Death of Free Internet is Imminent Canada Will Become Test Case
By Kevin Parkinson
21/07/08 "Global Research" -- - In the last 15 years or so, as a society we have had access to more information than ever before in modern history because of the Internet. There are approximately 1 billion Internet users in the world B and any one of these users can theoretically communicate in real time with any other on the planet. The Internet has been the greatest technological achievement of the 20th century by far, and has been recognized as such by the global community.
The free transfer of information, uncensored, unlimited and untainted, still seems to be a dream when you think about it. Whatever field that is mentioned- education, commerce, government, news, entertainment, politics and countless other areas- have been radically affected by the introduction of the Internet. And mostly, it's good news, except when poor judgements are made and people are taken advantage of. Scrutiny and oversight are needed, especially where children are involved.
However, when there are potential profits open to a corporation, the needs of society don't count. Take the recent case in Canada with the behemoths, Telus and Rogers rolling out a charge for text messaging without any warning to the public. It was an arrogant and risky move for the telecommunications giants because it backfired. People actually used Internet technology to deliver a loud and clear message to these companies and that was to scrap the extra charge. The people used the power of the Internet against the big boys and the little guys won.
However, the issue of text messaging is just a tiny blip on the radar screens of Telus and another company, Bell Canada, the two largest Internet Service Providers (ISP'S) in Canada. Our country is being used as a test case to drastically change the delivery of Internet service forever. The change will be so radical that it has the potential to send us back to the horse and buggy days of information sharing and access.
In the upcoming weeks watch for a report in Time Magazine that will attempt to smooth over the rough edges of a diabolical plot by Bell Canada and Telus, to begin charging per site fees on most Internet sites. The plan is to convert the Internet into a cable-like system, where customers sign up for specific web sites, and then pay to visit sites beyond a cutoff point.
From my browsing (on the currently free Internet) I have discovered that the 'demise' of the free Internet is slated for 2010 in Canada, and two years later around the world. Canada is seen a good choice to implement such shameful and sinister changes, since Canadians are viewed as being laissez fair, politically uninformed and an easy target. The corporate marauders will iron out the wrinkles in Canada and then spring the new, castrated version of the Internet on the rest of the world, probably with little fanfare, except for some dire warnings about the 'evil' of the Internet (free) and the CEO's spouting about 'safety and security'. These buzzwords usually work pretty well.
What will the Internet look like in Canada in 2010? I suspect that the ISP's will provide a "package" program as companies like Cogeco currently do. Customers will pay for a series of websites as they do now for their television stations. Television stations will be available on-line as part of these packages, which will make the networks happy since they have lost much of the younger market which are surfing and chatting on their computers in the evening. However, as is the case with cable television now, if you choose something that is not part of the package, you know what happens. You pay extra.
And this is where the Internet (free) as we know it will suffer almost immediate, economic strangulation. Thousands and thousands of Internet sites will not be part of the package so users will have to pay extra to visit those sites! In just an hour or two it is possible to easily visit 20-30 sites or more while looking for information. Just imagine how high these costs will be.
At present, the world condemns China because that country restricts certain websites. "They are undemocratic; they are removing people's freedom; they don't respect individual rights; they are censoring information,” are some of the comments we hear. But what Bell Canada and Telus have planned for Canadians is much worse than that. They are planning the death of the Internet (free) as we know it, and I expect they'll be hardly a whimper from Canadians. It's all part of the corporate plan for a New World Order and virtually a masterstroke that will lead to the creation of billions and billions of dollars of corporate profit at the expense of the working and middle classes.
There are so many other implications as a result of these changes, far too many to elaborate on here. Be aware that we will all lose our privacy because all websites will be tracked as part of the billing procedure, and we will be literally cut off from 90% of the information that we can access today. The little guys on the Net will fall likes flies; Bloggers and small website operators will die a quick death because people will not pay to go to their sites and read their pages.
Ironically, the only medium that can save us is the one we are trying to save- the Internet (free). This article will be posted on my Blog, www.realitycheck.typepad.com and I encourage people and groups to learn more about this issue. Canadians can keep the Internet free just as they kept text messaging free. Don't wait for the federal politicians. They will do nothing to help us.
I would welcome a letter to the editor of the Standard Freeholder from a spokesperson from Bell Canada or Telus telling me that I am absolutely wrong in what I have written, and that no such changes to the Internet are being planned, and that access to Internet sites will remain FREE in the years to come. In the meantime, I encourage all of you to write to the media, ask questions, phone the radio station, phone a friend, or think of something else to prevent what appears to me to be inevitable.
Maintaining Internet (free) access is the only way we have a chance at combatting the global corporate takeover, the North American Union, and a long list of other deadly deeds that the elite in society have planned for us. Yesterday was too late in trying to protect our rights and freedoms. We must now redouble our efforts in order to give our children and grandchildren a fighting chance in the future.
This outtage does not appear to effect the UAE . DUBAI. Strategically important Dubai is.
Now .. just what if - the entire point of this exercise is to see strategically how people find ways to work around a damaged internet, living Dubai as a hub to process the information?
Someone was on here yesterday from Japan trying to figure out low cost ways to access Azerbejain .. yup, seriously. The business of business must go on!!
UAE telecoms Etisalat and Du said on Monday they have not been affected by the second undersea cable damaged off the UAE coast that caused massive disruption to internet services in Qatar over the weekend.
Qatar Telecom (Qtel) said on Sunday a cable was damaged between the Qatari island of Haloul and the UAE island of Das on Friday, the fourth reported in the Middle East in less than a week. RELATED: Internet problems continue with fourth cable break
The damage caused major problems for internet users in the Gulf Arab state, but Qtel's loss of capacity has been kept below 40% thanks to what the telecom said was a large number of alternative routes for transmission.
"Etisalat is not affected by the most recent cut," a spokesperson told ArabianBusiness.com.
"We has not been affected by this at all," a Du spokesperson added.
The cause of damage is not yet known, but ArabianBusiness.com has been told unofficially the problem is power related and not the result of a ship's anchor cutting the cable, as is thought to be the case in the other three incidents.
It is expected to take at least "a few days" to fix, according to one person with knowledge of the situation.
It had been feared the damaged cable would further disrupt UAE internet services.
Parts of the Gulf Arab region were plunged into a virtual internet blackout on Wednesday when two undersea cables were cut near Alexandria, on Egypt’s north coast.
The initial breaches were in segments of two intercontinental cables known as Sea-ME-We-4 and Flag Europe-Asia.
The situation was made worse on Friday when Flag, part of India's Reliance Communications, revealed a third cable, Falcon, had also been damaged off the UAE coast.
Etisalat said it does not use the Falcon cable and is therefore unaffected, but Du had warned the damage could hamper its efforts to restore normal service to customers.
Du said on Monday that its internet and telephone services were now largely back to normal.
"Our internet access is almost back to normal... and data services are 100% restored," Mahesh Jaishankar, executive director for business development and marketing, told reporters.
Qatar reports new damage to Gulf undersea cables
1 day ago
DOHA (AFP) — An undersea telecoms cable linking Qatar to the United Arab Emirates was damaged, disrupting services, telecommunications provider Qtel said on Sunday, the latest such incident in less than a week.
The cable was damaged between the Qatari island of Haloul and the UAE island of Das on Friday, Qtel's head of communications Adel al Mutawa told AFP.
Cables were also damaged last week in the Mediterranean and off the coast of Dubai, causing widespread disruption to Internet and international telephone services in Egypt, Gulf Arab states and south Asia.
The cause of the damage is not yet known.
Mutawa said Qtel's loss of capacity had been kept below 40 percent over the weekend thanks to what he said was Qatar's large number of alternative routes for transmission.
The UAE telecommunications watchdog said disruption to Internet and telephone services in the Gulf state was likely to continue for 10 another days.
UAE telecoms provider "du" said in an statement on its website that the owners of the Mediterranean cables, FLAG Telecom and SEA-ME-WE4, were fixing the damage.
"While no schedule is available yet for the repair, initial estimates indicate it will take two weeks to repair the FLAG cable," the statement said.
"du has already started transfering Internet and international voice traffic through other cable systems that have not been affected, although some congestion may be expected at peak times until the issue is resolved."
The UAE's other telecoms provider, Etisalat, and Saudi Arabia's STC said they had not been affected.
Egypt's ministry of communications said on Saturday that Internet disruption would last another 10 days.
A repair ship was expected to begin work to fix the two cables in the Mediterranean Sea on Tuesday. They were damaged on Wednesday, rupturing connections not only in Egypt but also thousands of kilometres away.
January 30, 2008 (Computerworld) Wide areas of the Middle East experienced Internet disruptions today after two underwater cables were damaged in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Egypt, according to reports.
Michael Coe, a spokesman for AT&T Inc., said that two cables were cut and that AT&T has been routing traffic around the damaged area. One of the cables is owned by U.K.-based Flag Telecom Group Ltd., and the other is owned by a consortium of several companies that includes AT&T called SEA-ME-WE4. The consortium is investigating the damage and arranging for repairs, he said.
Flag Telecom told The Register that ships were anchored in an unusual location off the coast of Alexandria, Egypt, and a ship's anchor cut into the cable.
A Flag spokesman said the company was in the process of sending a repair ship to the site to assess the damage, but it warned that repairs could take 12 to 15 days.
Verizon Communications Inc. was also routing some customer traffic around the cable cuts, according a report. A Verizon spokeswoman said that the two cuts occurred at separate times, with the first to the SEA-ME-WE4 at 11:30 p.m. yesterday (EST) and the second at 2:30 a.m. (EST) today. She speculated that the cuts may have been caused by a ship dragging an anchor; the consortium is still investigating.
Cable damage in Mediterranean disrupts Internet in Mideast
Repairs could take days; companies try to reroute traffic
By Matt Hamblen
Flag said Internet users in India would likely see slower access. Even though major cables have redundant connections, major damage can reduce bandwidth.
A Computerworld editor working in Amman, Jordan, said she had Internet access and instant messaging but noted that service was slower than normal.
A user in India told the Register that connectivity to the Internet was "flaky" and similar to disruptions caused by an earthquake near Taiwan that severed undersea cables and led to Internet bottlenecks.
The Associated Press reported that emergency teams were trying to find alternate routes for Internet traffic, including using satellite connections. The Egyptian Ministry of Communications and Information Technology said the damage led to a partial disruption of Internet and telecommunications services across much of Egypt.
What's at the bottom was forewarded to me. Right now we are talking about cut internet cables in the Middle East - at this time I don't know that Arab Muslim web sites are actually shut down, per se.
But the trauma left from 9/11 is huge, and people are bound to get triggered when events like this occur - the lastest speculation is that some one cut the optic fibre cable to prevent shares from being traded as the world's economy tanks out.
I think we are in a very intense period right now planetarily and events that will rock people's sox off were bound to occur.
I believe that the day is not faraway when the antiwar and environmental movement finally, at long last, join hearts and hands and fight back mightily against the fascists. And yes, "They" are fascists!
We are truly in freefall as their handiwork becomes ever more evident and we really need each other right now!
Many thanks to all my real friends!!
Let me repeat, as I endless do, I am NOT anti jewish, I am not anti-semitic; I am however very very opposed to the State of Isreal and its policies and tactics.
Somehow, despite the grim news all the attacks on Isrealis are coming out but nothing about what is truly happening in Gaza.
The day before 9-11, the FBI moved to make sure that Arab Muslims could not defend themselves on the internet from accusations that would be made after the WTC attacks.
A third undersea Internet cable has been damaged in the Middle East, adding to the disruption in online services after two other lines were cut earlier this week, the cable operating firm said.The Falcon cable was cut 56 kilometres (35 miles) from Dubai, between Oman and the United Arab Emirates, according to its owner, FLAG Telecom, which is part of India’s Reliance Communications.
The repair ship had been notified and was expected to arrive at the site in the next few days, the company said on its website.
Flag Telecom owns another cable that was damaged off Egypt on Wednesday. A repair ship was expected to arrive by Tuesday to restore that cable and repairs were expected to take a week, the company said.
The outages have disrupted business across the Middle East and South Asia, including in India, where businesses said it may take up to 15 days to return to norm.
Unprecedented mass Internet outages throughout the Middle East and Asia after no less than four undersea Internet cables were cut without explanation are spurring suspicions that a major event of geopolitical proportions may be just around the corner.
Internet blackouts are impacting large tracts of Asia, the Middle East and North Africa after four undersea cable connections were severed. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Pakistan and India, are all experiencing severe problems.
According to InternetTraffic.com, Iran has been completely cut off from the Internet, though Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s blog can still be accessed.
Most notably, Israel and Iraq are unaffected by the outage.
"Stephan Beckert, an analyst with TeleGeography, a research company that consults on global Internet issues, said the damaged cables collectively account for the majority of international communications between Europe and the Middle East," reports CNN.
Officials say that the cause behind the severing of the cables remains unknown, but United Arab Emirates’ second largest telecom company said the cables were cut due to ships dragging their anchors.
Is this a pre-cursor to throw a veil over an imminent staged event in the Middle East?
"What are the odds? Who benefits? asks the Crimes and Corruptions blog. "Let’s see. Iranian rapprochement: "Recent months have brought signs of a growing rapprochement between Iran and Egypt."
"What nation would not like this and has subs which could cut the cables? Why do it? Payback as over the net business is badly damaged. Or is this a setup for more? Note the internet is working just fine in Israel."
Over at WhatReallyHappened.com, Mike Rivero points out that the mysterious cable sabotage could portend another imperial Neo-Con crusade in the works.
"The biggest problem the Bush administration faced during Iraq were images coming over the internet that showed the horrors being visited on the Iraqi people, and exposed the government’s lies about Saddam," he writes.
"I am greatly concerned that these undersea cable cuttings are intended to prevent the world from seeing something that is about to happen, other than through the government-controlled propaganda/media."
"Another undersea cable" has somehow been damaged, yeah right. more like software sabotage, software controlled by Israelis -- although Neil Bush is in that business as well.
We have all the content here in the US," he said. "It's not going to be felt here other than we won't get the BBC."
So the US won't get BBC for awhile -- is this because UK media have been publishing Sibel Edmonds and berating American media for not broadcasting her 9/11 truth? (Which leads to the American and Israeli neo-cons who did 9/11?)
(CNN) -- An undersea cable carrying Internet traffic was cut off the Persian Gulf emirate of Dubai, officials said Friday, the third loss of a line carrying Internet and telephone traffic in three days.
Dubai has been hit hard by an Internet outage apparently caused by a cut undersea cable.
Ships have been dispatched to repair two undersea cables damaged on Wednesday off Egypt.
FLAG Telecom, which owns one of the cables, said repairs were expected to be completed by February 12. France Telecom, part owner of the other cable, said it was uncertain when repairs on it would be repaired.
Stephan Beckert, an analyst with TeleGeography, a research company that consults on global Internet issues, said the cables off Egypt were likely damaged by ships' anchors.
The loss of the two Mediterranean cables -- FLAG Telecom's FLAG Europe-Asia cable and SeaMeWe-4, a cable owned by a consortium of more than a dozen telecommunications companies -- has snarled Internet and phone traffic from Egypt to India.
Officials said Friday it was unclear what caused the damage to FLAG's FALCON cable about 50 kilometers off Dubai. A repair ship was en route, FLAG said.
Eric Schoonover, a senior analyst with TeleGeography, said the FALCON cable is designed on a "ring system," taking it on a circuit around the Persian Gulf and enabling traffic to be more easily routed around damage.
Schoonover said the two cables damaged Wednesday collectively account for as much as three-quarters of the international communications between Europe and the Middle East, so their loss had a much bigger effect.
Without the use of the FLAG Europe-Asia cable and SeaMeWe-4, some carriers were forced to reroute their European traffic around the globe, which could cause delays, Beckert said.
Other carriers could use SeaMeWe-3, an older cable that remained the only direct connection from Europe to the Middle East and Asia. Because this cable is older, it has a smaller capacity than the two damaged cables, Beckert said.
Still, Beckert stressed that although the problem created a "big pain" for many of carriers, it did not compare to the several months of disruption in East Asia in 2006 after an earthquake damaged seven undersea cables near Taiwan.
TeleGeography Research Director Alan Mauldin said new cables planned to link Europe with Egypt should provide enough backup to prevent most similar problems in the future.
Schoonover said a similar Internet problem could not happen in the United States.
"We have all the content here," he said. "It's not going to be felt other than we won't get the BBC."
TeleGeography officials also said most traffic between the U.S., Canada and Mexico is carried over land, and there is a plentiful supply of undersea cables carrying traffic under the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
Meanwhile, Internet service was slow Friday in Dubai and Egypt, where online service was intermittent, but there was less demand because many businesses in those countries aren't open on Fridays.
Service providers in Egypt said they hoped to have improved capacity by Sunday.
Web surfers in India were experiencing a marked improvement in service, though graphic- or video-heavy sites were still taking longer to load.
Most of the major Internet service providers in India, like Reliance and VSNL, were starting to use backup lines Friday, allowing service to slowly come back, said Rajesh Chharia, president of the Internet Services Providers Association of India.
The Indian ISPs were still alerting customers to slowdowns over the next few days with service quality delays of 50 percent to 60 percent, he said.
The Internet slowdowns had no effect on trading at the country's two main stock exchanges, the SENSEX and the NSE, because they aren't dependent on the downed cables, Chharia said.
Individual Web users were still feeling the effects.
Madhu Vohra, who lives in the city of Noida on the outskirts of Delhi, said she uses Internet phone service Skype to call her son in the United States, but she hasn't been able to reach him since the slowdown.
"We keep trying for a long time and the message comes up, 'This page can't display,' so finally we just turn the computer off and give up," Vohra said.
Internet cafes typically full of teenaged gamers are nearly empty with speeds still frustratingly slow.
Ifelt like beating the ... modem, throwing it away, because we compete on the Internet and it feels really bad," said Aman Khurana, 13.
State-owned Dubai telecom provider Du and Kuwait's Ministry of Communications estimated Thursday that the problems might take two weeks to fix.E-mail to a friend
CNN's Elham Nakhlawi, Mustafa Al Arab, Caroline Faraj, Tess Eastment, Aneesh Raman and Brad Lendon contributed to this report.
UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has decided to mount a push against cyber terror, in which the internet itself will somehow be modified to prevent people using it for terrorist purposes.
Today, Ms Smith addressed an international conference on radicalisation and political violence. Much of the speech was about engagement with the Muslim community, preventing the use of schools and prisons for jihadi propaganda etc. There was also some suggestion that "dirty bombs" are jolly dangerous, and that this shows how serious the domestic terror threat is*.
However, the Home Secretary also reiterated the Brown government's promise of technical measures against web terror:
The internet is a key tool for the propagandists for violent extremism... Let me be clear. The internet is not a no-go area for Government.
We are already working closely with the communications industry to take action against paedophiles... we should also take action against those who groom vulnerable people for the purposes of violent extremism... I will be talking to industry... about how best to do this.
Where there is illegal material on the net, I want it removed.
The government's moves still appear to be focused more on perception than action. Yesterday, UK media outlets - for instance the Times, the BBC and the Daily Mail - obligingly rehashed the old, not-very-terrifying case of Younes Tsouli (aka "Terrorist 007") the most fearsome web terror mastermind yet snared, despite the complete absence of any new revelations. Only a cynic would suspect that Home Office briefers were behind the sudden news-free flood of web terror ink.
Today, Ms Smith followed in the less-than-illustrious footsteps of EC vice-president Franco Frattini and indeed her political master Gordon Brown.
Frattini memorably said last year that: "It should simply not be possible to leave people free to instruct other people on the internet on how to make a bomb." He reportedly planned to prevent this by unspecified actions at the level of European ISPs.
Brown went down a similar route in November, saying: "The Home Secretary is inviting the largest global technology and internet companies to work together to ensure that our best technical expertise is galvanised to counter online incitement to hatred." This turned out - thus far, anyway - to be no more than political posturing for the technically challenged, however.
UK internet service provider group ISPA confirmed to the Reg today that it still hadn't heard anything from the government regarding the web terror crackdown. It had asked for a meeting following the Brown speech, but so far has heard nothing.
An ISPA spokesman added: "It is important to note that many of these sites are hosted overseas... there is a working takedown procedure but censorship is the remit of the government not of industry."
The industry spokesman added that the government should "bear in mind that the internet is not the only place for this activity".
n the UK, much of the net backbone is actually controlled by just one company, British Telecom. Asked today if the company had been approached by government specifically in its role as an infrastructure provider - rather than a consumer ISP - a spokesman confirmed: "We have had discussions with the Home Office... no measures have been taken."
Many British ISPs do no more than resell BT's wholesale products, and even those offering local-loop-unbundled services are typically dependent on BT for other parts of their networks. If you want to start censoring the UK segment of the internet, BT is the company to talk to.
The company added that any new action "would need to be underpinned by appropriate legislation... sites would need to be monitored by law enforcement or an independent body. It is not our job to police the internet".
It remains very hard to see what the government can really do to prevent the dissemination of bomb-making instructions, propaganda, and such like. BT and the ISPs could block overseas websites, but almost certainly not as fast as they could be put up. Interesting stuff tends to be mirrored very fast, too; and it isn't hard to use relays such as Tor to effectively browse from a point overseas.
No machinery under the UK government's control needs to see anything other than a stream of encrypted traffic in order for a user located in Britain to merrily enter hardcore terrorist chatrooms, download bomb-making instructions, coordinate operations and all the rest.
One, the Brown cabinet are just grandstanding to technically ignorant voters. They won't do anything, safe in the knowledge that those voters will never realise this.
Or, two, the government actually plans to build a Chinese-style Great Firewall of Blighty which will prevent anyone looking at anything which says "jihadi" or "bomb" or "TATP" (whoops) etc. You'll probably be able to get round it if you know what you're doing, but it will be at the cost of slow, intermittent connections and possible, lengthy terror-powers detention without charge.
Let's hope they're just bullshitting. ®
Bootnote
*The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission says that: "Most [dirty bombs] would not release enough radiation to kill people or cause severe illness... However, depending on the scenario, a [dirty bomb] explosion could create fear and panic. Making prompt, accurate information available to the public could prevent the panic sought by terrorists."
Or, alternatively, you could tell people that the fact of a fool having dirty-bomb plans on his computer means he is a danger to us all.
Regulating the Japanese cyberspace, one step at a time
Thursday, December 27, 2007
by shioyama
With little fanfare from local or foreign media, the Japanese government made major moves this month toward legislating extensive regulation over online communication and information exchange within its national borders. In a series of little-publicized meetings attracting minimal mainstream coverage, two distinct government ministries, that of Internal Affairs and Communications (Somusho) and that of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (Monbukagakusho), pushed ahead with regulation in three major areas of online communication: web content, mobile phone access, and file sharing.
Public comments about Internet content regulation (from blogger tokyodo-2005)
On December 6th, in a final report compiled by a study group under the Somusho following up on an interim report drafted earlier this year, the government set down plans to regulate online content through unification of existing laws such as the Broadcast Law and the Telecommunications Business Law [1,2]. The planned regulation targets all web content, including online variants of traditional media such as newspaper articles and television broadcasting, while additionally going as far as to cover user-generated content such as blogs and webpages under the vaguely-defined category of "open communication" [3,4,5,6].
Only days following the release of the Dec. 6 report, again through the Somusho, the government on Dec. 10th requested that mobile phone companies NTT Docomo, KDDI, Softbank and Willcom commence strictly filtering web content to mobile phones for users under the age of 18 [7,8,9,10]. The move to filter content in this area comes at a time when the Japanese market has become saturated with mobile phones, a growing proportion of which are held by high-school and even grade-school students. The proposed policy, in part responding to fears and anxieties expressed by parents about online dating sites, is broad in scope and reportedly covers all websites with forum, chat, and social networking functionality.
Regulation of a third area of online communication, that of online file sharing, was meanwhile advanced through the Private Music and Video Recording Subcommittee of Japan's Agency for Cultural Affairs (under the Mobukagakusho) in a meeting held on December 18th. Authorities and organizations pushed in this case for a ban on the download of copyrighted content for personal use, a category of file transfer previously permitted under Article 30 of Japan's Copyright Law [11,12,13,14].
The final report on Internet regulation released on December 6th, and the meetings about mobile phone regulation and copyright policy held on December 10th and 18th, collectively touch on nearly every aspect of modern network communication in Japan and together indicate a significant shift in government policy vis-a-vis the Japanese cyberspace. While granted little attention in mainstream media, a series of Japanese-language articles, government reports, and blog entries on the topic together sketch basic details of the proposed regulations. The main points of these documents are summarized below, with references to resources offering more in-depth discussion included at the end of the article.
Step 1: Web content
Plans for regulation of web content are summarized in two primary documents drawn up by the “Study group on the legal system for communications and broadcasting” under the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (Somusho) and headed by Professor Emeritus at Hitotsubashi University Horibe Masao. The first document is an interim report released on June 19th, setting down basic guidelines for regulating web content through application of the existing Broadcast Law to the sphere of the Internet [1,4]. Incorporating the views of a reported 276 comments from 222 individuals and 56 organizations collected shortly after publication of the interim report, the final report, made public on December 6th, sets down steps to move ahead and submit a bill on the proposed regulations to the regular diet session in 2010 [2,5,6].
One of the key points of both reports is their emphasis on the blurring line between "information transmission" and "broadcasting", a distinction that becomes less and less meaningful as content-transfer shifts from the realm of traditional media to that of ubiquitous digital communication (so-called "all over IP"). The reports deal with this difficult problem in part through the creation of a new category, that of "open communication", broadly described as covering "communication content having openness [kouzensei/公然性] such as homepages and so on" [3].
The term "open communication" may itself be vaguely defined, but implications of the new category are in fact very real. While previously largely excluded from government regulation thanks to the limited scope of existing broadcast legislation, all online content, with the exception only of private messages used only between specific persons (i.e. email, etc.), will henceforth be targeted under the proposed policy. Notably included in this category are hugely popular bulletin board systems such as 2channel as well as personal blogs and webpages.
Online content judged to be "harmful" according to standards set down by an independent body (specifics of which are unclear) will be subject to law-enforced removal and/or correction. While the interim report did not specify whether penal regulations would be enforced against policy violations, the final report, in response to concerns voiced in public comments over the summer, moved toward excluding such regulations for the time being at least. Nonetheless, the final report also notes that, if there is a need for it, the "adequacy of punishment should also be investigated" (page 22 of the final report) [5]. It thus remains an open question as to whether, if eventually enacted, penal regulations will be applied and, if so, what form they will take.
Step 2: Mobile phone access
As the number of elementary and high-school students with mobile phones in Japan has ballooned to over 7.5 million, the push for protecting young users from potentially dangerous content, such as online dating services and so-called "mobile filth", has gained momentum in recent years within Japan. The government responded to such concerns on December 10th by demanding that mobile carriers NTT Docomo, KDDI, Softbank, and Willcom implement filtering on all mobile phones issued to users under the age of 18. While optional filtering currently exists and can be implemented at the request of the mobile phone owner, few users make use of or even know of this service. The proposed regulation would heavily strengthen earlier policy by making filtering on mobile phones the default setting for minors; only in the case of an explicit request by the user's parent or guardian could such filtering be turned off by the carrier [7,8,9].
According to the new policy proposal, sites would be categorized on two lists, a "blacklist" of sites that would be blocked from mobile access by minors and a "whitelist" of sites that would not. The categorization of sites into each list will reportedly be carried out together with carriers through investigations involving each company targeted. The Telecommunications Carriers Association (TCA) of Japan is indicating that the new policy will be enforced with respect to new users by the end of 2007 and applied to existing users by the summer of 2008 [8].
While it is not yet entirely clear what content will be covered by the new policy, a look at existing filtering services promoted by NTT Docomo reveals the definition of "harmful" content to be very broad indeed. As noted by a number of Japanese bloggers, notably social activist Sakiyama Nobuo, current optional filtering services offered on NTT Docomo phones include categories as sweeping as "lifestyles" (gay, lesbian, etc.), "religion", and "political activity/party", as well as a category termed "communication" covering web forums, chat rooms, bulletin boards, and social networking services. The breadth of this last category in particular threatens to bankrupt youth-oriented services such as "Mobage", a social networking and gaming site for mobile phones, half of whose users are under the age of 18.
Step 3: File sharing
While the cases of Internet regulation and mobile phone filtering primarily revolve on concerns over content, the third government policy proposal advanced this month in the domain of online communication targets the area of content transfer. On December 18th, the Private Music and Video Recording Subcommittee of Japan's Agency for Cultural Affairs, an advisory body under the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (Monbukagakusho), held a meeting to re-examine Article 30 of Japan's Copyright Law. With respect to online file transfer, the existing law currently bans uploading of copyrighted material onto public websites, while permitting copies for personal use only [12,13,14].
At the December 18th meeting, Kawase Makoto, general manager of the agency's Copyrighted Work Circulation Promotion Department, remarked that revising article 30 was "inevitable" [11]. Kawase's comment came less than a month after the same agency received more than 7500 public comments on the topic of the plans, the majority of which reportedly opposed any change to the current Copyright Law [15,16,17]. Haeno Hidetoshi , senior director of the Recording Industry Association of Japan, meanwhile described the state of the recording industry as "spine-chilling", arguing that if illegal file sharing was not stopped the business would hit a dead end [12].
IT and music journalist Tsuda Daisuke on the other hand argued that he did not see any need for legal revision, observing that if users uploading copyrighted files are controlled, then there should be no need to outlaw illegal downloads or file sharing. In an earlier Nov. 28th meeting, addressing the divide in opions among public comments about the regulation, Tsuda noted that results evidenced a "deep gap" between the views of copyright holders and those of consumers. He further warned that to ignore the views of those opposing revision, and to not attempt to understand their arguments, would be to invite further deepening of this gap [16,17].
One of the key issues raised by opponents of the proposed revisions regards the murky definition of "download" itself. Critics argue that a user cannot determine whether a file is illegal before they actually download it, and even once the file is downloaded, such identification remains difficult. Moreover, it is difficult for users to judge whether, at the time of downloading a file, the site from which the file was downloaded was itself illegal or not. While proponents of the legal revision have argued in favour of a "mark" to identify approved sites, this approach brings with it many new problems; most critically, it would mean that every site not bearing the approved mark would be considered "illegal", a blanket policy many consider extreme [17].
The murkiness of the definition of "illegal" file sharing also manifests itself in the difficulties legislators will potentially face in distinguishing between "downloading" and "streaming", difficulties which some argue may ultimately lead to the regulation of sites such as YouTube and Nico Nico Douga. As there is no fundamental difference between downloaded content and streamed content, given that in both cases content is copied locally before viewing, commenters expressed anxiety about how judges with no specialized knowledge will handle this murky middle ground.
The future of "open"
The various problems evident in the regulation policies described above are compacted by the fact that there is a lack of coordination between branches of government, the first two proposals being handled by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications while the last is being handled by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Without a coordinated approach to regulation, legal conflicts inherent in the switch to "all over IP" are guaranteed to arise.
Even with such a coordinated approach, however, policy remains ill-defined and extremely vague. The future of online communication within Japan hinges on attracting attention to these issues and on drawing as wide a range of voices into the debate as possible. While current activism by groups within Japan such as the recently formed Movements for Internet Active Users (MIAU) have made important first steps in this direction, international attention is needed to coordinate support and confront the many pressing issues facing open communication in the Japanese cyberspace.
References
"Interim report of the Study group on the legal system for communications and broadcasting" (通信・放送の総合的な法体系に関する研究会 中間取りまとめ), June 19, 2007. link.
"Final report of the Study group on the legal system for communications and broadcasting" (通信・放送の総合的な法体系に関する研究会 報告書), December 6, 2007. link.
"Blogs and 2channel also subject to Telecommunications Law (tentative title)" (ブログ、2chも対象にする「情報通信法」（仮）とは), atmarkIT, June 20, 2007. link
"Internet regulation up for debate, but nobody is debating," Global Voices Online, June 12, 2007. link
"Final Report on Internet Regulation," Global Voices Online, December 16, 2007. link
"Japan to take steps to regulate the Internet," Mainichi shimbun, December 6, 2007. link
"Request to mobile phone carriers regarding the introduction of services for restricting access to harmful sites from mobile phones and personal headsets used by young people" (filtering service) (青少年が使用する携帯電話・ＰＨＳにおける有害サイトアクセス制限サービス（フィルタリングサービス）の導入促進に関する携帯電話事業者等への要請), Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, December 10, 2007. link
"Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications to make use of filtering function on mobile phones and personal headsets in general mandatory for youth" (総務省、青少年の携帯・PHS利用でフィルタリング機能を原則義務化), December 10th, 2007. link
"Protect kids from crime: Mobile phone filtering, strengthening countermeasures for children" (子どもを犯罪から守れ - 携帯サイトのフィルタリング、子ども向け対策強化), MyCom Journal, December 12, 2007. link
"New cell phone rules eyed to protect kids," Yomiuri Shimbun, Nov. 25, 2007. link
"Head of the Copyrighted Work Circulation Promotion Department of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology indicates view that outlawing of illegal downloads is 'unavoidable'" (ダウンロード違法化は「やむを得ない」、文化庁著作権課が見解示す), Internet Watch, December 18, 2007. link
Takeyoshi Yamada, "Final Blow to File Sharing? Japan's Gov't to Revise Copyright Law," TechOn, December 19, 2007. link
"Economics of the 'Illegal' Download," Global Voices Online, December 23, 2007. link
"Japanese Panel Pushes Ban on Illegal Downloads Forward," Anime News Network, December 20, 2007. link
"The why of the 'outlawing of downloads' despite a great number of opposing views" (反対意見多数でも「ダウンロード違法化」のなぜ), IT Media, December 18, 2007. link
"7500 comments collected regarding illegal download legislation, Private Music and Video Recording Subcommittee" (ダウンロード違法化などに7,500件の意見集まる、私的録音録画小委員会), November 28, 2007. link
"Opposing views against 'outlawing illegal downloads', but ... the gap between 'copyright holders' and 'users'" (「ダウンロード違法化」に反対意見集まるが…… 埋まらぬ「権利者」vs.「ユーザー」の溝), IT Media, November 28, 2007. link
Article title translations by gyaku.
November 19, 2007
Internet UNder Attack
Source: IntelStrike - Dana Gabriel
The United Nations control freaks seek to micro-manage all aspects of our lives, and this includes the Internet.
Many have used the Internet as an instrument of truth to counter the spin, lies, and disinformation spewed by the mainstream media. That is not to say that everyone in the alternative media can be trusted, and furthermore, the Internet is also being used to spread government propaganda.
The mainstream media and government are so intertwined, and often the media simply parrots and toes the line.
In many cases, the Internet gives the other side of the story with different points of view which encourage critical thinking on important issues of the day, where as the corporate media caters to the dumb-downed public. More and more people are moving to the web for their source of news and entertainment, and in the process are abandoning television and newspapers altogether. Even with all its imperfections, the Internet is truly one of the last havens of free speech and offers an alternative to the corporate-controlled media. Attacks are coming from all directions, and there is a desire by some to shut down the Internet under its current format, and curb, control, and further restrict its access.
The Internet has become a vast worldwide infrastructure which more and more people rely on in their everyday lives. It is a free market of ideas and creativity, and has accelerated our capacity to share information. In the process it has challenged the mainstream media's monopoly on news gathering and has lead to unpopular legislation being defeated that might not have been otherwise. That is not to say that you should believe or trust everything you read on the Internet, but there are many creditable and well-researched sites and archived news information.
The Internet has become a force in politics, and no where is that more apparent than Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's campaign. It has been used to rally grassroots support and volunteers, and raise substantial amounts of money. There is also a lot of fear-mongering surrounding the net as many are warning that it is struggling to survive under the strain of technical limitations. There has been much speculation that Internet 2, which is used by universities working side by side with government and industry, could replace the current format. The Internet of today poses a threat to any illegitimate government, and the stage is being set to hand over its control to the United Nations.
The UN wishes to end U.S. control of the Internet, and at the same time silence many who oppose its agenda of world governance.
At the 2006 World Summit on the Information Society, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was created as a permanent standing body. The Internet of today is run by a non-governmental organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which has the task of managing the assignment of domain names and IP addresses. They do not decide who can and cannot access the Internet, and there is a genuine fear that shifting ICANN control over to the UN could facilitate censorship of the web. The IGF recently met in Brazil, and is being used by the UN to achieve control of the Internet in an effort to standardize legislation and fund their world government through a series of global taxes.
The UN has talked about keeping the world safe from SPAM, cyber crime, terrorists, increasing Internet access to the third-world, and instituting a global e-mail taxation system.
A ban on taxing the Internet in the U.S. recently received a seven year extension. Some are warning that UN control could lead to a slower and more expensive Internet. Any challenges and problems that face the Internet cannot be solved by the UN or any another global entity.
That is not to say that the Internet is perfect the way it is now, but I would take the status quo over UN control.
By controlling the Internet, the UN could severely restrict information, silence free speech, and quell dissent.
China's massive censorship of the web is the UN model.
The Heritage Foundation said of UN control of the net,
“it would give meddlesome governments the opportunity to censor and regulate the medium until its usefulness as a vehicle for freedom of expression and international competition is crippled.”
An Internet governed and managed by the UN would represent a serious threat to our freedom, sovereignty, economy, and security.
China has been leading the charge to further globalize Internet control, their technological capabilities have further enabled them to track and restrict access and they have exported such tools to other countries. Companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo are also accomplices in Chinese Internet censorship, and their involvement and complacency illustrates how this could be achieved anywhere. Recently, Yahoo settled a case with two Chinese journalists who were jailed for ten years as a result of information of their on line activities provided to Chinese authorities. Google is hypocritical as they state that Internet censorship is a threat to their business, yet censor their own website in China. Asia director of Human Rights Watch, Brad Adams said,
“When companies like Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google decide to put profits from their Chinese operations over the free exchange of information, they are helping to kill that dream.”
Many western computer companies are providing filtering equipment to the Communist Chinese government, and are aiding to suppress free speech and political activism, which is leading to the further control and management of information.
In China, there are divisions inside the police department whose task is to delete any information they find harmful that could challenge the system and impede social stability. Chinese President HU Jintao said that Internet cultural units need to,
“take on the responsibility of encouraging development of a system of core socialist values.”
There is no room for dissenting voices, and thus access to many political websites has been blocked or is content-censored. Bloggers are being targeted, and any breaking news that has not been reported by the official government media is also blocked and censored. Thousands of Internet cafes have been closed, and there are even pop-ups that worn users not to access unapproved sites. Amnesty International campaign director Tim Hancock said,
“The Chinese model of an Internet that allows economic growth but not free speech or privacy is growing in popularity, from a handful of countries five years ago to dozens of governments today who block sites and arrest bloggers.”
There is an agenda by some to further tighten surveillance and restrict access to the Internet around the world.
Many other countries besides China are filtering Internet content in areas of politics, religion, and sex. Any effort to curb hate speech could constitute a ban on any speech the government disapproves of or fears.
In late September, a bill was introduced in Australia's Parliament that would give the police the power to control which sites can and cannot be accessed. In Malaysia, there are new rules where by bloggers can be held without trial indefinitely. Many bloggers are being prosecuted using terrorism laws. Much of the control aimed at the Internet centers around terrorism, with the aim of preventing terrorists from using it as a tool to further achieve their goals. A definition of the terrorists could include anyone who criticizes the government. With the advent of the alternative and independent media, and bloggers alike, the days of media blackouts are a thing of the past.
In many cases, they are breaking more stories than the mainstream media.
For many, the Internet is the only true source of uncensored news and opinion. The battle for the Internet rages on with freedom of speech hanging in the balance.
In his article, 'What The Chinese Style Internet Will Look Like,' PrisonPlanet.Com reporter Paul Joseph Watson said, “
“The new Internet will be nothing more than an electronic police state, merely acting as a tool for authorities to track down and incarcerate dissidents who dare question the government.”
The United Nations is undermining our sovereignty, independence, and security. They seek to control the environment as well as the oceans of the world through the Law of the Sea Treaty. The U.N. wishes to institute a global ban on guns, and the disarming of the population can only be seen as tyrannical. It is not surprising that they also wish to control the free-flow of information on the Internet as it has been used as a weapon in the info war and has sparked a mass awaking. Many are using the Internet as a resource tool that has lead to countless research and investigations that demand real answers.
This is exactly why the global elite want the Internet controlled, much like it is in China. It would mean the end of free speech on the web, and any site that criticizes the government. The days of the Internet as we now know it are numbered.
SPECIAL REPORT: Turning The Police State Apparatus Against Dissenters
Second major phase of the coordinated destruction of freedom in America targets those who refuse to go along with it
Take the time to read this in its entirety. The links are very good.
I took the time to watch the video of the Congressional hearings which
was very shocking.
Sure, I get labelled a "conspiracy THEORIST"; I USED TO BE Called a Moonbat on certain websites before that.
But somehow, seeing that video, whereby lots of Israelis drop by the US CONgress to attack those who are merely indulging in FREE SPEECH is highly shocking.
This blog is loaded with EVIDENCE that the DoD is WAY out of control. The US is a victim of its OWN addiction to power; its gotten "drunk" on its ability to produce weapons, regalia and the trappings of empire.
People are left traumatized and upset that their lives have spun so far out of control and are still scratching their heads wondering what has befallen them. That is in the WESTERN world.
Those of us who examine the DOTS on a daily basis (and I am slow to connect them as I can possibly be - and that's getting more and more difficult I'll tell ya) - are in a sort of state of panic as we watch what is happening.
The internet is loaded with cointel pro agents, deliberate $chills who come and post their windups to make you say stoopid things in retalliation and twist the simplist of moral convictions into something that looks like you are a moron rather than the thinking person that you are. This has been heightened over the past summer: I really detected a major shift during the Andrew Meyer "incident" - remember Andrew Meyer, tasared for asking a question of John Kerry?? Of course, you do.
A clamp down on the internet is the LAST thing people need. More and more people are FED UP with the newspapers, the radio, and the TELEVISION networks' constant drumming of infortainment and corrupted news stories -- and the internet is more alive than ever before.
These new internet controls (and they are coming! via your friendly ISP!) are very frightening. I feel threatened myself that one day I will wake up and this blog will have disappeared OR that my ISP will totally disallow me to post anything THEY deem unacceptable. Surely ISPs are no experts on free speech! Even some lawyers don't seem to grasp that simple coancept; why would a telecom??
So read this and check out these links BEFORE you aren't ABLE to read them as you will be PREVENTED from doing so, as they are in the territory of the "unacceptable" and are now TERRORIST enhancing!!
SPECIAL REPORT: Turning The Police State Apparatus Against Dissenters Second major phase of the coordinated destruction of freedom in America targets those who refuse to go along with it
A sustained media propaganda campaign in support of the move to swing the apparatus of tyranny away from phantom Muslim terrorists and towards the American people is in full operation and may pave the way for further attacks on US soil to be blamed on dissenting Americans who speak out against the war and the rise of the domestic police state.
Over the past decade we have witnessed an extreme acceleration of the physical implementation of a framework and infrastructure ready to receive those who will not go along with a coordinated destruction of traditional American values and freedom. With 9/11 came the first opportunity of the 21st century to radically alter the mentality of America and introduce a new order of society.
The corporate media is now preparing the psyche of the American public for a second major shift. This time the effort will be to direct the understanding of the manufactured and fraudulent "war on terror", away from "Islamofascists" and "Al Qaeda" and towards dissenting American citizens.
Over the past month or so we have highlighted this ongoing propaganda campaign in the following articles:
Establishment "news" hacks such as Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and Limbaugh are raising the same talking point ad infinitum, dubbing the global truth movement, along with the anti-war movement, as "anarchists" and violent individuals who are aiding terrorists.
In the event of another attack on US soil, an army of Neo-Cons secretly sharing the same fetish, would revel in exploiting a hollow opportunity to say "we told you so," even at the expense of thousands of dead dads, moms, sons, daughters and babies.
"But these are just the mindless frothings of talking heads looking for ratings" some might say. When you take them in context with the ongoing actions of the government, however, a clearer more deadly picture emerges.
The propaganda coincides with a House Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing on "Terrorism and the Internet" held last week, broadcast on C-Span, which featured a panel of "experts", including representatives formerly of the RAND Corporation and the Simon Wiesenthal Center who presented 9/11 truth websites sites alongside sites that celebrate the attacks and offer training in terrorist tactics.
Past legislation written up and in many cases implemented by the Bush administration has completely cleared the path for the targeting of American citizens as "enemy combatants" and systematically destroyed the Bill Of Rights. Here is a brief re-cap on some of that legislation:
Back in July this year this vaguely worded EO was signed and acts as an amendment to the National Emergencies Act. It states that any American citizen who "threatens the peace and stability of Iraq and undermines efforts to promote reconstruction and reform" there may have all their property and interests seized by the Treasury department without warning. Many within the anti-war movement have viewed this as a move to target protesters. it certainly is the case that anti-war protesters have been heavily surveilled by the FBI, the NSA and the Pentagon at meetings and rallies as many mainstream sources have reported this year.
HR 6166 - Military Commissions Act
Slamming the final nail in the coffin of everything America used to stand for, the boot-licking U.S. Senate gave President Bush the legal authority to abduct and sexually mutilate American citizens and American children in the name of the war on terror in passing the Military Commissions Act and officially ending Habeas Corpus in September 2006.
There is nothing in the "detainee" legislation that protects American citizens from being kidnapped by their own government and tortured.
The New York Times stated that the legislation introduced, "A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted."
Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times, "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."
Similarly, law Professor Marty Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."
Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v. of the bill contains a definition of "wrongfully aiding the enemy" which labels all American citizens who breach their "allegiance" to President Bush and the actions of his government as terrorists subject to possible arrest, torture and conviction in front of a military tribunal. Section 950j of the bill also preemptively criminalizes any challenge to the legislation's legality by the Supreme Court or any United States court and allows the use of torture that is, "incidental to lawful sanctions."
John Warner Defense Authorization Act
The Bush Junta quietly "tooled up" to utilize the U.S. military in engaging American dissidents after the next big crisis, with a frightening and overlooked piece of legislation that was passed alongside the Military Commissions Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which greased the skids for armed confrontation and abolishes posse comitatus.
Martial Law Presidential Decision Directive 51
New legislation signed on May 9, 2007, declares that in the event of a "catastrophic event", the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.
The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, which also places the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic "security", was signed earlier this month without the approval or oversight of Congress and seemingly supercedes the National Emergency Act which allows the president to declare a national emergency but also requires that Congress have the authority to "modify, rescind, or render dormant" such emergency authority if it believes the president has acted inappropriately.
The party line often heard from Neo-Cons in their attempts to defend the Patriot Act either circulate around the contention that the use of the Patriot Act has never been abused or that it isn't being used against American citizens. Here is an archive of articles that disproves both of these fallacies.
The Patriot Act was the boiler plate from which all subsequent attacks on the Constitution were formed.
USA Patriot Act II
The second Patriot Act was a mirror image of powers that Julius Caesar and Adolf Hitler gave themselves. Whereas the First Patriot Act only gutted the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and seriously damaged the Seventh and the Tenth, the Second Patriot Act reorganized the entire Federal government as well as many areas of state government under the dictatorial control of the Justice Department, the Office of Homeland Security and the FEMA NORTHCOM military command.
The Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003, also known as the Second Patriot Act is by its very structure the definition of dictatorship.
The once covert but now exposed "anti-terror" domestic wiretapping program has proven that the Bush administration has targeted American citizens in the "war on terror":
"Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials," reported the New York Times on December 16, 2005
The secret warrantless spying program was a complete violation of both the 4th Amendment and FISA.
Not content with now being lawfully allowed to force ISP's and cell phone companies to turn over data about customers without a warrant, the Bush administration pushed for even more authority to spy on American citizens, and was handed a 6 month window this August within which to impose any surveillance policy it likes, and for that program to remain legal in perpetuity.
These types of programs are not new of course, precursors such as COINTELPRO and many other incarnations of the same kind of surveillance programs have been targeting American citizens for decades.
Getting rid of Posse Comitatus - Setting the precedent
“In a police state the police are national, powerful, authoritarian. Inevitably, national governments yield to the temptation to use the military to do the heavy lifting….once the military is used, however minor initially, the march toward martial law … becomes irresistible.” - Representative Ron Paul of Texas - June 25 1997.
The Posse Comitatus Actis a recognition that the framers of the constitution had a deep distrust of centralized power, particularly centralized military power that might be used against the people. State militias were preferred over a national army. In times of major disaster or emergency, it has been state governors - not the president - who call out that state's contingent of the national guard.
We have witnessed over a long period of time how Posse Comitatus is systematically being erased. After 9/11 this was particularly accelerated. All the so called "experts" were calling for changes to long standing laws, in order to "protect" us. This led to scores of lower level government officials pleading for exactly what the criminal elements higher up wanted all along.
"Our way of life has forever changed," wrote Sen. John Warner, R-Va., in a letter last month to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Should this law now be changed to enable our active-duty military to more fully join other domestic assets in this war against terrorism?"
So let's get this right, "terrorists" attack us because they "hate our freedoms" and the answer is to get rid of our freedoms?
Here's another mainstream report from 2002 documenting a senators call to abolish Posse Comitatus and let troops arrest US civilians.
But before the war on terror it was clear that there was preparation afoot for such eventualities. Nothing is under review, this has always been the agenda. They were erasing Posse Comitatus 14 Years Ago. In 911: The Road to Tyranny Alex Jones presents footage of troops training to put Americans into Concentration Camps. This footage includes interrogations and a retired Marine admitting that in 1988 he was kicking down doors in Norfolk, Virginia. The Marines would be ordered to the local Police station where they would don Police uniforms. They would then go to the local gun shop or dealers home and "Take Them Down."
In Alex Jones' feature Police State 2000he covers Operation Urban Warrior where actors posed as American citizens who were Unconstitutionally seized from their homes by the military and police. These Americans: were rounded up and confined behind barbed-wire.
The actors were told to demand to be let free and state that they had rights. They were also told to demand food and water. The troops in turn were taught to ignore them and to order them to behave in an orderly fashion. "Civil disobedience will not be tolerated" was one of the many disturbing statements heard to emanate from the military's loud speakers.
Over the years there have been countless drills of this nature. The media simply reports them as training for dealing with foreign enemies, yet the volunteers and the participants are always told differently.
In 2005 details of just one of many Military operations on American soil was exposed in the run up to Bush's second coronation. A secret counterterrorism program code-named Power Geyser. A small group of super-secret commandos were hidden among 13000 police and troops and "stood ready with state-of-the-art weaponry to swing into action.".
There have been literally thousands of these kind of operations in the planning and going on for years now. Many designed to use the military on the streets of American cities in direct violation of Posse Comitatus. The Pentagon has a full Command in operation working on these activities, the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).
Whilst Studying US COIN (Counter Insurgency) doctrine at University I was subjected to weekly showings of videos where military operations were carried out in purpose built mock American towns and cities. We were also informed of how future Counter Insurgency would be predominantly conducted from Military bunkers as they had developed the technology to map out entire cities to pinpoint accuracy from satellite images. The cities in the prototypes were of course all American cities.
I remember asking the lecturer what the point was in developing this technology for use in foreign insurgency wars in places such as the mountains of Afghanistan, and why were the drills and testing of the technology being carried out purely in American towns and cities. The answer was of course that in the event of a major terror attack on US soil these types of things would go into operation. The Pentagon does indeed have "War Plans" drafted in the event of any type of terror attack, which would be coordinated by Northcom in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security and would involve martial law and thousands of troops on the streets.
According to respected military affairs analyst William Arkin, Northcom has defined three levels of operations, each of which triggers a larger set of authorized activities. The levels are "extraordinary", "emergency" and "temporary". During emergencies, the military can provide similar support, mostly in response to specific events such as the attacks on the World Trade Center. It is only in the case of extraordinary domestic operations that the unique capabilities of the Defense Department are deployed. These include not just such things as air patrols to shoot down hijacked planes or the defusing of bombs and other explosives, but also bringing in intelligence collectors, special operators and even full combat troops.
But as Arkin's article makes clear, Northcom is doing more than mere coordinating. "Under the banner of 'homeland security', the military and intelligence communities are implementing far-reaching changes that blur the lines between terrorism and other kinds of crises and will break down long-established barriers to military action and surveillance within the US."
He also said the Pentagon reviewed the Posse Comitatus Act and determined that it would not be a violation to deploy the National Guard to protect critical infrastructure in some circumstances. He said he expects more presidential directives in the future to expand the military's homeland defense role.
Then of course we have General Tommy Franks stating that a major terror attack on US soil would mean the constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.
Some say this is nothing new. In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2005, former US senator Gary Hart said American founders "created such an army and called it the militia: citizen-soldiers under the immediate command of the various states that can be deployed in times of emergency. Since the late 19th century these militias have been known as the National Guard, and they were created and given constitutional status as the first responders and the first line of defense in the case of an attack on our homeland".
This is clearly an alteration of reality. The reason why the founding fathers employed militias and later created Posse Comitatus was that they knew a centralized national army could be used in a future environment to take over the country and take away the rights of everyone.
Police State infrastructure - Already in place (and in use) FEMA, Northcom and the tools of tyranny
We have further exposed how the infrastructure for a martial law police state is already in place, and in many cases is in use. We have a whole archive on the revelations that FEMA has concentration camps set up and ready to go in the event of any emergency that is deemed suitable for their use. As we have also seen recently, these camps need not have barbed wire and observation towers, they can simply be well guarded sports stadiums.
In May 2006, we also exposed the existence of a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to "obey the government" in preparation for the implementation of martial law, property and firearm seizures, mass vaccination programs and forced relocation.
A whistleblower who was secretly enrolled into the program told us that the feds were clandestinely recruiting religious leaders to help implement Homeland Security directives in anticipation of a potential bio-terrorist attack, any natural disaster or a nationally declared emergency.
Though some doubted the accuracy of this report at the time due to its fundamentally disturbing implications, the story was later confirmed by a KSLA 12 news report, in which participating clergy and officials admit to the existence of the program.
Watch the video:
Please note that this video is often removed once we highlight it in articles, we encourage readers to circulate it on the web. Search youtube with this link for an alternative should the above video be removed.
A cursory re-cap of the actions of FEMA in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita two years ago also reveals how the infrastructure of the police state can and has been turned on American citizens.
FEMA deliberately sabotaged relief efforts in New Orleans, making things worse than need be.
The federal government illegally initiated total gun confiscation of law abiding citizens and forcibly removed them from their property in New Orleans. Federal forces led criminal gangs of police in an America-killing gun grab.
Along with forced gun grabs and evacuation, we have further exposed the intricacies of the operative federalized Police State, with the presence of foreign troops, SWAT teams, privately employed security mercenaries, the treatment of citizens as "insurgents" and evacuees as "internees" and the euthanization and inoculation of survivors.
The bottom line on Katrina is that whether you believe it was all incompetence or part incompetence and part malevolence, the lasting pretext is the same. When a disaster takes place, you have no rights and the federal government can arrest you if you don’t follow their every order.
FEMA clearly used the human catastrophe in New Orleans as a means of executing its decade long plans and providing the pretext for future takeover scenarios of all major American cities.
FEMA is not an elected body, it does not involve itself in public disclosures, and it even has a quasi-secret budget in the billions of dollars. It has more power than the president of the United States or the congress, it has the power to suspend laws, move entire populations, arrest and detain citizens without a warrant and hold them without trial, it can seize property, food supplies, transportation systems, and can suspend the constitution. Not only is it the most powerful entity in the United States, but it was not even created under constitutional law by the congress.
In the aftermath of the hurricanes the police state was touted as the savior. So called "Homeland security experts" called for federal troops that don't need 72 hours for call-up, as some National Guard units require, capable of dropping into a disaster zone as the damage is being done, rather than afterward. The media called for the TOTAL FEDERALIZATION of America.
It was federalization and the criminal negligence and sabotage on the part of the feds that caused the mass disruption in New Orleans, yet the call was for MORE federalization? The call was for troops on our streets, stopping traffic, searching people, seizing property and making arrests?
The desperate call went up for "military authorities" to supersede "civilian authorities". When did we stop being people and become "civilians"?
FEMA executive orders have been paving the way for the police State for many years. For a full synopsis of FEMA's executive orders in light of hurricane Katrina, click here.
FEMA is not the only entity central to the continuing crackdown on American dissenters. After Katrina and before Rita, George W Bush canceled a scheduled trip to Texas and instead visited Colorado Springs, Colorado and the U.S. Northern Command Headquarters.
Our sources informed us at that time that far from this being a change of plan, Bush was visiting Northcom to be witness to a martial law takeover drill which was directly connected to Granite Shadow, which the Washington Post reported, "is yet another new Top Secret and compartmented operation related to the military’s extra-legal powers regarding weapons of mass destruction. It allows for emergency military operations in the United States without civilian supervision or control.
A joint task force for Rita was being created under the jurisdiction of NorthCom. Operating out of Austin Texas, in liaison with NorthCom in Colorado, under the command of Army Lt. Gen. Robert Clark. A "standing joint force headquarters" was established in Austin, Texas.
Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff subsequently classified Hurricane Rita as an "incident of national significance," which justifies the activation of a so-called "National Response Plan"(NRP).
As Michael Chossudovsky pointed out in his article on this, The National Response Plan (NRP) is effective upon issuance with a phased implementation process during the first year. During the first 120 days of this implementation process, the Initial NRP (INRP), Federal Response Plan (FRP), U.S. Government Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations Plan (CONPLAN), and Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP) remain in effect. (For further details, consult the complete document at http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRPbaseplan.pdf
So essentially, the period of time during which the NRP would be in operation would extend far beyond the emergency period in the disaster area. In all likelihood, the NRP would modify the functions of civilian government.
The Washington Post reported that The Northern Command would be the lead agency in domestic terror response. The Pentagon "has devised its first-ever war plans for guarding against and responding to terrorist attacks in the United States, envisioning 15 potential crisis scenarios and anticipating several simultaneous strikes around the country, according to officers who drafted the plans."
Northcom has a history of calling for the end of Posse Comitatus and officials there seem to be hell bent upon a military takeover. Head of Northcom Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart was quoted in the New York Times in 2002 as saying
"My view has been that Posse Comitatus will constantly be under review as we mature this command, as we do our exercises, as we interact with FEMA, F.B.I., and those lead federal agencies out there,"
This is precisely the point, the erosion of Posse Comitatus has been ongoing for a long time. As revealed earlier in this report, military takeover drills and exercises have been in operation for years.
Eberhart has also said that he is anxious to use new technology, including unmanned surveillance blimps cruising at 70,000 feet and Predator drones scanning American coastlines.
The general said it was also possible that the North American Aerospace Defense Command would expand beyond the United States and Canada to include Mexico.
"To defend this nation, we have to defend as far out as possible...Therefore we need the support of Canada and Mexico to be able to defend our interests."
A recent Council On Foreign Relations document corroborates this proposed move. The 59-page CFR document spells out a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."
The document entitled "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, then Mexican President Vicente Fox, and then Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal when they met at Bush’s ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.
So there we have Orwell's Oceania coming to pass. A unionized Americas under the control of a military dictatorship.
Over the years we have also exposed the development of other police State weapons that make Tasers look like water pistols. See this article on The Pentagon's secret scream sonic devices that can inflict pain--or even permanent deafness. These type of devices that are routinely used in Iraq were also used in New Orleans in the Hurricane Katrina aftermath.
The use of unmanned drone aircraft was also documented in New Orleans, since then such craft have been flown over American soil and are now routinely used by the Department of Homeland security. Again, such weapons are being used not only in foreign reconnaissance but also domestically for spying on "civillians" and controlling crowds. Industry representatives are enthusiastic about the drones' potential.
"I believe we will see Predator and Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) watching over major events, such as the Olympic Games and the Super Bowl, in the not-too-distant future," Brad Brown, then-president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International wrote.
Alex Jones' 2004 film Martial Law: Rise of the Police State also documents the use of huge corporate sponsored surveillance blimps. The Department of Homeland Security is developing 900 ft long so called "Super Blimps" for surveillance, intended to fly about 65,000 feet, well above commercial airliner traffic.
We have also documented the rise in use of the national guard to break up public events. On multiple occasions we have carried stories, photos and video of tanks and armed troops on the streets of America. Such deployments are used not only to break up protests, but even something as insignificant as a rave in a field.
Future technology under development includes robot police that have the ability to run. Its like we are living in the Twilight Zone or in a futuristic dystopian film. Yet when you mention these kind of things to people they either don't believe you or simply laugh at you. Well here's a wake up call, IT'S THE YEAR 2007, not 1947, and these things are real and in place.
Winning the "war on terror"
The infrastructure is in place, the propaganda campaign to target American dissenters is well underway as eluded to at the beginning of this report, so what constitutes "winning" this "war on terror" for the criminal cabal heading the government?
Back in September 2006, we reported on a White House strategy document for "winning the war on terror," in which conspiracy theorists were targeted as a wellspring of terrorism. The document threatens to "address" and "diminish" the problems they are causing the government in fulfilling their agenda.
The document states that terrorism springs from "subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation," and that "terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda."
Bush referred to the strategy paper as "an unclassified version of the strategy we've been pursuing since September the 11th, 2001," that takes into account, "the changing nature of this enemy."
The Neo-Con talking heads announcing that anti-war protesters and 9/11 truthers are in league with terrorists are actually parroting White House propaganda handed down to them by the Bush administration.
You can even trace the legacy right back to Bush's November 10, 2001 speech to the U.N., in which he said that "outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th" should not be tolerated.
For years we have warned that the police state is coming, how Martial Law will become the norm, how ancient laws, rights and freedoms are being overturned and replaced with repressive mechanisms of control. We warned how the mechanisms of the police state would be turned onto the average Americans who refused to go along with it.
For years we have presented the evidence, the Army War College documents, the domestic military takeover drills, the draconian legislation, officials left right and centre calling for more centralized military control domestically.
For years people refuted the evidence, or passed it off as being intended for something else, or simply refused to believe it. Now everything we warned you about is happening.
In the wake of recent natural disasters on American soil, dangerous precedents have been set. We have been forced to watch how in times of crisis we must submit and follow the orders of Federal Commanders, no matter whether they deny us basic human rights or not.
Now the propaganda is flowing in full force, media heads are attacking and labeling as terrorists anyone who stands up against the new order, including Ron Paul and his supporters.
But as sure as night follows day the propaganda is also intended to frighten and silence a hotbed of dissent and exposure that has exploded into a mainstream movement and kept freedom in America alive in the 21st century.
Website:http://www.MoveToAmend.orgMission:We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
* Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
* Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
* Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.
Company Overview:
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, The People rule.
I. Powers and Rights Reserved To We the People, Never Delegated or Violated Without Consent
A. The People are expressly defined as human beings and does not refer to corporations or contractual relationships.
B. No contract, agreement, or promise may ever bind any human to refuse to enforce the law, or prohibit them from speaking on matters of public interest.
C. We the People may believe anything, including the possible belief that this Constitution must be discarded and replaced with a superior document which defends the People and protects their power to enforce this Constitution against the Government.
D. The People are educated to apply the lessons of history to ensure rights are preserved, power asserted, and this Constitution is protected from domestic and foreign enemies.
E. The People have the enforceable right and power to review any public document and access any public official.
F. The People have the enforceable right to engage in any speech, communication, or discussion on issues of war crimes, government incompetence, or allegations of reckless government planning and maladministration.
G. Government officials, agencies, departments may not invoke any power or right they have denied to the People.
H. The People have the right to affordable housing. Where none is available, the government is denied the power to prosecute anyone for not living in a home, or residing in a public park, open forest, or public lands.
I. The People have the enforceable right to freely travel, without questions, and without delay. Any law enforcement officer, agents, or contacted security official who uses any ruse, scheme, or deception to engage in pretextual stops shall be enforced as a violation of this Constitution.
J. The People have the enforceable right to compel govenment officials, contractors, and securty personnel to identify themselves, disclose their policies and procedures, and respond to complaints about violations of this Constitution, the Supreme Law, or laws of war.
K. The People may not be subject to any electronic surveillance except on probable cause and a warrant before a judicial tribunal. The President, Congress and others are expressly denied the power to enact, create, use, or rely on quasi-judicial tribunals to self-certify warrants to conduct surveillance.
L. All denied powers to the US Government in this Constitution are reserved to the People to be used to defend the Constitution.
II. Powers and Rights Reserved to States
A. States shall have authority to enforce any law within their jurisdiction. Failure to enforce the laws of war shall be prosecuted as a war crime.
B. States shall, when the Federal Government refuses to enforce the Constitution or Supreme Law, enforce the national and international law against contractors, legal counsel, state or US government officials.
C. Any state may start impeachment investigations or proceedings against the President, Member of Congress, or US government official on issues of international laws of war, domestic rebellion, or violations of the Supreme Law oath of office, or Geneva Conventions. The States shall, upon receipt of an impeachment investigation or conviction from any other state, shall within 10 days debate that resolution. If convicted by 2/3 of the States, that US government official shall be removed from office. Any effort to thwart State efforts to enforce the US Constitution through impeachment investigations or impeachment proceedings at the State level may be construed as a subsequent violation of this Constitution and laws of war.
D. The States may, without notice, organize themselves to collectively defend this Constitution from the domestic enemies in the United States government. The States Governors have the standing power, right, and authority to use deadly combat force to enforce this Constitution against US government officials.
E. A failure of any State official to enforce the laws of war shall be subject to a war crimes trial within 90 days of discovering that evidence. Where there are credible allegations of war crimes, a failure to investigate shall be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty.
F. States have the power to enforce contract obligations between contractors and the US government which affect the rights of their State citizens. Failure to enforce these contractual obligations against the contractors or US government could be construed as a subsequent violation under the laws of war and US Constitution against legal counsel, state officials, or court officers.
III. Independent Branch
A. All US government, contractor-provided, and legal counsel data shall be retained in an independent branch.
B. The President, Congress, and Judicial branches have no power, right or claim to not fully fund this Independent Branch.
C. The Independent Branch conducts electronic surveillance of the US government, stores that data, and ensures there are independent, safe, retained records of all US government transaction, including conversations and memos between legal counsel and government officials. Once created for the government or connected with any legal or illegal activity, these records are public records.
D. The data may be seen only upon a showing of reasonable belief or suspicion by the United States Congress, Court, or Executive Branch that the information may be useful in enforcing the Constitution, Supreme Law, or Geneva Conventions.
E. Private citizens may view any data, unless the US government provides sufficient, detailed evidence why that request for information should not be met for bonafide, lawful secrets. Any effort to hide evidence behind a claim of "state secrets," where that claim is linked with an effort to bypass the Constitution, oath of office, Supreme Law, or laws of war may be punishable by the death penalty.
F. All government data belongs to the People. Any legal counsel working for the US government shall ensure that the People's right to reliable information is protected. A failure to protect this information could be construed as a war crime.
IV. Prosecutorial Branch
A. All prosecutorial options are denied of the President.
B. The Prosecutorial branch has the power to raise independent combat power, support them, and may lawfully use that deadly combat force to confront Members of Congress, the Judicial Branch Officers, or the Presidents upon showing of probable cause for war crimes.
C. The prosecutorial power is the exclusive power of the prosecution branch. However, anyone may make a claim of illegal activity, and enforce the laws of the United States and States respectively. Any effort to block anyone from unilaterally attempting to enforce the laws of war through discovery, investigation, and open discussion of those alleged war crimes shall be construed as a possible subsequent offense under the laws of war.
D. Legal counsel are subject to public review, audit, and can be required, with fair notice, of a requirement to demonstrate before any court their compliance with the laws of war.
E. Legal counsel may be denied authority to conduct discovery during any investigation when that discovery is linked with efforts that would thwart war crimes investigation, enforcement of the Supreme law or Geneva Conventions.
V. Judicial Branch
A. The Judicial Branch is above the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch only in order of precedence. The Judicial Branch is a co-equal branch, and closest to the People and Constitution. It is least responsive, and most slow to the People's daily interests to enforce the Constitution and Supreme Law or Geneva Conventions.
B. Where the Judicial Branch does not timely enforce the Constitution, Supreme Law, or laws of war, the States and People retain the power and right to investigate and prosecute allegations of US government illegal activity, war crimes, or violations of the Supreme law.
C. All precedents under the laws of war are binding on the Judicial Branch, US government, and the People through enforcement actions.
D. Any decision by any judicial officer not to fully enforce the laws of war, Supreme Law, or this Constitution may be construed as a war crime, subject to the death penalty.
VI. Legislative Branch
A. The Legislative Branch is listed after the Judicial Branch because it is less responsive to the People.
B. The Members of Congress may be stopped between sessions and held to account for their failure to enforce the laws of war.
C. Refusing to investigate or impeach the President, Judicial Officers, or any current or former US government official for alleged war crimes, maladministration, illegal warfare, or other crimes against the People, States, or US Government shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to not fully assert ones oath of office, and punishable by the death penalty under the laws of war.
D. There are three chambers to the Congress. The Senate and House have a legal duty to fully enforce the laws. Any decision to not timely review evidence of impeachable offenses, or not investigate war crimes or maladministration could be construed as subsequent offenses under the laws of war.
E. The Superior Chamber shall decide, before any debate, whether the proposed bill is or is not Constitutional. This determination is subject to approval, challenge, and rejection by the People, States, and Judicial Branch.
F. The Congress is denied the exclusive power to make rules. Any rule which prohibits any investigation into alleged malfeasance in re the laws of war, Supreme Law, or oath of office is illegal, and may be construed as a subsequent offense under the laws of war.
G. The Congress shall comply with public audits, and timely provide within 45 days of an audit report a statement of remedy, and outline a plan within 90 days to fully comply with all legal obligations under the Statute, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.
H. The Congress may raise and support an army, and independently order that army only against the President when the President refuses to enforce the laws of war, or comply with his legal obligations under this Constitution.
VII. Executive Branch
A. The Executive Branch is led by three Presidents, co-equal with non-overlapping jurisdictions. The Executive Branch has one power: Executive Power. All actions taken under that one power are lesser authorities not powers. The Executive Branch has no power to create new powers or assign itself broader power.
B. The Executive Branch is listed last because it is the least responsive to the People, and the greatest threat of tyranny to this Constitution. The President is a clerk, not a King or Emperor. The President only manages programs. The President has no power to ignore, rewrite, or refuse to enforce the law. Each of the three Presidents shall have an ongoing requirement to demonstrate to the People and States and Congress and Courts compliance with the Constitution, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.
C. The Domestic Affairs President is responsive to the States and US Government on internal affairs.
D. The Foreign Affairs President shall have exclusive power to interact with foreign powers. The Foreign Affairs President is denied any power to violate the laws of war, or use covert activity against American citizens.
E. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs President are denied the power to thwart any lawful State action to organize with foreign powers and agents to defend the US Constitution, enforce the laws of war, or protect the rights and powers of the People and States against domestic encroachments by the US government, legal counsel, or other US government officials.
F. The Commander in Chief shall only have power to lead combat operations during war time. Congress shall conduct ongoing, public reviews whether the Commander in Chief is or is not competent in managing combat operations. The Presidents and Commander in Chief are denied the power to prohibit Congress from using electronic surveillance or use separately raised and supported armies to conduct this oversight during wartime and peacetime.
G. The Executive Branch is denied the power to block anyone from getting access to illegal activity related to the laws of war.
H. During Peacetime, the Commander in Chief shall periodically cooperate with ongoing Oversight of US combat forces to ensure they are combat ready, fully trained on the laws of war, and prepared to lawfully be used to defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies.
I. The Executive Branch and Presidents and officers, agents, contractors, and personnel are denied the power, right, or authority to order anyone to ignore any statute, law, legal requirement, or obligation under the Constitution.
J. The Executive Branch has no power or authority to directly contact the Legislative Branch by name. The President may only request, not order other branches of government. All Communications between the Executive and Legislative Branch shall pass through the Prosecutorial Branch, and retained in the National Archives. Those records are available for public inspection at any time. The People have the enforceable right to compel the Executive Branch, Legislature, and Judicial Branch to produce documents.
K. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judicial Branch, and Prosecutorial Branch, and States are denied the power to wage warfare, information warfare, or harass American civilians through his agents, combat troops, or third parties in the United states or from overseas. Any funds used for this illegal purpose belong to the People and States. Contracts used to enforce, compel, or organize this illegal activity are not enforceable, and contrary to public policy.
L. The Presidents are denied a presumption of competence until proven. The President shall always have the burden of proof, and is expressly denied a presumption of good faith until demonstrated with overwhelming evidence in public. An election result is not proof of competence nor does it satisfy a presumption of good faith, only of mastery to win an election through legal or illegal methods and deception.
M. The Executive Branch and Presidents and subordinate agency head, contractor, and employees are expressly denied any assurance any conversation he has related to illegal activity, war crimes, unlawful acts, or other threats to the US Constitution shall remain secret behind any shield, scheme, agreement, or technology. Any order a President or anyone gives to anyone to hide, destroy,not provide, or conceal evidence of illegal activity may be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty. This restriction against following illegal orders may not be bypassed by claiming the order was from a non-person, electronic device, or other non-Constitutionally recognized entity, database, policy, guide, or other document.
N. The Presidents are denied the power to use any combat force, technology, or other military weapon or plan against American civilians, except in cases of internal rebellion which only the Congress shall approve in writing. When the Congress fails to act, or abuses its authority, the State Governors may lawfully use deadly combat force to detain and enforce the laws of war prohibiting illegal use of force against American civilians.
O. The Presidents are denied the power to induce any civilian to take any action that might deny them on any Geneva protections as a civilian. Any order, ruse, scheme, propaganda, or unreliable information to induce anyone to wage war, information warfare, or any action to harass civilians is punishable by the death penalty, and may be enforced as a violation of the laws of war.
P. The President, when delegating any power to any agency head, agrees that that agency shall be organized as if it were a separate, lesser, and not coequal branch. Those agencies shall fully cooperate with the other branches of government to ensure power within the branch or department is divided. There is no single agency, division, or office in the Executive Branch that is beyond ongoing oversight by the other four branches.
Q. The President shall have no power to block the Congress, States, Judiciary, Prosecutorial, and Independent Branch from a having co-equal status to oversee, manage, and organize that lesser branch. If the President refuses to substantially comply with that requirement, Congress may not lawfully provide funding for that agency, and the funds return to the States and People.
Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going?
Trying to train the next generation of diplomats what the issues that they will face are, how to survive the coming hard times and how to conduct themselves so that they, unlike most of their role models, DO THE RIGHT THING. They are inheriting a neocon Klusterfuck, are ill prepared and need whatever help they can get.
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
In Alex Jones' feature 
In 2005 details of just one of many Military operations on American soil was exposed in the run up to Bush's second coronation. A secret counterterrorism program code-named 
According to respected 
Northcom has a 
