Congress Finally Decides NSA Surveillance Violates the Law Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com July 18, 2013
“America has no functioning democracy at this moment,” says Jimmy Carter Congress has finally decided that massive, unprecedented and unwarranted surveillance of the American people conducted by the National Security Agency is against the law. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has broad jurisdiction over matters related to federal criminal law, arrived at the conclusion months after the American people reached a similar conclusion. “We never, at any point in this debate, have approved the type of unchecked, sweeping surveillance of United States citizens employed by our government,” said House fixture John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, during a hearing on the NSA. “If the government cannot provide a clear, public explanation for how its program is consistent with the statute, it must stop collecting this information immediately.” Other committee members have promised to amend the unconstitutional PATRIOT Act and force the NSA to stop its surveillance. Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican and author of the original PATRIOT Act, said it is not likely Congress will reauthorize the business-records collection provision of the act when the law expires in 2015. Fourth Amendment, What Fourth Amendment? James Cole, deputy attorney general at the Department of Justice, insists the NSA’s vacuum cleaner approach to electronic surveillance does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
How so? Well, in 1979, Cole argues, the Supreme Court ruled that telephone records are not private information covered by the Fourth Amendment. Besides, there is a special court for this sort of thing – the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. It was approved by Congress, so bureaucrats believe it is legal. Back in the day, Congress created the FISA and a secret court in response to embarrassing revelations uncovered by the Church Committee investigating intelligence abuses. FISA’s special court is “almost a parallel Supreme Court,” according to David B. Wells and John Wilson Wells, authors of American National Security and Civil Liberties ion an Era of Terrorism. Operation Paul Revere InfoWars.com Contest: The Death of John Doe VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqiDOcE6LE&feature=player_embedded Jimmy Carter Says We Don’t Live in a Democracy Former President Jimmy Carter has come out against NSA surveillance. He characterized Edward Snowden’s leak as “beneficial” for the country. “I think that the secrecy that has been surrounding this invasion of privacy has been excessive, so I think that the bringing of it to the public notice has probably been, in the long term, beneficial,” Carter said. “America has no functioning democracy at this moment,” the former president also said, according to Der Spiegel. Indeed, the United States does not have a functioning democracy. There is plenty of evidence that national elections are rigged and the two-party system – actually a one party system lorded over by a cabal of globalist banksters and fascist corporatists – has a monopoly on political power. NSA surveillance is merely another tool designed to guarantee they stay in power. But then the United States is not supposed to be a democracy. It was intended to be a constitutional republic.
N.J. Supreme Court: Police Need Warrants to Track Cell Phone Salvador Rizzo/The Star-Ledger nj.com July 18, 2013 In a trailblazing decision that expands electronic privacy rights in New Jersey, the state Supreme Court ruled today that law enforcement agencies must get warrants if they want to track crime suspects by tracing the signals from their cell phones. "Cell phones are not meant to serve as tracking devices to locate their owners wherever they may be," Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote in the 7-0 decision. The state’s high court is the first in the country to impose such a ruling, and former state justices and legal experts said the decision could ripple throughout the states and in federal courts wrestling with the same questions on the collection and use of electronic data. Privacy advocates hailed the decision as a major victory for New Jersey residents in an age of wideranging electronic surveillance. In issuing the ruling, the high court sided with Thomas Earls, who was arrested on burglary charges in Monmouth County in 2006. Without obtaining a warrant, the police tracked down Earls with the help of his service provider, TMobile, which gave police his location within one square mile three times in one evening. Rabner wrote that cell phones have evolved to where location signals go out every seven seconds, and police can pinpoint someone’s location "within feet in some instances." Because that information can map out a person’s entire life — from their political activities to their shopping habits — police must get a warrant before seeking it, the court ruled. "People buy cell phones to communicate with others, to use the internet, and for a growing number of other reasons," Rabner wrote. "But no one buys a cell phone to share detailed information about their whereabouts with the police." The justices reversed an appellate court decision that had maintained no warrant was needed because police tracked Earls’s location while he was driving on public roads. Read more
INFOWARS.COM BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND