. Yet, innocents should be able to lie to protect information, especially when there is no criminal activity within a FISA regime that does not respect privacy.
Legislators enjoy immunity for statements made on in the well of their Chamber. Innocent Americans enjoy the same immunity for statements made to law enforcement.
We’ve heard the siren song that the US government “secrets” (apparently evidence of illegal activity, which CrimDiv knows or should know) must be protected. CrimDiv should explain why one class of American citizens working in government are able to hide behind a shield, while innocent Americans are not guaranteed the right to have their data shielded, hidden, or out of reach of the prying eyes of the intelligence community.
We the People are the source of all power. We are at the top of the food chain. Apparently, some – possibly in leadership positions -- in CrimDiv have this inverted.
We don’t work for you. CrimDiv works for the AG.
We the People should – at a minimum – enjoy the same, if not more, protections this government grants itself: The right to privacy, secrecy, and immunity from interference. The US government should be compelled to ensure the same standards of data protection it demands for itself should not also be applied to American citizens.
Then again, it’s not illegal for the US government to refuse to enforce the law. This doesn’t necessarily become an actionable offense under the Attorney Standards of Conduct.
Government officials refuse to act. This hardly sets a good example for American citizens to compel them to be concerned when the same government comes under (needed) scrutiny.
It’s possible that the public – aware of the alleged malfeasance within CrimDiv – might choose to elect to leadership positions people who would use the power of impeachment to lawfully remove from office the alleged failed leaders in the law enforcement, intelligence, and legal communities.
We the People should balance a CrimDiv decision “not to prosecute” with a balanced decision not to cooperate.
Hope for Change Within CrimDiv Cess Pool
This nation used false evidence to wage a war around the globe in Iraq. Surely, alleged evidence of criminal activity or malfeasance within Crim Div might possibly inspire the voters.
CrimDiv apparently has the hope that they will be immune to prosecution or accountability. Surely, there must be balanced hope that this alleged malfeasance might see the light of day before a State Attorney Standards of conduct hearing, or before a Grand Jury.
Grand Juries do have the power to expansively review alleged evidence of any criminal activity, even those allegations of malfeasance by CrimDiv personnel re alleged Geneva violations.
Is it the contention of Crim Div leadership that there should be hope that some of the laws will be enforced; but there is no hope that the public might demand a more aggressive prosecution against government officials who refuse to enforce the laws of war or FISA?
There cannot be a credible basis to believe that hope will only do what CrimDiv wants; nor is it credible to believe that there is “no hope” that all outcomes will only be favorable to Crim Div.
Personal Privacy: Not an Enforceable Right of Government
This government claims “it has its reasons” why it must intrude. However, We the People also have “our reasons” why our information should not be sifted through. These reasons are codified in the Constitution.
Yet, this government respects the law as little as it respects FISA. That is a legitimacy problem on government, not a problem We the People should shoulder. This state of affairs is one the government must solve, not one We the People should bear.
One problem – as it relates to government interference – is when the government breaches this right to privacy and substantially interferes with the lawful efforts to engage in peaceful commerce, lawful research, or private economic development.
Patents: Exclusive Rights
The Patent laws provide for exclusive rights to produce a product. However, this opportunity is not a requirement. American citizens are not required to disclose proprietary data. We have the right to decide when to disclose or refuse to share competitive information.
Yet, NSA appears to believe that this privacy right can be breached, on the “off chance” that secret activity “might” be criminal. The same could be said of the US government’s sweeping assertion of secrecy: It needs to better explain what it is hiding.
We are not required to cooperate with unlawful intrusions into our personal data, private business plans, or other strategic planning. One issue isn’t whether the intrusion is lawful or not; but why does government have any crime-prevention goal of monitoring activity unrelated to criminal activity.
They are called law enforcement, not (as they do) the department of harassment.
We have options to conduct our business elsewhere, in other forums, or wait. That decision to ‘go elsewhere” includes the option to go to another lawfully created US government. One that more fully respect rights, the Supreme Law, and the balance between We the People and the government—We the People are in charge, not CrimDiv.
There have been too many reports of abuses. False evidence to get a warrant. Or, where there was not warrant, an abuse of the NSLs.
This government for reasons of “national security” claims it must keep secret its methods of gathering information, how it collects intelligence, and hide what it knows. Surely, the American people should be able to keep our private thoughts to ourselves.
NSA collects information from overseas about competitive positions of overseas firms. Information it collects is used to help American firms. Similarly, the American public should be able to develop strategies, options, and other things connected with free enterprise without the prying eyes of government.
Law enforcement claims it must keep secret its methods, strategies, and assessments. Similarly, the American public should be able to do the same.
Yet, this government says it gives itself the right, discretion, power to violate FISA. That government is not one we need to participate with, cooperate with, or make agreements. We’re not required to.
Government in the Untied States depends on the voluntary support of free people. However, people cannot be compelled to continue to cooperate with a government that sets one standard for itself on data protections, and something else for the public.
Government does not have a superior “personal” right to privacy. Rather, the rights are for the people to enjoy, not for the government to abuse power and thwart those rights. If that is permitted, why is the government asserting a “right to privacy” it will not allow others to enjoy? Because it is not interested in protecting rights, only in making excuses to abuse power.
We’re not obliged to continue cooperating with unlawful US government activity, especially when it is connected with CrimDiv.
We did not delegate power to the United States government to abuse its power, nor create a double standard on whether the Bill of Rights for one class of citizens is breached; while there remains an impenetrable wall to evidence of FISA violations.
Our right to privacy under the Bill of Rights is within the contours of the 4th Amendment against unreasonable searches. We have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.
I would like to know why – despite invoking these rights to silence, and seeking the advice of counsel – these abusive interrogations continue. Moreover, despite asserting the right to silence, it is not reasonable for the government – as a retaliatory measure -- to deny the public access to public accommodations.
Palisades Project: Private Internet to Circumvent Abusive Government
Some in the US government believe that giving people a voice will allow them to challenge authoritarian government.
However, when those voices challenge the unlawful activity of this Republic, this government targets them as threats to the State. No, the State is the threat to the Constitution and We the People.
We’re asked to trust but verify. However, this government, despite the evidence of illegal activity, wants us to trust it, but provide no verification. That is folly.
We the People as Distinguished From Congress
There’s no reason to write new laws that will go unenforced, selectively ignored, or twisted on its head. It’s time to create a system that will codify the laws of We the People – outside Congress – and lawfully assert that authority to all US government officials, agents, and contractors, connected with all three branches.
We can revoke that absolute delegation of power to make rules to the Legislature, and qualify it to retain some power, and create – above, and outside government – Our standards – from above -- which do impose consequences on lower Members of the government community who refuse to fully assert their oath.
One of the principles of a Republic is that we delegate our power to those who are more informed, and closer to the laws and governance. In theory, we are too busy to pay attention, and need elected officials.
Sadly, this government proves it is “too busy” and not interested in the same. When government meets specific criteria – or vague criteria as We the People might choose – surely there is a remedy to call We the People together to discuss this state of affairs, and review some remedies to laziness, lack of interest, or folly.
Surely, there are times when the Republic fails, and it stumbles. But that delegation of power continues. Indeed, we’re told – not asked – to forgive that “honest mistake” and remain loyal to a failed system.
Yet, it doesn’t go both ways. When the public fails, there can be sever consequences, especially when there are violations of the law.
Are there not times when agents – of the government – do things that are immunized; surely, there should be same immunity power granted through We the People to grant immunity for activity done for We the People.
We could revoke from the President the absolute power of pardon, and retain some power of immunity for We the People; granting to the President qualified power.
Would it not be proper – such as now – when the government says it will immunize itself against FISA enforcement, that We the People will pass balanced, mirrored rules that will immunize ourselves for similar things done on behalf of We the People.
Now, Congress passes laws that favor once segment of society, and do injustice to another. That is not a balanced assertion of power, but abuse, leaving those who delegated the power the responsibility to deal with that mess.
That is not something we are required to do.
We didn’t delegate the Power to make rules that collectively apply to We the People: That power is retained. For if that power were delegated, then that power would have uniformly enforced FISA. That enforcement did not occur; thus the delegation could not have been complete.
It is a matter of law and public discourse whether the abused exceptions require additional oversight other than judicial review; or how these powers are asserted by a single branch of government.
Nowhere is there written an eternal mandate that one branch of government shall continue abusing power; nor a requirement that we will remain perpetually bound to that arrogant immunity to the Supreme Law.
That abused power can be divided into another branch. Where power is abused, it can be divided, not consolidated in secret to violate more laws and hide more evidence of the same.
Indicators of Improper Surveillance
- Officials, agents using non-public information during interviews with the public
- Use of information only provided to law enforcement, and retained in the NSA repositories
- Use of erroneous data deliberately placed within the NSA repositories, or included within law enforcement intelligence taskings
The public should openly speculate about the types of exceptions DOJ OLC relies on to conduct surveillance outside what is reasonable under the 4th Amendment. This includes discussing openly
(a) the activities and technical details related to bypassing FISA,
(b) the methods used to improperly store, retain, and use data collected outside FISA provisions
(c) a public monitoring plan to detect indications of illegal surveillance of American citizens, their papers, records, and electronic records;
(d) a review of the methods government uses to abuse exceptions to the 4th Amendment
The public needs to know the role contractors (non-government personnel) play in monitoring communications-information content, analyzing data, or conducting summary analysis of American citizens’ content data without a warrant; and how these summary reports are provided to law enforcement and the intelligence community as “investigative leads.”
It’s better that American government officials not point the finger about who is or isn’t properly handling information. It remains a matter of criminal law how long CrimDiv personnel knew or should have known of evidence of war crimes committed by US government personnel, agents and contractors; but failed to act on that data or destroyed that evidence in breach of the Geneva Conventions.
It may be true that the US government will not take action to enforce FISA. However, the same cannot be said for alleged evidence of Geneva violations. A failure of CrimDiv to act on evidence gathered by the NSA related to alleged war crimes could be construed as a subsequent offense under the laws of war.
Some believe that everyone knows but nothing will be done. That is a foolish assumption because it falsely assumes that everyone will continue following a train into a ravine. We have the options to design a better transportation system, to a different destination, and one that does not rely on folly but the Rule of Law, not arrogant double standards of CrimDiv.
This government may view the laws of the land as discretionary. But that inaction does not address Geneva, the evidence, and the alleged criminal complicity of DOJ CrimDiv.
There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. Nor is there a mandate on the American people to perpetually remain loyal to a system of governance that defies written law and is, by definition, illegitimate.
We the People retain the power to discuss a new form of governance, one the Framers denied to government officials. By contrast, government officials are required to remain silent about these discussions, and cannot act in expectation that this new system of governance might improve the current state of affairs.
Watch how they claim as “private citizens” they are advocating for a system they detest. Surely, government officials should not be able to wear two hats. But that is what they do: On days when they want to remain above accountability, they claim the information is secret. But the moment they need a public voice advocating for what they refuse to respect, they wear another hat using secret information to retain powers permitting them to continue abusing individuals.
We the People3 should be able to wear multiple hats. On some days, we should be able to wear the hat that says we have revoked all delegated powers; and on another day, we should wear the hat that says we will not cooperate with illegitimate government, but develop a new system to delegate power that will respect rights, and properly check power as the Framers intended.
We the People are not required to recognize a government – or its officials, agents, or contractors -- that keeps shifting hats. Indeed, we can take away the hats.
Those hats are ours to demand. We decide which hats we retain for ourselves. We can make rules that afford us special power to shift hats when we choose, but require government officials to loose their hats or stick with one hat.
While CrimDiv remains locked in the past, loyal to a system it despises, We the People have the option to decide whether we wish to request assistance of foreign citizens in securing for ourselves equipment under the Palisades Program.
Then again, NSA would not have been stupid enough to develop a system of communication that foreign governments could not monitor, and also prevent itself from monitoring the same.
We need better allies within NSA, those who are serious about the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and legal compliance at the software preliminary design review (SPDR).
The Thomas Drake trial shows how desperate the US government is to dissuade open discussion of unlawful US government activity. Silencing discussion of FISA violations hardly sends to the world a warm fuzzy about large, more complicated Geneva reporting or enforcement.
It remains a matter of law whether the CrimDiv personnel can be prosecuted for failing to enforce the laws of war.
There should be balanced rights and powers for people to do what law enforcement does. We may have delegated the power to enforce the law to law enforcement, and in exchange we gave up some rights to solve disputes on our own.
However, when law enforcement abuses this delegation of power, we are not required to continue delegating this authority. That delegation of power can be revoked, and redelegated to others outside CrimDiv who show a marginal improvement in enforcing FISA and Geneva.
The rules of evidence hardly seem relevant when CrimDiv refuses to bring cases before the court on matters of FISA and Geneva violations.
The US government threatens not to do business with foreign powers who attempt to enforce Geneva against the US. Yet, other than money and (unenforceable) contracts, there is nothing compelling the States to continue doing business with the criminal enterprise known as the Federal Government.
It remains a matter of law whether US government contracts – that rely on breaches of the law to enforce, or help to perpetuate a criminal enterprise – are lawful or enforceable. We’ve seen the courts refuse to adjudicate because the defendants could not secure evidence from the US government on the grounds that that information was a state secret.
CrimDiv can hardly make the case that evidence of war crimes can be legally suppressed, hidden, or destroyed.
The government may believe its in the interests of national security to keep some government illegal activity a secret. Surely, We the People should except a balanced respect for our secret agreements to reform this government under the Rule of Law.
It’s time to reconsider the present delegation of power, and reform CrimDiv’s cozy world: We the People have arrived to clean up your mess, and there will be new hats. When. We. Decide.