Imprès des de Indymedia Barcelona :
Independent Media Center
Dll Dm Dc Dj Dv Ds Dg
          01 02
03 04 05 06 07 08 09
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

No hi ha accions per a avui

afegeix una acció

Media Centers
This site
made manifest by
dadaIMC software

Envia per correu-e aquest* Article
Comentari :: antifeixisme
Passed HR 6304 Domestic SPY AMENDMENTS—choke 1st Amendment Rights
23 jun 2008
U.S. House SPY AMENDMENTSâState, Persons Exercising 1st Amendment Rights âMay be Consideredâ? Agents of a Foreign Power.
On June 20th the House sent to the U.S. Senate, H.R. 6304, THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008.

H.R. 6304 EH may be found at:

It not surprising how much time the House of Representatives spent on HR 6304 to give Telecoms immunity after they helped government spy on Americansâ private communications. The greater injustice may be that the House has failed to use strong enough language in HR 6304 to protect the Constitutional rights of lawful Americans. One example among many: the âProbable Causeâ? section in HR 6304 affectively states, a âpersonâ? in the United States who exercises their 1st Amendment RightsââMAY BE CONSIDEREDâ? an agent of a foreign power. See below: its not comprehensible why the House inserted the weak word âmayâ? and failed to insert, e.g., âSHALL NOTâ? which would have been more binding on Government and police not to violate the Constitutional rights of U.S. Citizens.

Following see HR 6304 â(2) Probable Causeâ? section under (C)(Order):

âNo United States person may be considered a foreign power, agent of a foreign power, or officer or employee of a foreign power solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.â?

âMayâ? in the âProbable Causeâ? paragraph above leads readers to believe this provision will actually protect U.S. Citizens from government agents violating their Constitutional rights.

The vague language of THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 should concern U.S. activists who network, especially with groups overseas. For example, the Stop the War Campaign transcends many countries. Some of those countries oppose U.S. policies. After the Senate passes HR 6304, U.S. activists that network internationally might run the risk they âMAY BE CONSIDEREDâ? by U.S. governmentâagents of a foreign power if they support causes with other countries that are opposed by the U.S. Government. Historically it has not been beyond the scope of the U.S. Government to make such charges against Citizens who question government authority.

The FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 will permit massive and broad Government spying on electronic communications coming into and going out of the United States. The U.S. Government may also use broad provisions of the Patriot Act to further its domestic spying.

Perhaps the only thing that has stopped U.S. Government from broadly using telecom assisted wiretap evidence against Americans and corporations was that Telecoms havenât had immunity from being sued by charged criminal and civil asset forfeiture defendants they spy on. That may change after the Senate passes THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 that affectively gives Telecoms Immunity from being sued by persons they spy on. It is more than foreseeable the next battle Americans will have to fight, is how to determine what telecom surveillance can or cannot be used by police against Americans or introduced into court by the Government. Unfortunately HR 6304âs Telecom Immunity provision prohibits most Americans from being able to sue Telecoms to recover their costs of having to hire attorneys to defend against illegal wiretap evidence.

In 2000 after HR1658 was passed by Congress, the âold statute of limitationsâ? died that gave government âfive yearsâ? to seize property from the date a âpropertyâ? was involved in crime or a violation that would subject it to asset forfeiture. Police now have five-years to seize property from âwhenever police claimâ? they learned a âpropertyâ? was made subject to civil asset forfeiture. It should be expected U.S. and cooperating government agencies will start playing those old illegal wiretaps after the Senate passes the House FISA Amendments. It should be expected that about every minute someone will soon hear a law enforcement person say, âLook what I just discovered on that tape!â?

Most property owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture claim an âinnocent owner defense.â? The innocent owner defense can however become a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. A personâs fresh denial to the government when questioned about committing a crime âeven when they didnât do itâ? can âinvoluntarily waiveâ? the right to assert in their defenseâthat the âCriminal Statute of Limitationsâ? has passed for prosecution. Any denial of guilt to the government, even 20 years after an alleged crime was committedâmay allow prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including wiretap evidence and information discovered during a Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeding to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason many innocent property owners are reluctant to risk defending their property against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. Many just give up their property to the government. See Re: waiving your right to assert the Criminal Statute of Limitations: James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579: involves Title 18, section: 1001.

This work is in the public domain

Ja no es poden afegir comentaris en aquest article.
Ya no se pueden añadir comentarios a este artículo.
Comments can not be added to this article any more