Our Latest Stories:

The Bill of Rights is called the Bill of Rights because it stands as the legal guarantor of your… oh, how to put this?… rights. Here’s one of your rights, outlined in the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You can’t be searched and seized without a warrant issuing upon probable cause. That’s your right.

The Bush administration is violating your rights… again.

ACLU:

New FBI guidelines governing investigations were released today after being signed by Attorney General Michael Mukasey…. The attorney general today gave the FBI a blank check to open investigations of innocent Americans based on no meaningful suspicion of wrongdoing.

What? The ACLU is filled with limp-wristed arugula eaters? OK, how about the New York Times:

The Justice Department finalized on Friday an overhaul of rules that will give the Federal Bureau of Investigation freer rein to begin investigations into the possibility of terrorism, even without evidence of wrongdoing….

Among the most controversial aspects of the guidelines is a section that allows F.B.I. agents to open so-called threat assessments to look into general patterns or suspicions about terrorist activity without any specific evidence of wrongdoing. Justice Department officials say this section of the guidelines, which remains virtually unchanged from earlier drafts, will allow agents to be more aggressive in identifying possible terrorist threats.

What’s that you say? The New York Times is another East Coast Jew paper, so it must be lying? All right, how about Congressional Quarterly:

The Justice Department released a new set of FBI investigative guidelines on Friday, despite misgivings about them on Capitol Hill. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey has decided that the guidelines, which do not need congressional approval, will take effect Dec. 1….

The guidelines would allow the FBI to use some techniques — such as grand jury subpoenas for telephone or e-mail subscriber information — without any evidence of wrongdoing….

“It appears that with these guidelines, the attorney general is once again giving the FBI broad new powers to conduct surveillance and use other intrusive investigative techniques on Americans without requiring any indication of wrongdoing or any approval even from FBI supervisors,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt.

Oh, yeah, CQ quoted Senator Patrick Leahy, and he’s from Vermont, and we all know that people from Vermont are, um, well, they’re, uh, hmm, er… maple fuckers?

While you’re trying to figure out your next bigoted epithet, let’s look directly at the source, The Attorney General’s Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations:

Since the authority to collect foreign intelligence enables the FBI to obtain information pertinent to the United States’ conduct of its foreign affairs, even if that information is not related to criminal activity or threats to the national security, the information so gathered may concern lawful activities….

The FBI is an intelligence agency as well as a law enforcement agency. Its basic functions accordingly extend beyond limited investigations of discrete matters, and include broader analytic and planning functions….

The FBI is authorized to conduct investigations to detect, obtain information about, and prevent and protect against federal crimes and threats to the national security and to collect foreign intelligence, as provided in Part II of these Guidelines….

United States persons shall be dealt with openly and consensually to the extent practicable when collecting foreign intelligence that does not concern criminal activities or threats to the national security….

Undisclosed participation in organizations in activities under these Guidelines shall be conducted…

The scope of authorized activities under this Part is not limited to “investigation” in a narrow sense, such as solving particular cases or obtaining evidence for use in particular criminal prosecutions. Rather, these activities also provide critical information needed for broader analytic and intelligence purposes to facilitate the solution and prevention of crime, protect the national security, and further foreign intelligence objectives. These purposes include use of the information in intelligence analysis and planning under Part IV, and dissemination of the information to other law enforcement, Intelligence Community, and White House agencies under Part VI. Information obtained at all stages of investigative activity is accordingly to be retained and disseminated for these purposes as provided in these Guidelines, or in FBI policy consistent with these Guidelines, regardless of whether it furthers investigative objectives in a narrower or more immediate sense.

In the course of activities under these Guidelines, the FBI may incidentally obtain information relating to matters outside of its areas of primary investigative responsibility. For example, information relating to violations of state or local law or foreign law may be incidentally obtained in the course of investigating federal crimes or threats to the national security or in collecting foreign intelligence. These Guidelines do not bar the acquisition of such information in the course of authorized investigative activities, the retention of such information, or its dissemination as appropriate to the responsible authorities in other agencies or jurisdictions….

Assessments, authorized by Subpart A of this Part, require an authorized purpose but not any particular factual predication. For example, to carry out its central mission of preventing the commission of terrorist acts against the United States and its people, the FBI must proactively draw on available sources of information to identify terrorist threats and activities. It cannot be content to wait for leads to come in through the actions of others, but rather must be vigilant in detecting terrorist activities to the full extent permitted by law, with an eye towards early intervention and prevention of acts of terrorism before they occur. Likewise, in the exercise of its protective functions, the FBI is not constrained to wait until information is received indicating that a particular event, activity, or facility has drawn the attention of those who would threaten the national security. Rather, the FBI must take the initiative to secure and protect activities and entities whose character may make them attractive targets for terrorism or espionage. The proactive investigative authority conveyed in assessments is designed for, and may be utilized by, the FBI in the discharge of these responsibilities. For example, assessments may be conducted as part of the FBI’s special events management activities.

More broadly, detecting and interrupting criminal activities at their early stages, and preventing crimes from occurring in the first place, is preferable to allowing criminal plots and activities to come to fruition. Hence, assessments may be undertaken proactively with such objectives as detecting criminal activities; obtaining information on individuals, groups, or organizations of possible investigative interest, either because they may be involved in criminal or national security-threatening activities or because they may be targeted for attack or victimization by such activities; and identifying and assessing individuals who may have value as human sources….

That’s not very Fourth Amendmenty, is it?

Can you come up with a reason to dismiss the FBI’s new guidelines? Perhaps they’re all gay Canadian jugglers.

After John McCain’s speech today in Columbus, Ohio, he came around the stage to shake hands with well-wishers. As he took my hand, I said the first thing that came to mind: “Please reconsider the FISA Amendments Act.” He was already looking for the next person to make eye contact with and smile at, but I didn’t let go. I repeated: “Please reconsider the FISA Amendments Act.” He turned to look at me. I said it two more times, looking at him straight in the face: “Reconsider the FISA Amendments Act. Reconsider the FISA Amendments Act.” “I got it, OK, I got it, I got it,” McCain said to me. I let go of his hand and he moved down the line.

I wasn’t as eloquent as I could have been, not as detailed as I’d have made it if I could have scripted it, but at least I blurted it out. It’s the closest I’ll ever get to lobbying a presidential candidate. And at least McCain knows there’s one person out there who gives a crap about this new law that legalizes the practice of extended surveillance and search without a warrant. If John McCain extends his hand to you, let him know there are two.

In a rational world, Juval Aviv wouldn’t be trusted any more than a hot dog salesman who spits in his mustard.

You may remember that in the summer of 2007, the self-declared “intelligence expert” made the following prediction:

I predict, based primarily on information that is floating in Europe and the Middle East, that an event is imminent and around the corner here in the United States. It could happen as soon as tomorrow, or it could happen in the next few months. Ninety days at the most.

What they’re going to do is hit six, seven or eight cities simultaneously to show sophistication and really hit the public. This time, which is the message of the day, it will not only be big cities. They’re going to try to hit rural America. They want to send a message to rural America: “You’re not protected. If you figured out that if you just move out of New York and move to Montana or to Pittsburgh, you’re not immune. We’re going to get you wherever we can and it’s easier there than in New York.”

The Fox Friends show on Fox News hyped it, conservative blogs went apoplectic over it, and e-mails calling for Holy War shot around cyberspace. Senator Trent Lott wailed on national television about it…

… and as a result the Protect America Act (precursor to the FISA Amendments Act) was passed by a panicked Congress.

All that for terrorist attacks that never came. Juval Aviv was clearly full of it, and in a rational world we wouldn’t trust him any more than a hot dog salesman who spits in his mustard.

This is not a rational world. Having thoroughly eroded his credibility in the United States, Juval Aviv has simply moved on, traveling to Australia to deliver his message that Australians are all going to die, die, die:

CONTROVERSIAL global security analyst Juval Aviv briefed the community on Israel’s security amid growing international tensions over Iran this week.

Israeli-born, New York-based Aviv was the keynote speaker at WIZO Victoria’s gala dinner at the Palladium On Crown in Melbourne on August 27 in honour of Israel’s 60th birthday.

Aviv urged community members to make emergency plans in the event of a major terrorist attack, including arrangements for securing children and keeping back-up records of important documents.

Interviewed by The AJN earlier, Aviv, who runs a private security company in the US, said the world is no safer than it was immediately after the 2001 terrorist bombings in the United States…

Israel is now ready to destroy three or four nuclear sites out of 12 in Iran.

“I believe that Israel is planning to act on these reactors before Bush leaves the White House,” Mr Aviv said. “We’ve got to take a chance … the next president of America may not allow it.”

It’s the same old Juval Aviv schtick:

1. We’re all going to die
2. So we’ve got to go to war
3. Grab your kids, grab a towel, grab bottled water, and
4. Thanks for the honorarium.

Don’t fall for it like we fell for it, Australia.

Barack Obama sure gave a good talk so long as his audience was the kind of primary voter who cared about civil liberty in the United States of America:

You will have elected a president who has taught the Constitution and believes in the Constitution and will obey the Constitution of the United States of America.

Then the primaries were over, and Barack Obama stepped back from his promises. Barack Obama voted for the FISA Amendments Act. In case you didn’t know, that’s our new law passed over the summer that lets an American president spy without a warrant for periods of up to 67 days, then keep the information even if a judge later says the spying violated your rights. Nice talk on the Constitution, Senator Obama, but I’ve read the Constitution, and I know that the Fourth Amendment says you can’t do that to us. You keep talking your smooth, reassuring talk, but I’m watching your feet. You’re walking away from liberty.

Senator Obama, your campaign staffers keep telling me that John McCain’s worse than you, and I know that. While you vote for the FISA Amendments Act, John McCain goes beyond that and votes for bills that permit torture in the name of ending terror. John McCain loves bills like the Patriot Act and the REAL ID Act more than you. I get that.

But what I don’t get is why I should be giving you a penny of my money. You told me you’d obey the Constitution, you told me you’d defend the rule of law… and did you? No. As soon as you had my primary vote in the bag, you went ahead and did exactly the opposite.

So why should I trust you, Barack Obama? Why should I trust you with one red cent as the personal embodiment of the defense of American liberty? I shouldn’t and I won’t.

Instead, this season I’ll be giving to the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. They are walking the walk. The ACLU has filed suit against the federal government, challenging the constitutionality of the FISA Amendments Act on behalf of human rights workers, reporters and other American professionals whose communications are is likely to be swept up in the FISA dragnets. Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project, laid this challenge down when filing the lawsuit last week:

The administration has argued that the law is necessary to address the threat of terrorism, but the truth is that the law sweeps much more broadly and implicates all kinds of communications that have nothing to do with terrorism or criminal activity of any kind. The Fourth Amendment was meant to prohibit exactly the kinds of dragnet surveillance that the new law permits.

Read the ACLU’s full legal brief in the new case of Amnesty v. McConnell here.

Meanwhile, the EFF filed a lawsuit today, Jewel v. NSA, also challenging the constitutionality of the warrantless spying carried out by the Bush administration for so many long years. Although the FISA Amendments Act tried to make constitutional challenges illegal by granting automatic immunity to telecommunications corporations for breaking the law by participating, the EFF has countered this move by shifting the target of its constitutional challenge to the members of the Bush administration who approved and ran the whole operation: President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales among them. Says EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn:

Demanding personal accountability from President Bush, Vice President Cheney and others responsible for the NSA’s dragnet surveillance of ordinary Americans’ communications is the best way to guarantee that such blatantly illegal spying will not be authorized in the future. Our lawsuit today should sound a clear warning to future occupants of the White House: if you break the law and violate Americans’ privacy, there will be consequences.

Read the EFF’s full legal brief here.

Here are two organizations that are actually doing the work to dismantle this massive spying network, actually doing what it takes to defend our constitutional liberties. You have an itch to write a check during this political season? Fine. Give money to help the people who are actually doing something about this mess we’re in. Give to the EFF. Give to the ACLU. I just did, and let me tell you, it feels good.

In March of this year, Adam Davidson of NPR reported on the use of bank surveillance orders to snoop in on the details of your personal financial transactions without so much as the warrant:

Banks monitor even the most mundane transactions…. Banks monitor every transaction. Every one, no matter how small…. “Your transaction is being transferred to the bank and it will be loaded into our transaction monitoring system and we will actually add this transaction together with several other types of transaction that you’ve done recently.” The software is checking to see if maybe that $4 is part of a pattern…. The report goes to a bank’s compliance officer, listing all recent suspicious transactions. Every transaction is given a numerical score…. The computer makes the score based on who is making the transaction, where does he come from, who is he associated with, what else is he up to. Every bank customer has, somewhere, in some computer database, a risk assessment score…. It also checks a bunch of lists. Are you on a terror watch list? A list of criminals?… A PEP — banks really do use that term — is anybody with political power. That means a Nigerian General, a U.S. Senator, or say the Governor of New York. And any PEP — any Politically Exposed Person — is monitored more carefully…. The Patriot Act forced banks to more closely monitor suspicious activity.

Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) from banks have been around for years, but as the Bush years have passed on they’ve been sent to the federales for analysis and followup with increasing frequency. Since Adam Davidson’s report, disclosure of SARs sent to Washington DC has been updated to include those sent in the year 2007 which, as this graph shows, was the high point for suspicious activity reports to the federal government:

That’s 1,250,439 SARs filed last year alone, a 16 percent increase over 2006 and an increase of 147 over the report levels in 2003. Don’t worry too much about whether your records fit within that set of 1.25 million. Take consolation in the fact that it’s much more likely the reports being sent to the government concern the personal finances of those PEPs — Politically Exposed Persons. I’m sure that the Bush administration finds the incriminating information it receives regarding other politicians to be highly useful.

J. Edgar Hoover is smiling.

We’ve been talking for awhile about the right wing’s politics of fear. It’s an obvious theme that anyone can pick out pretty easily. Republicans use people’s fears to get them to support policies that just don’t make sense.

Now we can say that this conclusion has a scientific basis. Right wingers are timid little scaredy cats, so says a new study at the University of Nebraska, comparing the physiological responses of people to alarming stimulus.

Participants with right wing ideology tended to react more fearfully to the stimulus than liberals. Liberals could handle the threat and get on about their business. Right wingers were more overwhelmed by fear. Their bodies got into freaked out little hissy fits, comparatively speaking.

The next time you run into someone who starts babbling about how we’re all in terrible danger from terrorists, or immigrants, or witches, just say, “I know that you can’t help it, but science indicates that right wingers like you tend to be wimps who are unable to deal with their fears. Buck up! Get a security blanket!”

Then say “Boo!” and watch ‘em shiver.

While John McCain’s campaign manager huffs and puffs over the fact that someone out there figured out Sarah Palin’s Yahoo password and read her e-mails, calling the affair a “shocking violation of the Governor’s privacy,” he remains mum on the new powers granted the Bush administration to break into the private correspondence of millions of Americans.

The hackers didn’t ask permission to read Palin’s e-mails; the Bush administration doesn’t ask permission to read your e-mails (or read your letters, or listen in on your phone calls, or rummage through your apartment, or seize your veterinary records). The hackers haven’t supplied a full reason for their actions; the Bush administration doesn’t have to give a reason either, or even obtain a warrant. The hackers may have kept Palin’s private and official communications for themselves; the Bush administration can keep whatever information it finds, even if some judge catches up after the legally-stipulated 67 day period of unaccountability and complains that civil liberties have been violated.

Why is everyone getting in a tizzy about one small case of a privacy violation while they seem so astonishingly unconcerned with the violation of privacy of untold millions?

Earlier this month, I unsuccessfully attempted to ascertain congressional candidate Mary Jo Kilroy’s position regarding the FISA Amendments Act, the new law permitting unlimited warrantless searches, seizures and surveillance for periods of up to 67 days. Kilroy demurred from providing a specific response, indicating that she wasn’t sufficiently familiar with the details of the FISA Amendments Act. Coming away from that encounter I decided to write what I wished I’d had on the spot: a brief summary of the relevant provisions of the FISA Amendments Act with relevant citations included.

The results follow below: a one-page summary of the portions of the FISA Amendments Act that authorize 67 day limitless warrantless searches, seizures and surveillance. The summary is organized into four bold-type bullet points with citations to the text of the Act following each point. At the bottom of the page is text of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and Article Six of the Constitution.

I intend to personally provide this one-page summary to my congressional candidate, Mary Jo Kilroy, as soon as I can. That way, she won’t be able to defer an answer by saying that she’s somehow unaware of the Act. A few weeks from now, I’ll follow up with another request that she provide her position on the Act, and she should be able to provide an answer.

I encourage you to pursue this course with your congressional candidate as well. Print out the following documents (pdf format)…

One Page Summary of the FISA Amendments Act provisions regarding 67-day warrantless surveillance, search and seizure

Full text of the FISA Amendments Act

… and present them to your congressional candidate at a campaign rally. If you arrive early, this shouldn’t be as hard as you might think; there sadly aren’t that many people interested in congressional campaigns. Ask your candidate what her or his position on the Act is, and what she or he intends to do about it if elected to Congress. If your candidate begs ignorance, you have your solution. Follow up and you will deserve an answer. If you get an answer, share it with others. If you don’t get an answer, let the people in your community know.

This is the point at which you and I, the little citizen people, have the greatest power to contact and influence future members of Congress. Let’s use that opportunity to promote the constitutional liberties that too many current members of Congress have sent through the shredder.

67 Days Without A Warrant:

How the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 Enables Months-Long Warrantless Physical and Electronic Searches

? The FISA Amendments Act, passed in the summer of 2008, permits a presidential administration to engage in surveillance and search against any person or place without justification to or approval of a FISA court judge for as long as 7 days.

Citation: H.R. 6304 (attached), page 44 line 4 – page 45 line 16, page 55 line 11 – page 56 line 8, page 75 line 14 – page 76 line 10. See especially language: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this title,” indicating that emergency search privileges supercede limitations placed on search elsewhere in the Act.

? If a FISA court judge determines such search or surveillance violates protocols to protect Americans from domestic spying, a presidential administration may nevertheless continue for as long as 60 additional days if the administration files for an appeal of the judge’s decision.

Citation: H.R. 6304 (attached), page 24 line 18 – page 25 line 24

? Although most press reports have focused on warrantless electronic surveillance, warrantless physical searches and seizures are also authorized. Warrantless physical searches have been employed under the aegis of FISA law as far back as the Clinton administration.

Citation: H.R. 6304 (attached), page 73 line 18 – page 77 line 24; Executive Order 12949, Feb. 1995

? Information obtained in such search and surveillance can be kept by a presidential administration, even after a FISA court judge conclusively determines it was obtained inappropriately, if the administration asserts that keeping information is necessary for security.

Citation: H.R. 6304 (attached), page 46 lines 5-11, page 57 lines 10-17, page 77 lines 8-16

Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment IV:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Constitution of the United States of America, Article VI:

“…This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

Sarah Palin is caught right there on video of a conversation between herself and Pastor Ed Kalnins in Wasilla, Alaska on June 8, 2008. Palin nods in agreement with Kalnins’ statement that God has a plan for Alaska’s natural resources, a plan to make Alaska a refuge state for humans during the Last Days of the Book of Revelation. Palin nods:

Pastor Ed Kalnins: There are some things about the natural resources, about the state. There are some things that God wants to tap into to be a refuge for the lower 48.

[Sarah Palin nods her head]

Pastor Ed Kalnins: And I believe that Alaska’s one of the refuge states, come on you guys, in the Last Days.

[Sarah Palin bows head]

Pastor Ed Kalnins: And hundreds of thousands of people are just going to come to the state to seek refuge and the Church has to be ready to minister to them.

[Sarah Palin nods her head]

Pastor Ed Kalnins: Amen?

Four reasonable questions for someone who wants to be elected to possibly be our next President, someone who has explicitly made the connection between God’s will and the fate of the nation:

1. What, exactly, is God’s plan for Alaska and America?
2. Why did you nod when Pastor Ed Kalnins made prophecy about Alaska being a refuge state in the Last Days and God making use of Alaska’s natural resources?
3. What is the standard by which you decide that these these things are true?
4. What do you intend to do about it should you become President?

Vice Presidential candidate Matt Gonzalez, running as an independent with Ralph Nader as his running mate for President, spoke to the press just outside downtown Columbus Ohio this afternoon about the rationale for his campaign. Below is my video recording of his remarks, with a transcript following:

My name’s Matt Gonzalez. I’m Ralph Nader’s running mate.

One of the themes that we’ve been trying to push is to counter the themes coming out of the two conventions of the major parties — particularly the Democrats who are trying to posture themselves as opposition to George Bush and a critique of his regime. They decry the crimes of George Bush, but they don’t tell the truth about their complicity and their, in effect, capitulation to George Bush’s policies. They have supported his war appropriations, they have voted for the Patriot Act, they voted for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments, and you know see the Democratic nominee — who also supported all those things — changing his position on issues like offshore drilling.

Both candidates of these major parties — John McCain and Barack Obama — believe that we need to increase military spending. This despite the fact that we’re spending about $189 Billion a year in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But we’re also in addition to that spending $507 Billion a year on our military, and that’s from Travis Sharp, he’s a military policy analyst at the Arms Control Center. We don’t support that. We are trying to change and expand the political discourse in this country.

And, of course, we’d like to debate our opponents. We did an event recently. We did an event recently with Governor Jesse Ventura in Minnesota. He shared with us his experience of having been at 9, 10 percent in the polls when he ran for Governor. He was allowed into the debates, and he won that contest within 7 weeks of being in that first debate with 37 percent in the polls at closing time. So he was elected Governor with those numbers in a three-way race.

I served as President of the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco, California. I ran for Mayor in 2003. I started that contest in the polls at 4 and 6 percent. I was allowed into the debate and finished that contest with 47 percent of the vote.

I think you know Mr. Nader’s long history. He’s worked on all kinds of legislation from clean air, clean water, helping create the Environmental Protection Agency, the Freedom of Information Act. We think he has a legislative record that is far superior to the nominees of the two major parties.

I myself represented a jurisdiction as the President of the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco, a city whose budget of over $6 Billion is roughly equivalent to the budgets of the states of Alaska and Delaware combined. I represented a city that’s larger than the state of Alaska’s population, larger than the state of Delaware’s population. When I ran in 2003 for Mayor, I got more votes than Joe Biden the first time he got elected to the U.S. Senate.

The point we’re trying to make is, we’re experienced and serious politicians. I helped in creating the largest, highest minimum wage in the United States of America with an indicator for inflation that goes up on its own. We’ve worked on serious legislation, and we think that we have the qualifications to engage the American people — if we’re given the opportunity.

I’ll close just by saying as members of the press I would urge you to reflect on the importance of conveying this message. You know that this democracy needs to be repaired. You know that it’s not appropriate to present this contest as simply a two-party contest. We can’t fix things without your help because you help get that information to the public. And when people try to say to us, “Oh, you’re not serious, you don’t have enough support” and that sort of thing, it’s a sort of chicken-or-the-egg, horse-before-the-cart type thing. What comes first? If you don’t let us in the debates, we can’t reach millions of Americans. Thank you.

Ralph Nader does not have the backing of a vast party machine. He does not have the rousing oratorical skill of a Bible-quoting preacher. But he does answer questions. I posed this question to him during a press conference in Columbus, Ohio shortly after 1:00 pm today:

Jim Cook: If you were elected president, what would do about the FISA Amendments Act?

Ralph Nader: Well, repeal it! Then, restore the FISA law with improved safeguards so no government agency can snoop on the American people without first receiving a judicial warrant.

The FISA Amendments Act, in case you’re not familiar with it, is a new law passed this year that legalizes a massive electronic operation to spy on the personal communications of millions of Americans within the United States and allows physical searches of Americans’ homes and places of work, all without a search warrant or evidence. That’s a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

John McCain speaks in favor of the FISA Amendments Act. Barack Obama voted for the FISA Amendments Act. Only Ralph Nader has had the courage to unequivocally oppose the FISA Amendments Act.

I believe in supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States of America. Why again shouldn’t I vote for Ralph Nader this November?

Six days out, the Democratic Party has definitively shoved Bill Richardson’s speech of Thursday, August 28 down the memory hole. The DNC spent nearly a week simply pretending that Richardson didn’t give a speech, not including Richardson’s speech at all in its list of convention speeches.

This morning, I see that the Democrats have finally added Bill Richardson to the list of speakers on their convention webpage. But have they posted the text of his speech, as they’ve done for all other convention speakers? No, they haven’t. They’ve posted the text of the speech he was assigned to give. But he didn’t utter a word of that speech. Bill Richardson actually gave a completely different speech, one that he wrote himself.

The speech Bill Richardson actually gave was the only one during the entire Democratic National Convention to refer to the Bill of Rights. The speech was the only one to refer disparagingly to George W. Bush’s program of warrantless domestic spying. The speech was the only one to demand that the next president not just say he supports the Constitution but actually behave in a manner that supports the Constitution.

The crowd loved it. They cheered wildly at these passages. The Democratic Party, however, was not amused. Apparently the Democratic Party establishment would rather you didn’t know that one of its members supports civil liberty and opposes domestic spying upon your sorry citizen ass. Down the memory hole it went, replaced by the speech Bill Richardson only gave in a fictional alternate universe, one in which the Democratic Party does not control the truth.

And yes, the Democratic Party does appear to control the truth. For all their supposed rigor, not one of our lauded news organizations has printed the actual words Bill Richardson spoke in Invesco stadium last Thursday. No, they printed the speech Richardson was assigned to give, the transcript the DNC sent to them, instead. 220 Google listings are returned for the text of the speech Bill Richardson did not give. Only 1 Google listing is returned for the text of the speech Bill Richardson actually gave.

Are we seeing the unfounding of the United States of America? Well, up in Minnesota, we’re seeing some rather unfounded ideas seeping into people’s understanding of the foundations of the USA.

For example, we’ve got Sarah Palin saying about the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance that, “If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me.”

Sarah Palin seems to think that the Pledge of Allegiance is one of the founding documents of the United States of America. Palin seems to think that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by the Founding Fathers. Actually, none of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America ever said the Pledge of Allegiance. They never even heard it.

The Pledge of Allegiance was not written until 1892. The Pledge was not formally recognized by the American government until the 1940s. The words “under God” were completely absent from the original version of the Pledge of Allegiance, and were inserted in 1954.

History tells us that the Founding Fathers actually didn’t think that any Pledge of Allegiance was necessary. You know, if not saying any Pledge of Allegiance was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it’s good enough for me.

Does Sarah Palin think that the United States of America was founded in 1954, or did she simply never bothered to read about the legal issues about the Pledge of Allegiance before forming her opinion? Did Sarah Palin fall asleep during history class?

Let’s not blame the downfall of American freedom just on Ms. Palin, though. Have the rest of us fallen asleep?

In Minneapolis, Minnesota, the police have arrested journalist Amy Goodman for doing nothing more than asking questions - exactly what a journalist is supposed to do.

The highest law of the land, the Constitution of the United States of America, states in its very first amendment that the government shall have no power to interfere with the freedom of the press. In arresting journalists for doing nothing more than peacefully carrying out their duties, the police officers guarding the Republican National Convention have themselves broken the law.

Who will hold them accountable? Will anyone at the Republican National Convention even apologize for this illegal arrest of journalists attempting to cover the event? I’m not expecting to hear any such admission of wrongdoing.

And now, as if those in power will listen, a short video podcast on Sarah Palin, Amy Goodman, and foundering of American democracy.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Three distinct portions of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution appear to have been violated yesterday, when journalist Amy Goodman and two of her Democracy Now! news producers were arrested for covering demonstrations at the Republican National Convention. Goodman was clearly just talking to police officers:

That’s freedom of the press violated right there. Freedom of assembly has been twisted as protesters are shuffled into segregated Free Speech Zones to protest the Republican National Convention away from the subject of their petition. When freedom of the press and freedom of assembly to voice grievance are curtailed, speech is no longer free but contingent on subject matter. If you have happy talk, you’re free to go. If you’ve got a grievance, move along or else.

I have no sympathy for the assholes who use the cover of otherwise peaceful protests to engage in pointless violence against other people. No matter where they say they fit on a left-right spectrum, such thugs would be the worst of fascists if put in any position of power. But that’s not what was going on in this instance. Peaceable assembly and free speech have a constitutional mandate, and the detention of journalists who cover such assembly and speech should never be tolerated.

I await a prompt and thorough investigation of these constitutional violations by the police of the Twin Cities, by the Secret Service that is overseeing operations during the RNC, and by the FBI.

I’m not going to hold my breath.