by Noel Sheppard

Has the emerging internationalClimateGate scandal changed President Obama’s global warming strategy?

After winning the Nobel Peace Prize last month, expectations were that Obama would not attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen due to it conflicting with the Nobel awards ceremony in Oslo.

This speculation was supported in the past couple of weeks when world leaders meeting in Singapore punted on reaching any firm agreements at the upcoming Copenhagen meeting, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-Nev.) delayed action on cap-and-trade legislation until next spring.

Yet, within days of the ClimateGate scandal breaking, Obama surprisingly announced that he’s going to Copenhagen with a pledge for serious carbon dioxide emissions cuts.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Chris Horner told FBN’s Charles Payne Wednesday that this is by no means a coincidence:

by William Fisher

With the health care debate preoccupying the mainstream media, it has gone virtually unreported that the Barack Obama administration is quietly supporting renewal of provisions of the George W. Bush-era USA Patriot Act that civil libertarians say infringe on basic freedoms.

And it is reportedly doing so over the objections of some prominent Democrats.

When a panicky Congress passed the act 45 days after the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001, three contentious parts of the law were scheduled to expire at the end of next month, and opponents of these sections have been pushing Congress to substitute new provisions with substantially strengthened civil liberties protections.

But with the apparent approval of the Obama White House and a number of Republicans – and over the objections of liberal Senate Democrats including Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Dick Durbin of Illinois – the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to extend the three provisions with only minor changes.

Those provisions would leave unaltered the power of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to seize records and to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mail in the course of counterterrorism investigations.

The parts of the act due to expire on Dec. 31 deal with:

National Security Letters (NSLs)

The FBI uses NSLs to compel Internet service providers, libraries, banks, and credit reporting companies to turn over sensitive information about their customers and patrons. Using this data, the government can compile vast dossiers about innocent people.

The ‘Material Support’ Statute

This provision criminalises providing “material support” to terrorists, defined as providing any tangible or intangible good, service or advice to a terrorist or designated group. As amended by the Patriot Act and other laws since Sep. 11, this section criminalises a wide array of activities, regardless of whether they actually or intentionally further terrorist goals or organisations.

FISA Amendments Act of 2008

This past summer, Congress passed a law that permits the government to conduct warrantless and suspicion-less dragnet collection of U.S. residents’ international telephone calls and e-mails.

Asked by IPS why committee chairman Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and other Democrats chose to make only minor changes, Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defence Committee, referred to “the secret and hypocritical lobbying by the Obama administration against reforms – while publicly stating receptiveness to them.” White House pressure, he speculated, “was undoubtedly a huge if lamentable factor”.

He added that some committee members were cautious because of the recent arrests of Najibullah Zazi and others.

Zazi , a citizen of Afghanistan and a legal U.S. resident, was arrested in September as part of a group accused of planning to carry out acts of terrorism against the U.S. Zazi is said by the FBI to have attended courses and received instruction on weapons and explosives at an al Qaeda training camp in Pakistan.

Leahy acknowledged that, in light of these incidents, “This is no time to weaken or undermine the tools that law enforcement relies on to protect America.”

Pitts told IPS, “Short-term and political considerations driven by dramatic events once again dramatically affected the need for a more sensible long-term, reasoned, rule-of-law approach.”

“In the eight years since passage of the original Patriot Act, it’s become clear that the escalating political competition to appear tough on terror – and avoid being accused of being “soft on terror” – brings perceived electoral benefits with few costs, with vital but fragile civil liberties being easily sacrificed,” he added.

In contrast to the Senate, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee approved a version of the legislation containing several significant reforms. In a 16-10 party-line vote, the committee’s version curbs some of the government’s controversial surveillance powers.

The Patriot Act, passed by a landslide after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to provide law enforcement and intelligence agencies additional powers to thwart terrorist activities, was reauthorised in 2005.

The legislation has been criticised by many from across the ideological spectrum as a threat to civil liberties, privacy and democratic traditions. Sections of the original act have been ruled unconstitutional, with certain provisions violating protected rights.

Judiciary Chair John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, said the goal of the new legislation was to “craft a law that preserves both our national security and our national values”.

The proposed new legislation would permit the so-called “lone wolf” provision to sunset. This authority removed the requirement that an individual needed to be an agent of a foreign power to be placed under surveillance by intelligence officials and permitted surveillance of individuals with a much lower evidentiary threshold than allowed under criminal surveillance procedures.

It was intended to allow the surveillance of individuals believed to be doing the bidding of foreign governments or terrorist organisations, even when the evidence of that connection was lacking.

The Justice Department maintains that the “lone wolf” authority is necessary, even though there is no evidence that it has been used. Its opponents believe that existing authorities are sufficient to achieve the goals of the lone wolf provision while more effectively protecting the rights of innocent citizens.

The proposed new House legislation would also restrict the use of national security letters. According to a Congressional Research Service report, “National security letters (NSL) are roughly comparable to administrative subpoenas. Intelligence agencies issue them for intelligence gathering purposes to telephone companies, Internet service providers, consumer credit reporting agencies, banks, and other financial institutions, directing the recipients to turn over certain customer records and similar information.”

Under current law, intelligence agencies have few restrictions on the use of NSLs, and in numerous cases, have abused the authority. An FBI inspector general report in 2007 “found that the FBI used NSLs in violation of applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies”. The reform provisions seek to create greater judicial scrutiny of NSL use.

The bill approved in the Senate contains much more modest reforms. It would retain the lone wolf provision, and is, in general, much more in line with the wishes of the administration. Should both bills pass and go into conference to be reconciled, it is unclear which approach would prevail.

House and Senate versions still need to be voted on by each body separately and then reconciled into a single bill to send to the president for signature.

Pitts told IPS, “President Obama’s flip-flop on Patriot Act issues does as much damage as did his flip-flop on the FISA Amendments Act and telecom immunity last year. But it’s imperative that we fight, while we still can, to comprehensively reinsert requirements for fact-based, individualised suspicion, checks and balances, and meaningful judicial review prior to government intrusions.”

In a report on the Patriot Act, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said, “More than seven years after its implementation there is little evidence that the Patriot Act has been effective in making America more secure from terrorists. However, there are many unfortunate examples that the government abused these authorities in ways that both violate the rights of innocent people and squander precious security resources.”

by Ted Rall, Yahoo! News

Shortly after 9/11, George W. Bush secretly signed twoexecutive orders. Both violated basic constitutional protections as well as U.S. obligations under international treaties, yet both carried the force of law.

They still do.

The first order grants the president (and other officials, including thesecretary of defense, the secretary of homeland security and presumably certain postal clerks) the right to declare anyone–including an American citizen–an “unlawful enemy combatant.” A person so declared has no redress, no way to appeal, no ability to challenge that designation. Once a person has been named an enemy combatant, according to the Bush Administration–and now to the Obama Administration–he has no rights. He can be held without charges forever, tortured, you name it–well, actually, the president or the secretary of defense names it.

In the second covert executive order, Bush authorized the CIA to target and assassinate said “enemy combatants“–again, including American citizens.

These two documents first came into play on November 3, 2002, when a CIA-operated Predator drone plane violating Yemeni airspace fired a Hellfire missile at a car containing Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, supposedly Al Qaeda’s #1 man in Yemen at the time.

U.S. officials didn’t know that an American citizen, Kamal Derwish, was riding along. (You know what they say about hitchhiking.) “The Bush administration said the killing of an American in this fashion was legal…this is legal because the president and his lawyers say so–it’s not much more complicated than that,” CBS News reported at the time. “I can assure you that no constitutional questions are raised here,” said Bush’s national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, after the CIA assassinations. “He’s well within the balance of accepted practice and the letter of his constitutional authority.”

It’s right there in the Constitution between the right to tax and the repeal of Prohibition.

Anyway, Congress tried to clarify matters in the Military Commissions Act of 2006, part of which–the section that eliminated the writ of habeas corpus–got struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court last year. But the rest of the MCA remains in force, including a passage that defines an enemy combatant as anyone who provides “material support” to the “enemy.” And who is the enemy? The enemy is anyone the president says it/he/she/they is.

Again, there is no distinction between foreigners and U.S. citizens.

Jose Padilla, the so-called would-be “dirty bomber” held in a Navy brig since 2002, was tried and convicted of such “material support” charges in 2007. (The government couldn’t prosecute Padilla for their original dirty bomb charges because they had tortured him so severely that he had been reduced to mental mush.)

Now that times have supposedly changed, it’s time to ask: why hasn’t President Obama abrogated Bush’s controversial executive orders? If Obama truly seeks a break with the lawlessness of the prior administration, what better way to enact it?

Simply put, no one man–not even a nice, articulate, charismatic one–ought to claim the right to suspend a person’s constitutional rights. Not in America. Certainly no one man–not even a young, handsome, likeable one–should be able to have anyone he wants whacked. Even in dictatorships, the right of life and death is reserved for judges and juries operating under a system purportedly designed to support impartiality and a search for the truth.

But that’s not the case here in the United States. In 2002 Scott Silliman, director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke University asked: “Could you put a Hellfire missile into a car in Washington, D.C., under [the Bush] theory? The answer is yes, you could.”

Nothing much has changed since then. Obama has eliminated the use of the phrase “enemy combatant,” but The New York Times reported that the change is merely meant to “symbolically separate the new administration from Bush detention policies.” The words may have changed, but Obama attorney general Eric Holder’s definition of who can and cannot be held, said the Times, is “not significantly different from the one used by the Bush administration.”

These days, Obama has ramped up the assassination of political opponents of the U.S. and the U.S.-aligned authoritarian regime in Pakistan, deploying more Predator drone plane attacks than Bush. But that’s just for now. Obama could still personally order a government agency to murder you.

Which is weird. But not nearly as weird as the fact that you probably don’t care enough to do something about it.

by Nat Hentoff, CATO

While battling the FBI’s expanded surveillance guidelines, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., also revealed (Daily Kos, Oct. that in the Senate Judiciary Committee review of the Patriot Act (also Oct. 8), Republicans protecting the Act were joined, in a closed-door classified session, by Obama officials with amendments further preserving it. Then, in a public session, all but three Democrats voted for a watered-down “compromise” bill by Patrick Leahy and Diane Feinstein.

Feingold, Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and new Democrat Arlen Specter (Pa.) had the constitutional courage to oppose the Judiciary Committee bill eventually going to the floor that with few exceptions, leaves the Patriot Act intact. I’ll be reporting on the crucial fight to bring the Bill of Rights back into the Patriot Act as Senate and House versions merge into a law to be signed by Obama as he continues the Bush-Cheney legacy.

It was Feingold who, in October 2001, was the only member of the Senate to vote against the original Patriot Act as, on the floor, he accurately predicted our greatly weakened privacy, due process and other rights since then.

He is not giving up. “In the end,” Feingold says. “Democrats have to decide if they are going to stand up for the rights of the American people” or (for recent example) “allow the FBI to write our laws.”

As I have reported, the FBI is already writing our laws — without going to any judge. How much have you seen about the FBI’s locking up of the Fourth Amendment on cable and broadcast television (from the right- or the left-leaning stations) in newspapers, on the Internet or, of course, from the Democratic Congressional leadership, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, characteristically indifferent to the Bush-Cheney-Obama assaults on the Bill of Rights?

As James Madison warned, “A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”

When were the first FBI guidelines on domestic surveillance and why? In the 1970s, Sen. Frank Church of Idaho, chairman of a Senate Committee on Intelligence Activities, exposed FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover’s COINTELPRO (Counter-intelligence Program) as an omnivorous surveillance operation that aimed squarely at preventing Americans “exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association.”

If Big Brother is always watching you, you become careful of what you say and with whom you associate.

The Church committee’s revelations resulted in the then-attorney general, Edward Levi (a former professor of constitutional law), and Congressman Don Edwards formulating the first FBI guidelines specifically faithful to the Constitution.

When I was reporting on Edwards’ congressional service (1962 to 1995), I often described him as the “The Congressman from the Constitution.” As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, Edwards, a former FBI agent, set standards for congressional oversight of the FBI.

Under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, these standards have become obsolete.

I commend to every member of Congress and their constituents what Edwards said in 1975 about the Church committee’s newly disclosed unbounded, warrantless standards of FBI surveillance of Americans who might “threaten” national security. And compare the Don Edwards’ definition of fundamental American civil liberties with those of present Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Mueller — and their astonishingly permissive standards of FBI accountability.

“No federal agency,” said Congressman Edwards, “the CIA, the IRS, or the FBI, can be at the same time policeman, prosecutor, judge and jury. That is what constitutionally guaranteed due process is all about. It may sometimes be disorderly and unsatisfactory to some, but it is the essence of freedom.”

The Constitution, Edwards continued, does not permit “federal interference” with Americans’ speech or associations, and other such citizen constitutional rights, “except through the criminal justice system, armed with its ancient safeguards.” Like mandated judicial supervision — absent from current Obama administration FBI surveillance guidelines.

Edwards regarded as “subversive” the “notion that any public official — the president or a policeman — possesses a kind of inherent power to set aside the Constitution whenever he thinks the public interest, or ‘national security’ warrants it.”

Don Edwards represented the Constitution we are losing.

On Aug. 10, 2002, in Washington, Don Edwards received the American Bar Association’s Thurgood Marshall Award for his “unswerving devotion to the Constitution and its values throughout his career.”

How many present members of Congress do you believe qualify for that award? Any of the Senate or House members representing you? Unhesitatingly, I nominate Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.

It was in 2002 that I asked Don Edwards what he thought of the then Bush-Cheney definition of the Bill of Rights. “Locking people up,” he began, “citizens or noncitizens, without being charged and without access to a lawyer is wrong.” But our Nobel Prize-winning President Obama is seriously considering “permanent detention” of terrorism suspects who cannot be tried in court because of the tortures they have undergone under American custody. This same president does not object to the current warrantless FBI surveillance of Americans without evidence, for reasons of “national security.” Would you give Obama a Liberty Medal?

by Paul Joseph Watson

Former White House speechwriter John L. Perry has courted controversy by suggesting that the U.S. Military, upholding their oath to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies, could stage a bloodless coup to oust President Obama.

In an article originally posted on the Newsmax website, Perry wrote, “There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.”

Despite the fact that Perry was not explicitly advocating such a coup, Newsmax later removed the article to ensure it “was not misinterpreted”.

The article outlines how military officers, outraged at Obama’s “trampling” on the Constitution, nationalization of American institutions, rising deficits, unemployment and taxes, could peaceably seize power from the “radical-left commissars” of the Obama administration.

“Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible,” writes Perry.

It is important to stress that Perry is not a Neo-Con, he worked under the Democratic administrations of Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter.

Perry warns that America could be unrecognizable by 2012, prompting a coup to “restore and defend the Constitution,” a prospect that is “weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s military leadership,” he writes.

Perry says that such a move could be accelerated if Israel were to bomb Iran, causing the Middle East to explode and a massive destabilization of the free world.

Of course, the unlikely staging of a military coup could be just another ruse to implement martial law in the aftermath of what would undoubtedly ensue – mass civil unrest and a potential breakdown of society.

More and more credible analysts are predicting that the United States could collapse in a Soviet-style breakdown within the next few years. In such a scenario, the vacuum of power created would leave the door open for the imposition of an even greater tyranny than we are witnessing today with Obama’s big government Socialist agenda.

It is far more likely that a military coup, even if it began as a genuine effort to “restore the Constitution,” or “solve the Obama problem,” would be hijacked and transformed into an effort to subjugate the entire country under a militarized police state to an even greater extent than it is now.

The more probable scenario is the one that was outlined by Tommy Franks in a 2003 interview with the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado, where a military form of government would be implemented in the aftermath of a huge terror attack that kills millions.

Franks predicted that another mass casualty terror attack would occur that would cause the “population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution.”