Donald Trump: establishment trojan horse?

Politics, History, & 'Conspiracy'
User avatar
Winnson
Posts: 2373
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 7:57 am
Reputation: 1284

Re: Donald Trump: establishment trojan horse?

Postby Winnson » Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:36 pm

Remember when the Brits turned the Chinese into a bunch of opioid addicts for tea?

The beat goes on.

For anyone doubting Trump, just listen to him live and unfiltered. 'The Elite' will have to kill him to bring him down.

What's funny is that in a few years, everyone will swear they were on the Trump Train from the beginning. The most honest of us will say maybe we had our doubts, but were pretty sure Trump was the man from the get go.

If you study history, you're a retard. History books are written from what people remember at the time. History is a joke.

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Sat Aug 26, 2017 12:35 am

LOL. Trump was annihilated on Twitter. Sad!

Image



OPINION | Sen. Rand Paul: 16 years on, it's past time to bring our troops home from Afghanistan
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/347393-16-years-on-its-past-time-to-bring-our-troops-home-from

The Trump administration is increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan and, by doing so, keeping us involved even longer in a 16-year-old war that has long since gone past its time.

The mission in Afghanistan has lost its purpose, and I think it is a terrible idea to send any more troops into that war. It’s time to come home now.

Our war in Afghanistan began in a proper fashion. We were attacked on 9/11. The Taliban, who then controlled Afghanistan, were harboring al Qaeda, and after being warned, and after an authorization from Congress, our military executed a plan to strike back. Had I been in Congress then, I would have voted to authorize this military action.

But as is typical, there was significant mission creep in Afghanistan. We went from striking back against those who attacked us, to regime change, to nation-building, to policing their country for them. And we do it all now with an authorization that is flimsy at best, with the reason blurred, and the costs now known. We do it with an authorization that was debated and passed before some of our newest military personnel were out of diapers. This isn’t fair to them, to the American people, or to a rational foreign policy.

The Afghanistan war going beyond its original mission has an enormous cost. First and most important is the cost to our troops. Deaths, injuries and unnecessary deployments causing harm to families are certainly the most important reason as to why you don’t go to wars that aren’t necessary.

Then comes the taxpayer. We have spent over $1 trillion in Afghanistan, and nearly $5 trillion on Middle East wars in the past 15 years. Would we not be better off with $5 trillion less in debt or using these funds in other, more productive ways?

Nation-building should not be our job, and it has consistently been a fool’s errand for us, particularly in this region. There is no reason to believe we can do it in Afghanistan, and certainly no reason to believe we can do it without a permanent, costly presence in the country.

So I strongly disagree with the administration’s actions here. I’ve spoken to the president, and I know he wants to end this war. We’ve all heard him say it. But talk won’t get it done. Although I’ve been informed that the president rejected larger expansions of troops than the one announced this week, that’s not good enough. He should have rejected this one and stuck to his principles. He knows this war is over, and he – unlike the last two presidents – should have the guts to end it for real, on his watch.

Regardless of the argument over the number of troops, I also will insist my colleagues take up a larger argument over the power to declare war. I believe we have allowed the executive to exercise far too much power in recent years.

This is one of the reasons I objected just before the recess when the Senate moved to consider the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I have an amendment that I will insist be considered that would repeal the 2001 AUMF on Afghanistan. That AUMF is outdated, overcome by events, and provides a feeble bit of cover for people who still want to be there.

If the president and my colleagues want to continue the war in Afghanistan, then at the very least Congress should vote on it. I’ll insist they do this fall, and I’ll be leading the charge for “no.”

Image

User avatar
Megaterio Llamas
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:56 pm
Reputation: 2533

Postby Megaterio Llamas » Sat Aug 26, 2017 6:28 am

I suppose that assimilating the mineral wealth of Afghanistan will make for a Greater America.
el rey del mambo

User avatar
Megaterio Llamas
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:56 pm
Reputation: 2533

Postby Megaterio Llamas » Sat Aug 26, 2017 12:35 pm

It seems the warfare state is stripping the so called Bannon brake bare.

OMG! He's not just a nazi, he's a Hungarian!!


Breaking: Sebastian Gorka Resigns From Trump Administration

Sebastian Gorka is resigning his post as Deputy Assistant to President Trump, multiple sources familiar with the situation have told The Federalist.

In a blunt resignation letter, the national security and counterterrorism expert expressed dissatisfaction with the current state of the Trump administration. “[G]iven recent events, it is clear to me that forces that do not support the MAGA promise are – for now – ascendant within the White House,” Gorka wrote. “As a result, the best and most effective way I can support you, Mr. President, is from outside the People’s House.”

“Regrettably, outside of yourself, the individuals who most embodied and represented the policies that will ‘Make America Great Again,’ have been internally countered, systematically removed, or undermined in recent months. This was made patently obvious as I read the text of your speech on Afghanistan this week…

“The fact that those who drafted and approved the speech removed any mention of Radical Islam or radical Islamic terrorism proves that a crucial element of your presidential campaign has been lost…

“Just as worrying, when discussing our future actions in the region, the speech listed operational objectives without ever defining the strategic victory conditions we are fighting for. This omission should seriously disturb any national security professional, and any American who is unsatisfied with the last 16 years of disastrous policy decisions which have led to thousands of Americans killed and trillions of taxpayer dollars spent in ways that have not brought security or victory.”

During his time in the Trump administration, Gorka focused on issues such as countering the Muslim Brotherhood, the crisis in Qatar, supporting efforts to draft a new long-term national security strategy, and combatting China’s economic warfare. Before coming to the White House, Gorka was the Major General Matthew C. Horner Chair at Marine Corps University and also contributed to Breitbart News.

Gorka’s tenure at the White House was marked by unusually vociferous attacks against him and his family by left-leaning media organizations and the Democratic Party. This includes personal attacks against his wife, mother, and son.

A source close to the White House said of his decision, “This was more or less going to be a done deal when Bannon submitted his resignation. Not because he didn’t have a protector, but because there is no point in having your life ruined every day if you’re not going to get much accomplished.” The same source said that what did change after Bannon left was that anti-Bannon factions began erecting bureaucratic road blocks to undermine Gorka internally.

The Forward has written dozens of attack pieces against Gorka, including several attempting to align him with Nazism. Most recently that publication retracted a story about his son’s schoolwork. Gorka strenuously objected to allegations he had ties to Nazi groups in his family’s home country of Hungary, where he had previously been involved in national politics. Even detractors eventually acknowledged the Nazi accusations were unfair smears.

In his letter, Gorka made clear that he believes in the promise of the Trump presidency despite being concerned about its present direction.

“Your presidency will prove to be one of the most significant events in modern American politics. November the 8th was the result of decades during which the political and media elites felt that they knew better than the people who elect them into office. They do not, and the MAGA platform allowed their voices to be heard,” he wrote, adding, “Millions of people believe in, and have chosen, you and your vision of Making America Great Again. They will help eventually rebalance this temporary reality.”

UPDATE: In response to this story, the White House issued a statement that said, “Sebastian Gorka did not resign, but I can confirm he no longer works at the White House.”



http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/25/bre ... istration/
el rey del mambo

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:15 pm

the "Law & Order Candidate"...

Trump, DOJ reverse Obama restrictions on military gear for local police
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/28/trump-doj-reverse-obama-restrictions-on-military-gear-for-local-police.html

Image

The Trump administration on Monday revived a federal program curtailed by former President Barack Obama that allows local police departments to receive surplus military equipment.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the decision at a national convention for the Fraternal Order of Police, one of the groups that had long urged Trump to restore the program, a day after documents obtained by Fox News detailed the plan.

Obama largley ended the program following concerns that armored vehicles and other military surplus gear were inflaming confrontations between police and civilians, particularly after protests and riots in 2014 and 2015 in response to officer shootings of black males.

Sessions told the audience at the convention in Nashville that the restart will "ensure that you can get the lifesaving gear that you need to do your job and send a strong message that we will not allow criminal activity, violence and lawlessness to become a new normal."

The White House later released an executive order formalizing the decision. The order could restore police agencies' access to bullet-proof vests and riot shields -- and also would further the administration's law-and-order agenda, a component of which is reducing violent crime by giving local police more resources.

The executive order restores "the full scope of a longstanding program for recycling surplus, lifesaving gear from the Department of Defense," according to the documents obtained by Fox News.

Many law enforcement agencies and policing organizations argued they need such equipment, particularly when trying to stop a terror attack. And they point out that an armored vehicle played a key role in the police response to the December 2015 mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif.

However, critics say the program has resulted in the “militarization” of police, arguing that the equipment encourages and escalates confrontations with officers.

Congress authorized the Pentagon program in 1990, allowing police to receive surplus equipment to help fight drugs, which then gave way to the fight against terrorism.

Obama issued an executive order in 2015 that severely limited the program, after public outrage over the use of military gear during protests in Ferguson, Mo., following the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, a black male.

Obama's order prohibited the federal government from providing grenade launchers, bayonets, tracked armored vehicles, so-called “weaponized” aircraft and vehicles, and firearms and ammunition of .50-caliber or greater to police.

"Those restrictions went too far," Sessions said Monday. "We will not put superficial concerns above public safety."

As of December, the agency overseeing the program had recalled at least 100 grenade launchers, more than 1,600 bayonets and 126 tracked vehicles -- those that run on continuous, tank-like tracks instead of wheels -- that were provided through the program.

Trump vowed to rescind the executive order in a written response to a Fraternal Order of Police questionnaire that helped him win an endorsement from the organization of rank-and-file officers.

He reiterated his promise during a gathering of police officers in July, saying the equipment still on the streets is being put to good use.

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund said in a statement Sunday night it is "exceptionally dangerous and irresponsible" for the administration to lift the ban.

Justice Department documents summarizing the order describe much of the gear as "defensive in nature," intended to protect officers from danger.



President Trump announced that he would be removing the restrictions placed by President Obama on transferring military equipment to civilian police departments. Is this being "tough on crime," as he likes to claim, or is it all about controlling the population and undermining civil liberties?

No, the feds shouldn’t give war machines to the police: Senator Rand Paul (8/28/17)
http://nypost.com/2017/08/28/no-the-feds-shouldnt-give-war-machines-to-the-police/

Image

Speaking to the Fraternal Order of Police in Tennessee on Monday morning, Attorney General Jeff Sessions formally announced that the Trump administration will restart giving surplus military weapons and equipment to state and local law enforcement.

That’s a mistake.

What kind of equipment are we talking about? Well, Haverhill, Mass., a town of fewer than 65,000, got a nearly 20-ton Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle. Keene, NH, a town of fewer than 30,000, got an 8-ton armored BearCat. Over 10,000 bayonets have been handed out. Yes, bayonets.

Police work is unquestionably difficult — and often thankless. I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for those who put it all on the line to protect our communities, and I saw their bravery firsthand this summer when Capitol Police officers made all the difference during the attack on our congressional baseball game practice.

To support our local police, we must first realize they aren’t soldiers. But today the line between the two is being eroded.

It’s no surprise you can find big government right at the heart of this problem. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies — where police departments compete to acquire military gear.

Plus, over a third of the “surplus” equipment is new, so it’s disingenuous to portray it as banged-up old stuff lying around the garage.

When we couple militarizing law enforcement with the erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury — national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction asset forfeiture — we see the magnitude of the problem.

National Review’s John Fund has observed: “The proliferation of paramilitary federal SWAT teams inevitably brings abuses that have nothing to do with either drugs or terrorism. Many of the raids they conduct are against harmless, often innocent, Americans who typically are accused of nonviolent civil or administrative violations.”

Fund also notes: “By 2005, at least 80 percent of towns with a population between 25,000 and 50,000 people had their own SWAT team,” and that “the number of raids conducted by local police SWAT teams has gone from 3,000 a year in the 1980s to over 50,000 a year [in 2014].”

Given these developments, it’s natural for many Americans — especially minorities, given the racial disparities in policing — to feel like their government is targeting them. Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice isn’t paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for nonviolent mistakes in their youth.

Our Justice Department should be leading the conversation on reforming the system, not setting it back further.

Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an elusive and dangerous — or false — security. The militarization of our law enforcement is just another symptom of an overall problem that stems from an unprecedented expansion of government power — where we are repeatedly asked to make such “liberty for what we tell you is security” tradeoffs.

Ultimately, if we sacrifice the very nature of the institutions we have set up to enforce the law, what kind of law will we end up enforcing?

When Congress returns, I will reintroduce my Stop Militarizing Our Law Enforcement Act, which will address this issue by prohibiting the federal transfer of militarized equipment to state and local law enforcement, including MRAP vehicles, drones and armored vehicles transferred through the Department of Defense’s 1033, Department of Justice’s Byrne Justice Assistance Grant and Department of Homeland Security’s grant programs.

This prohibition only applies to offensive equipment and not defensive equipment, such as body armor. It’ll increase these programs’ transparency and accountability and also help us find out how federal agencies are using military-style training and equipment.

I have been encouraged by how much progress we have made under President Trump to roll back overzealous government and get unnecessary regulation off the American people’s backs. In cutting onerous regulations, the president has made clear he is listening to the American people.

I urge President Trump and Attorney General Sessions to listen to the concerns Americans have raised regarding police militarization and reconsider their decision.


Senator Rand Paul talks about the influx of police militarization over the past few years has gotten out of control and needs to be reined in. This become a national issue with death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and the local police used military grade vehicles and weapons to combat the unrest and rioting. Paul then asks why the federal government issues bayonets to local police forces across the United States. Paul believes their is absolutely no need for any police force to have bayonets and should be immediately taken off the list of federally supplied police equipment.


Trump, Hypocritically, Moves to Make Temporary Surveillance Powers Permanent
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/trump-hypocritically-moves-make-temporary

Image

President Trump thinks surveillance is just “terrible.”

“You look at the extent of surveillance,” he laments. “Me and so many other people, it’s terrible.”

Given these statements, and Vice President’s Pence’s assertion that the “American people have a right to know if there was surveillance of any private citizen in this country,” you would think that the Trump administration would want to get to the bottom of NSA reform. You would also think that they would demand that the NSA stop its warrantless spying on Americans and figure out how many Americans have been swept up in the agency’s dragnet.

But just this morning, the Trump administration doubled down on surveillance.

In an op-ed penned in The New York Times, the White House said it supports not just an extension but a permanent reauthorization of Section 702 — a surveillance authority that purports to authorize the surveillance of foreigners likely to communicate “foreign intelligence information” but actually surveils millions of Americans without a warrant.

After the op-ed was published, the new administration brazenly thumbed its nose at congressional overseers, Democrats and Republicans alike, reversing its commitment to provide Congress with an estimate of how many Americans have their information collected under Section 702. In a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats unequivocally stated that such information would not be forthcoming, providing no information on what has changed since last year when the intelligence agencies committed to providing it to Congress.

Congress should not take such disdain for its oversight role lightly, and we should not be fooled by the Trump administration’s justifications for its new position. Let’s start with the op-ed, authored by Thomas Bossert, a homeland security adviser to the president. The piece was riddled with errors and attempts to obfuscate.

Bossert fundamentally misconstrues the authority’s impact on Americans’ constitutional rights. One of his main contentions is that:

“…it does not permit the targeting of Americans. The authority expressly forbids intentional targeting of a United States person for surveillance.”

That might be comforting if it told the whole story about Section 702. The reality is that Section 702 was expressly designed to gather information about Americans. Indeed, Bossert admits that the existing law permits the FBI and other federal agencies to search through Section 702 information specifically looking for information about Americans. What he leaves out is that the FBI does this as a routine matter — no warrant or formal investigation required — in cases that have nothing to do with national security or terrorism.

A declassified FISA court opinion from 2011 revealed that the government collected over 250 million internet communications alone under Section 702, the vast majority retained for five years by default. That means that the government likely retains over a billion communications under Section 702 at any given time — and there are estimates that roughly half of these files contain information about an American (which, again, are accessible to law enforcement agencies without a warrant). In light of this, Bossert’s claim that the authority is not about “targeting Americans” rings hollow.

For further effect, he adds a whopper:

“Over nearly a decade of rigorous oversight, no intentional abuse of the Section 702 authority has ever been identified, and the government has quickly taken action to rectify unintentional mistakes.”

In fact, a litany of cases have revealed unlawful activity under Section 702. Just last month, a declassified opinion from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court revealed a series of violations in complying with the law, including unlawful searches of Americans’ information, improper sharing of information with third parties, and a failure to appropriately handle attorney-client communications. The court did not know about many of these problems for years due to what it referred to as an “institutional” lack of candor.

Bossert’s claims are even more unbelievable given that he points to the executive branch’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board as a source of oversight. Currently, the PCLOB has no chair, lacks a quorum, and for all intents and purposes has lain dormant due to the failure of President Trump — and before him, Obama — to appoint nominees.

The next exaggeration:

“…Section 702, allows a federal court to approve and supervise, under specific conditions, the collection of information on foreign persons, in foreign countries, who happen to use American communications services and internet technology.”

The reality is that federal court oversight of Section 702 bears no resemblance to the court oversight applied to criminal investigations or even other forms of surveillance. Under Section 702, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approves — in secret proceedings — the entire Section 702 program annually. The court never probes whether there is individual cause to surveil a specific person. This is akin to a judge signing off on thousands of wiretaps at once, based simply on an examination of the general procedures law enforcement commits to follow.

Finally, Bossert tries to comfort the American people by suggesting that the Trump administration has voluntarily curbed its own surveillance activities.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, we have refined the application of this authority to target only those internet communications sent directly to or from a lawful foreign intelligence target. This smart choice will reduce incidental collection on Americans without sacrificing our security. We proposed, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved, the new procedures, which achieve this goal and protect Americans’ privacy.”

It is true that the intelligence agencies recently adopted a policy limiting their Section 702 Upstream program — in which the government taps into the internet backbone and combs through Americans’ internet traffic for information associated with over 100,000 targets. But what Bossert omits is even more important: The administration has expressly said that it retains the right to restart this program and continues to perform other collection under Upstream.

We cannot rely on President Trump’s NSA to police itself. Members of Congress should reject attempts, such as those contained in Senator Cotton’s most recent bill, to extend or make Section 702 permanent. And we should all raise our voices in demanding meaningful Section 702 reform now.

Trump backs permanent snooping powers he once criticized as abusive
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/7/trump-backs-permanent-snooping-powers-intelligence/

Image

Just months after President Trump complained about being spied on by the Obama administration, his administration is embracing a full permanent extension of the secret snooping powers the government used to track conversations between his campaign aides and Russian operatives.

Mr. Trump’s intelligence and counterterrorism team said Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has saved hundreds of lives by preventing terrorist attacks and insisted — despite Mr. Trump’s claimed experiences — that the law is not being abused.

“Simply put, the use of this authority has helped save lives,” Thomas P. Bossert, President Trump’s top counterterrorism adviser, wrote in an op-ed in The New York Times, announcing support for a bill introduced this week making the snooping powers permanent.

Without congressional action, Section 702 is set to expire on Dec. 31.

Confirmed: FISA’s Section 702 Permits “Warrantless” Spying on Americans’ Communications
http://anonhq.com/confirmed-fisas-section-702-permits-warrantless-spying-on-americans-communications/

Image

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) has come under scrutiny as it is set to expire this year on Dec. 31. The deadline of the contentious section which came into law in 2008 and was renewed in 2012, has impelled lawmakers to review its necessity.

Section 702 of the FISA arguably allows the NSA and other agencies to exploit loopholes to intercept Americans’ communications while collecting information on foreign targets. Depending on who you speak with, this is an infringement on Americans’ privacy under the Fourth Amendment, or it’s vital to national security.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who opened the recent meeting over Section 702’s future began by outlining it as “an important safeguard.” He continued however, saying that “We must ensure that our protection doesn’t come at the expense of cherished liberty.”

The argument over renewing Section 702 in 2018, which was originally pushed by the Bush/Cheney team in 2002 post 9/11, when it was illegal, is about the “backdoor” and “large scale warrantless surveillance of those communications,” that since 2008 has become legal. Argued by ACLU’s Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer in 2014, he continued by saying this Act is designed to conduct warrantless searches on Americans.

Back in 2002, however, it was allegedly about the War on Terror, with the NSA authorized to eavesdrop on Americans in “search for evidence of terrorist activity,” reported the New York Times in 2005.

The warrantless searches can target anyone and everyone who has contact with a person outside the United States. These people can include journalists, politicians, business executives, human rights activists and attorneys for research or merely banking purposes. It’s most likely that Gen. Flynn’s intercepted conversations with the Russians occurred under Section 702. Anyone who communicates with a “foreign target” can be monitored.

In an interview with CBS News, Sen. R-Kentucky, Rand Paul was questioned over his thoughts about the wiretapping accusation that Obama had allegedly wiretapped Trump’s phone calls. “I doubt that Trump was a target directly of any kind of eavesdropping, but I am not saying it didn’t happen. I think there’s a very good chance it does,” Paul said.

“But the way it works is, the FISA court, through Section 702, wiretaps foreigners and then listens to Americans. It is a backdoor search of Americans. And because they have so much data, they can tap — type Donald Trump into their vast resources of people they are tapping overseas, and they get all of his phone calls.

“And so they did this to President Obama. They — 1,227 times eavesdrops on President Obama’s phone calls. Then they mask him. But here is the problem. And General Hayden said this the other day. He said even low-level employees can unmask the caller. That is probably what happened to Flynn.

“They are not targeting Americans. They are targeting foreigners. But they are doing it purposefully to get to Americans.”

Senator Paul’s inadvertent broader revelation highlights the US government’s ability to spy on Americans’ communications. Often this point is concealed by “government defenders” as Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept points out, and often those criticising such abilities are attacked.

“It’s no surprise, then, that as soon as Rand Paul was done uttering the unpleasant, usually hidden truth about NSA’s domestic warrantless eavesdropping, the cavalcade of ex-intelligence-community officials who are now heavily embedded in American punditry rushed forward to attack him,” Greenwald said in his article.

The claim that Americans can’t be monitored without probable cause and a warrant is false. It is also legal to do so, thanks to the loopholes. Americans’ communications with foreign targets, since the law passed, became ‘incidental’ but a necessary part of maintaining national security; the ones “most important” to the intelligence agencies, Gen. Michael Hayden, director of the NSA from 1999-2005 said in an S.Comm on the Judiciary hearing “Fisa for the 21st Century” in 2006.

The Edward Snowden whistleblowing only sought to expose what we now know is commonplace. The Americans along with the rest of the world are heavily monitored. All you have to do is drop the CIA/NSA’s ‘word of the day’ to end up on their list. Whether you agree with the national security line or not, the one thing agreed upon now is that this level of warrantless eavesdropping does indeed occur.

Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:55 pm

If trump would stop nominating shitheads, & continuing/strengthening their agenda, this thread would have already died.

while the media throws a fit over Hurricane Harvey & Melania's shoes...

Trump nominates an anti-privacy, mass surveillance advocate to chair the Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight board (PCLOB).

Image

President Donald J. Trump Announces Intent to Nominate Personnel to Key Administration Posts
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/25/president-donald-j-trump-announces-intent-nominate-personnel-key

Adam I. Klein of the District of Columbia to be a Member and Chairman of the Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Mr. Klein is the Robert M. Gates Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, where his research centers on the intersection of national security policy and law. He previously served as a law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He has also worked on national security policy at the RAND Corporation, at the 9/11 Public Discourse Project (the nonprofit successor to the 9/11 Commission), and as a legislative assistant in the office of Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young. He is a graduate of Columbia Law School and Northwestern University.

Trump Quietly Nominates Mass Surveillance Advocate To “Protect” Your Privacy Rights
http://theantimedia.org/trump-mass-surveillance-privacy/

Image

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — Though outrage over mass surveillance swept the United States after Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2013, there is little discussion of these invasive practices just four years later.

This apathy comes despite former President Barack Obama’s move to expand to information sharing between agencies just days before Trump took office and after the Trump administration signaled its desire to continue widespread surveillance.

Amid this lack of attention toward the NSA, the president recently nominated a staunch advocate of mass surveillance to chair one of the few barriers standing between intrusive government spying and the American people’s privacy. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) was created in 2004 at the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and was intended “to help the executive branch balance national security priorities with individual rights,” the Intercept reported earlier this year.

“PCLOB is supposed to have five members, no more than three of whom come from the same political party; to employ a full-time chairperson; to have regular access to the 17 intelligence agencies; and to publish unclassified versions of its evaluations of U.S. espionage powers.”

However, as of March of this year, the board was down to just one part-time member, and this lack of personnel rendered it largely impotent.

“But with just one part-time board member left, after another member’s term ended last week, the agency has very few formal powers to police the so-called ‘deep state’ until President Trump nominates a new board,” the Intercept reported pursuant to emails they obtained regarding the remaining single member.

Though the board had been deteriorating before Trump became president, it may now be further undermined as a result of his recent appointment.

On August 25, the president announced his nomination of Adam I. Klein to chair the PCLOB. According to the White House release discussing this nomination:

“Mr. Klein is the Robert M. Gates Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, where his research centers on the intersection of national security policy and law. He previously served as a law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.”

Though the often loathed late Antonin Scalia was considered somewhat of a defender of the 4th amendment, Klein fails to offer a strong buffer between intrusive policies and the American people.

Though Klein co-authored an advisory report for the incoming Trump administration advocating a balance between privacy and security, the paper criticized Edward Snowden and lamented the disintegration of trust in government his leaks helped to foster:

“The post-Snowden backlash has impeded law enforcement and intelligence gathering, harmed the U.S. technology industry’s competitiveness in international markets, and created diplomatic friction with important allies. Most importantly, many Americans remain skeptical that their government respects their digital privacy.”

Though the authors go on to highlight the importance of the leaks in bringing the issue of surveillance to the forefront — and continuously pay lip service to “privacy” — the authors’ emerging goal appears to focus on getting Americans to trust surveillance. Though they do advocate some reforms, they stress the importance of spying staples like the controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts and affiliated Section 702 surveillance program, which will expire at the end of this year unless Congress reauthorizes it. Section 702 authorizes the broad collection of data, and though it allegedly applies to foreigners, it also sweeps up the data of Americans.

They also highlight reform efforts like the USA Freedom Act, which ultimately did little to scale back the foundational framework of mass surveillance and simply added an extra step to the government’s process of obtaining data. Digital rights group Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) ultimately pulled their support for the bill because it believed the reforms offered were insufficient. Another example of reforms they cite is Obama’s Presidential Policy Directive 28, which, according to EFF, offered “no significant change to the actual surveillance the U.S. has been conducting.” Where Klein and his associates claimed PPD-28 marked “a commitment still unequaled by any other country,” EFF argues “the U.S. is ten years behind Europe in requiring their government agencies to protect the privacy of noncitizens when government actions affect them.”

Further, in a defense of Section 702 Klein published in the Wall Street Journal this July, he contended that 9/11 occurred because the government did not have a powerful enough surveillance apparatus. He praised the FBI for foiling terror attacks (conveniently omitting the reality that the FBI has made a habit of entrapping unstable individuals, encouraging them to commit terror attacks, and then claiming credit for foiling said plots).

Klein also uses court decisions to justify his support of warrantless searches:

“Courts have found that this practice comports with the Constitution. In November 2015, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require the FBI to get a warrant before conducting routine database checks, which include some 702 data.”

However, both the FISA court and Section 702 have been thoroughly lambasted by privacy experts and advocates. Though some advocates stop short of calling FISA rulings “rubber stamps” despite their near universal approval of warrant requests, some less disputed problems are the court’s total secrecy and the lack of any type of defensive presence during proceedings; they are conducted by a judge and the prosecution.

As for Section 702 of FISA, the ACLU shared its pitfalls in a letter to the House Judiciary Committee in February expressing the organization’s opposition to the policy absent meaningful reforms. The letter read:

“In its current form, Section 702 fails to comply with the government’s obligations under the Constitution and international law — and its sweeping nature results in the collection of information from individuals who pose no threat to national security. Indeed, although the government has not provided comprehensive statistics on the use of Section 702, a Washington Post analysis of over 160,000 intercepted emails likely collected under Section 702 was striking: 90% of individuals swept up in the surveillance were not the intended target, and nearly half of the files examined contained information or details related to a U.S. citizen or resident.”

Klein showed no such concerns. Though he said in his op-ed that Congress was “right to examine the privacy implications of Section 702; powerful tools require powerful constraints,” he refused to disavow the demonstrably invasive policy. He wrote:

“But members concerned about 702 should focus on bolstering the program’s oversight and transparency—by strengthening judicial review and requiring more transparency about how prosecutors use 702 information—rather than creating barriers to information-sharing within the intelligence community.”

Make no mistake; though Klein advocates a balance between national security and privacy — and is likely genuine in his rhetoric — he routinely comes down on the side of government surveillance. Considering Trump’s previous actions and rhetoric, Klein’s appointment is nothing short of predictable. After all, while campaigning for the presidency, Trump made it clear he sided with the unconstitutional widespread practices.

NSA enters stage two of its spying revival plan: Getting Trump onboard
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/31/nsa_spying_revival_plan/

Image

Uncle Sam's intelligence agencies have embarked on the next stage of their plan to retain spying powers over US citizens: getting Donald Trump onboard.

Knowing what we do about Donald's approach to policy issues, it seems unlikely that the American president is aware of what is going on. But somehow he has been persuaded to revive a civil liberties oversight body that was torn apart for criticizing a controversial spying program that requires reauthorization by Congress at the end of the year.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) has been dead for over a year. After it concluded that several of the NSA's spying programs were unconstitutional back in 2014, the intelligence services set about shutting it down. And they succeeded.

In 2016, Congress passed legislation that formally prohibited the board from reviewing covert activity, and gave politicians budget control over the board, requiring it to report directly to legislators.

In response, most of the PCLOB's staff and board resigned. Between January and March that year, three board members quit and a fourth's term was not renewed. That left a single person – Elisebeth Collins – to sit as chair.

Collins' position was renewed until 2020 with the entry of the Trump Administration in order to keep the PCLOB in existence, but the board has not done a single piece of work since its former chair David Medine resigned in March 2016. With no quorum of board members present, and no executive director, the PCLOB has been in stasis for 18 months.

This month however – and on the same day that the NSA started a PR campaign to retain mass spying laws under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) – President Trump suddenly decided to nominate a new chair to the PCLOB. (The PCLOB has a few choice words [https://www.pclob.gov/library/702-report.pdf] about Section 702.)

Klein-up

"Adam I Klein of the District of Columbia to be a Member and Chairman of the Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Board," said the announcement, buried at the bottom of a four-appointee announcement that was put out with the trash on Friday.

It then lists Klein's achievements: "Mr Klein is the Robert M Gates Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, where his research centers on the intersection of national security policy and law. He previously served as a law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia of the US Supreme Court and Judge Brett M Kavanaugh of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. He has also worked on national security policy at the RAND Corporation..." and so on.

In the context of the PCLOB however, what Mr Klein is renowned for is his defense of Section 702 of the FISA Act.

He even wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal just last month that defended the most controversial aspect of the spying program: the ability of the FBI to search a vast database of information on US citizens that was compiled using Section 702 – a law that explicitly notes it is only to be used for foreign intelligence targets and exempts US citizens.

Klein claims that, despite the law, "keeping officials from searching this data would make it more difficult to prevent homegrown terrorist attacks."

His choice as chair of the PCLOB goes against everything the body is supposed to represent, and is akin to Trump's choice of climate-change denier Scott Pruitt as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, or Rick Perry as head of the Department of Energy after he publicly vowed to eliminate the government agency.

Fig-leaf

The NSA and FBI also know exactly what they will be getting with Klein heading up the PCLOB: a civil liberties fig leaf to continue their spying of US citizens using legislation explicitly designed not to include US citizens.

The legislation in question has to be reauthorized by Congress before the end of the year, and has already become a major political wrangle in the corridors of power. Many lawmakers, tech companies and civil liberties groups have argued for specific changes to make to the law to remove its worst aspects.

With the revival of the defunct PCLOB and the proposed appointment of Klein as its chair, it is clear that the powers-that-be already have a strategy in place to retain their powers, and are following through on it.

below is Adam Klein's Op-Ed in the WSJ, arguing to strike down Congress' resistance to section 702. once again, invoking 9/11 as an intelligence failure & arguing more surveillance/less restrictions is the only answer. it's behind a WSJ paywall, so not sure how long it will last.

Connect the Dots to Stop Terror Plots; Congressional barriers to information sharing would heighten the risk of another 9/11
https://www.wsj.com/articles/connect-the-dots-to-stop-terror-plots-1501106621

[spoiler]
Congressional barriers to information sharing would heighten the risk of another 9/11.

Why didn’t intelligence agencies prevent 9/11? According to the 9/11 Commission, before the attacks, information from intelligence agencies “often failed to make its way to criminal investigators” at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

By the summer of 2000, the Central Intelligence Agency already knew that two future hijackers were associates of known terrorists, that both men held visas to enter the U.S., and that one had in fact flown to Los Angeles in March 2000. Unfortunately, the FBI learned of this in August 2001—at which point the men had already made their last, fateful entry into the U.S. With better information-sharing, the FBI might have arrested the terrorists and prevented the 9/11 attacks.

Some members of Congress now propose to erect new barriers against information-sharing within the intelligence community that could make it even more difficult for officials to spot future terrorists before they strike.

The proposal would affect Section 702, a 2008 law that allows the intelligence community to collect the communications of foreign intelligence targets when the communications travel across U.S. internet cables or are stored on U.S. servers. This has been an effective counterterrorism tool because foreign targets’ messages often touch the U.S. internet infrastructure.

Foreign targets are not protected by the Fourth Amendment, so the government has the authority to collect their messages under Section 702 without a warrant. But when foreign targets communicate with Americans, those messages are collected as well, raising privacy concerns.

Another key aspect of the privacy debate around Section 702 is what intelligence agencies should be allowed to do with that data. Courts have allowed agencies to search their 702 records for foreign intelligence purposes and, in the FBI’s case, for evidence of crime, which sometimes includes searches for information about Americans.

Privacy-minded House members from both parties are now reportedly considering amending Section 702 to bar government officials from searching 702 data for information about an American unless they get a warrant, based on probable cause, from a federal judge. Reformers have leverage this year because Congress must pass a 702 reauthorization bill before the law sunsets on Dec. 31.

But keeping officials from searching this data would make it more difficult to prevent homegrown terrorist attacks. In 2009 the National Security Agency used 702 to collect emails in which an unknown person in the U.S. asked an al Qaeda member in Pakistan for advice on making explosives. Those emails led the FBI to Najibullah Zazi, a Colorado man with imminent plans to bomb the New York subway system. Catching him saved dozens if not hundreds of lives. If an American appears to be radicalizing, the first thing the FBI should do is check the information already in its database to see whether that person has been in contact with known ISIS or al Qaeda operatives.

Privacy advocates argue that agencies could continue to run these searches as long as they obtain a warrant. The problem is that database checks are most useful at the early stages of an inquiry, when officials are seeking to determine whether a person of interest has connections to terrorists. At that point, investigators rarely have gathered enough evidence to demonstrate probable cause. For that reason, requiring a warrant will make these queries effectively impossible.

Courts have found that this practice comports with the Constitution. In November 2015, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require the FBI to get a warrant before conducting routine database checks, which include some 702 data. The scale of the potential privacy concern also appears small: In 2016 only one FBI search for information about an American in a non-national-security criminal investigation led the FBI to review messages collected under 702.

Congress is right to examine the privacy implications of Section 702; powerful tools require powerful constraints. But members concerned about 702 should focus on bolstering the program’s oversight and transparency—by strengthening judicial review and requiring more transparency about how prosecutors use 702 information—rather than creating barriers to information-sharing within the intelligence community.

The 9/11 Commission report taught that “connecting the dots” using the intelligence government agencies already possess is the key to disrupting terrorist plots. With the threat of terrorism still high, let us not forget this lesson now.

Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Tue Sep 05, 2017 4:25 pm

Winnson wrote:Trump wants a bromance with Putin and they will have it. I can pretty much guarantee that.

That will happen and I cannot wait to see it! IT WILL BE GLORIOUS!

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/sta ... 6112112640

It is known.

Image

3 ways U.S.-Russia relations went from bad to worse in July
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-us-russia-relations-trump-putin-pence-20170801-htmlstory.html

Image

U.S. relations with Russia went from bad to worse in July despite calls from both sides that the complicated relationship would improve in 2017. President Donald Trump says he’ll approve sanctions passed with strong bipartisan support in Congress, and Russia President Vladimir Putin is already responding in kind. Here’s a look at three ways U.S. relations with Russia have deteriorated in just the past few weeks.

1. U.S. sanctions on Russia

On July 25, the House of Representatives passed the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act with a 419-3 vote. The Senate followed two days later with a 98-2 vote to send it to the president’s desk for his signature. The White House has said he will sign the legislation.

The bill imposed or extended sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea. It is intended to punish Russia for its interference in the 2016 election as well as for its aggression in Ukraine and Syria. Specifically, the sanctions target Russia’s ability to export weapons and attempt to make business more difficult for the country’s energy sector.

Image

2. Russia already retaliated

Putin is calling for the U.S. to reduce its embassy and consulate staff by hundreds of employees by Sept. 1. The total number of diplomatic employees in the country would drop to 455. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday that "recent events showed that U.S. policy was in the hands of Russophobic forces, pushing Washington to the path of confrontation."

The decision is also being seen as a retaliation for President Barack Obama imposing sanctions and ordering 35 Russian diplomats to leave the U.S. in December. Russia has also pledged to take over two American diplomatic properties.

Image

3. A pledge to defend against Russia

Vice President Mike Pence gave a speech in Estonia on Monday reaffirming the United States’ commitment to protect the Baltic states — as part of the North American Treaty Organization — from Russia.

“At the heart of our alliance is a solemn promise that an attack on one is an attack on all,” Pence said. “Under President Trump, the United States will continue to hold Russia accountable for its actions.”

Members of the U.S., French, British and Estonian militaries were present for the speech as well as the presidents of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Pence used the speech to clear up the U.S. stance on Russia despite ongoing investigations into alleged ties between the country and Trump’s 2016 campaign.

"The President and our Congress are unified in our message: A better relationship and the lifting of sanctions will require Russia to reverse the actions that caused the sanctions to be imposed in the first place," said.

Image

Vladimir Putin says US-Russia relations are worse since Donald Trump took office
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-us-russia-relations-worse-military-syria-chemical-attack-barack-obama-a7679796.html

Image

Vladimir Putin has said trust between Russia and the United States has deteriorated since President Donald Trump took office.

"One could say that the level of trust on a working level, especially on the military level, has not improved, but rather has deteriorated," Mr Putin said in an interview when asked about relations with Washington since Mr Trump became president.

US intelligence agencies have accused Mr Putin of trying to help Mr Trump get elected as president.

Russia-US relations 'worst since end of Cold War', Kremlin says

When he was asked about accusations that Syria's government launched a chemical weapons attack in Idlib province, which killed 87 people including many children, Mr Putin said Damascus had given up its chemical weapons stocks.

He said he believed there were two main explanations for the alleged chemical weapons attack: that Syrian government air strikes had hit rebel chemical weapons stocks, releasing poisonous gas, or that the incident was a set-up to discredit the Syrian government.

Intelligence services from several Western countries have disputed Russia's claim Syrian rebels were responsible for the chemical weapons.

The health minister in Turkey, which treated many of the attack's victims and conducted autopsies on others, said test results conducted on victims confirmed sarin gas was used.

The White House has accused Russia of being involved in a "cover up" over the suspected chemical attack.

Secretary of Defence James Mattis said the US government has “no doubt” sarin gas was used, resulting in nearly 100 deaths, in an attack perpetrated by Syrian President Bashar al Assad’s regime.

General Mattis said it was clear the “Assad regime planned it, orchestrated it, and executed” the attack.

Tillerson: U.S. relations with Russia 'under considerable stress' after first six months of Trump administration
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-tillerson-u-s-could-be-open-to-1501614755-htmlstory.html

Image

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Tuesday that U.S. relations with Russia are under "considerable stress" following Russia's demand that Washington cut 755 U.S. diplomats and local staff from the U.S. Embassy and three consulates in Russia.

"Of course it make our life more difficult, more difficult," Tillerson said in a news briefing to mark his first six months in office.

The question, he said, is whether relations are "getting worse or can we maintain some level of stability... and continue to find ways to address areas of mutual interest, and ways in which we can deal with our differences, without those becoming open conflicts."

Tillerson said he expects President Trump to sign legislation that will impose new sanctions on Russia for its meddling in the 2016 election. The White House previously had said Trump would do so, but has not said when.

Amid diplomatic row, Putin denies disappointment with Trump: He ‘is not my bride. I am not his bride, nor his groom.’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/putin-lashes-out-atunited-states-over-consulate-seizure-as-diplomatic-row-widens/2017/09/05/1e299aee-9227-11e7-8754-d478688d23b4_story.html?utm_term=.ac696ab147d5

Image

MOSCOW — In biting remarks, Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed Russia’s diplomatic row with the United States on Tuesday, saying Moscow could further cut U.S. diplomatic staffing in Russia and calling U.S. searches of a Russian consulate and other diplomatic properties “boorish.”

“It is hard to conduct a dialogue with people who confuse Austria with Australia, but there is nothing we can do about this. It seems to be the level of political culture in a certain part of the U.S. establishment,” Putin said in his first public statements on the diplomatic dispute that has been deepening since Washington announced the closure of Russia’s consulate in San Francisco, as well as diplomatic properties housing trade missions in New York and Washington.

The comments came during a news conference at an economic summit in the Chinese city of Xiamen. Putin repeated boilerplate language about how he and President Trump defended their national interests, but laced his remarks with bitter jokes.

Putin swatted away a question about whether he was “disappointed” with Trump, calling it “naive.”

Trump “is not my bride. I am not his bride, nor his groom. We are running our governments,” Putin told a reporter at the economic summit, which hosted leaders from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

Trump signs bill approving new sanctions against Russia
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/02/politics/donald-trump-russia-sanctions-bill/index.html

Russia's Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev reacted strongly to the bill's signing, saying it showed a "fully-fledged trade war (has been) declared against Russia" and that "the Trump administration demonstrated complete impotence, in the most humiliating manner, transferring executive powers to Congress."


Image

Trump warns of 'dangerous low' in Russia relations
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/politics/russia-us-trump-putin-sanctions/index.html

Moscow's protests on Wednesday after Trump signed the sanctions bill reflected fury at the new constraints on the Russian economy -- and perhaps also political pressures that left the government little option but to escalate the situation.

And for the first time, there was a note of personal contempt for Trump himself, which may reflect disappointment in Moscow that the President was unable to make good on his promise to improve relations with Russia.

"The Trump administration has shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way. This changes the power balance in US political circles," said Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in a Facebook post. "The US establishment fully outwitted Trump; the President is not happy about the new sanctions, yet he could not but sign the bill."

The attack followed Russian President Vladimir Putin's announcement on Sunday that the US must cut its diplomatic staff in Russia by 755 people, in a delayed response to the seizure of Russian compounds and the expulsion of 35 diplomats by the Obama administration to punish the alleged election meddling.

In a Facebook post Wednesday, Medvedev said any hope of improved relations between Washington and the Kremlin had "ended," adding he thought Trump was an "incompetent player (who) must be eliminated."

Medvedev predicted future relations between Russia and the US "will be extremely tense, regardless of the Congress line up or the personality of the President," and threatened to escalate the matter to international courts.

Image

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev: Trump is an 'incompetent player' who will be 'liquidated' by the US establishment
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/russian-prime-minister-dmitry-medvedev-trump-is-an-incompetent-player-who-will-be-liquidated-by-the-us-establishment/article/2630446

On Wednesday, President Trump signed a new sanctions bill targeting Russia. Russia has reacted with unrestrained fury. Indeed, fury is an understatement.

In a Facebook post specifically referencing Trump, the Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev (No. 2 only to Putin), warned that Congress sees Trump as "an incompetent player" who must be "liquidated".

Yes, you read that right.

While Medvedev is suggesting that Congress will liquidate Trump for opposing their efforts to sanction Russia, this also reeks of a Russian warning to Trump specifically. The rest of Medvedev's post was equally aggressive. He suggested that Trump has shown "complete impotence, in the most humiliating manner, transferring executive powers to Congress" and that this is the "beginning of full-fledged trade war" and "the end of our hopes of improving relations with the new administration."

Let's be clear, this a very cold, very traditional Russian threat. And if it comes from Medvedev, it comes from Putin.

Medvedev continued his criticism on Twitter, saying in a series of tweets that, "The Trump administration has shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way."

He added, "The US establishment fully outwitted Trump.The President is not happy about the sanctions, yet he could not but sign the bill" and, "We will steadily continue our work on developing the economy, relying mostly on ourselves. We have learned to do this."

As John Schindler warned earlier this week, it seems increasingly likely that the Russians have abandoned Trump. Their first priority was sanctions relief and now they've got the opposite.

As I noted on Monday, Putin is upping his mind game attacks on Trump. What follows next is anyone's guess.

Image


User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Tue Sep 05, 2017 4:55 pm

before Adam Klein wrote his piece in the WSJ, Trump's new Director of Homeland Security (Tom Bossert) wrote his own Op-Ed in support of mass surveillance programs in the NYT... White House using the MSM to push reauthorization of 702?

Trump picks Tom Bossert as homeland security adviser
http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2016/12/tom-bossert-homeland-security-adviser-232977

President-elect Donald Trump announced Tuesday that Tom Bossert, a former national security aide to President George W. Bush, will serve as his homeland security adviser in the White House. Bossert, currently a fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Cyber Statecraft Initiative, “has a handle on the complexity of homeland security, counterterrorism, and cybersecurity challenges,” Trump said in a statement.

Bossert was a deputy homeland security adviser in the last year of the Bush administration, when he helped draft the federal government’s first cybersecurity strategy.


Image

Thomas P. "Tom" Bossert (born c. 1975) is an American lawyer and Republican White House staffer, currently serving President Donald Trump as Homeland Security Advisor. Immediately before, he was fellow at the Atlantic Council and prior to that he served as Deputy Homeland Security Advisor to President George W. Bush. In that capacity, he co-authored the 2007 National Strategy for Homeland Security. Prior to that, Bossert held positions in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Small Business Administration, the Office of the Independent Counsel, and the House of Representatives.[2] He also was appointed as the Director of Infrastructure Protection under Bush, overseeing the security of critical U.S. infrastructure, a post he held for two years.[3] Following that, he was appointed the Senior Director for Preparedness Policy within the Executive Office of the President.[4]

White House Makes It Official: It Wants to Keep Snooping on Americans
https://reason.com/blog/2017/06/13/white-house-makes-it-official-it-wants-t/print

Image

President Donald Trump and allies may complain on Twitter and out loud how the Deep State illegally snooped on him under his predecessor, Barack Obama, but that doesn't mean the White House wants less surveillance authority.

The White House and several GOP senators have made it official: They want to make some significant surveillance authorities permanent under law without addressing concerns by civil liberties and privacy advocates that these authorities are being used to collect Americans' data without the use of warrants.

What we're talking about is Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments. Section 702 grants some important authorities for the National Security Agency (NSA) to engage in unwarranted surveillance of foreign agents and potential threats overseas. It expires this year if Congress doesn't renew it.

The problem: While Section 702 is sold as a mechanism of snooping on foreign agents and potential terrorists in other countries, it also ends up collecting private information and communications from Americans if they've made contact with these targets. When Trump complained his campaign had been snooped upon while communicating with officials connected to foreign governments (like Russian and Turkey), in all likelihood, the foreign officials were the actual targets.

The NSA has "minimization" procedures when private data and communications originating from American citizens ends up "incidentally" gathered through Section 702. NSA analysts aren't supposed to be able to easily invade the privacy of citizens.

But there is an "unmasking" process for select people in the government to see names and more identifying information than they would otherwise. According to a recent report, names were unmasked, revealing the identity of a U.S. citizen, on at least 1,200 occasions in 2016.

In this process of "backdoor" searches, the federal government is clearly gaining limited access to the private communications of citizens without getting warrants and with much more limited oversight (there is a FISA court, but it doesn't operate the same way as a normal court in oversight of these 702 searches). And therefore citizens are not aware when the government has collected and accessed data about them.

But despite Trump's complaints about allegedly illegal unmasking, the White House has taken to The New York Times to call for Section 702 to be renewed and made permanent. There's some circular reasoning here in the response to critics who want better protections to keep citizens data from being reviewed:

[I]t does not permit backdoor targeting of Americans, whose communications with foreign persons can be incidentally captured in the process. National security officials may use search terms or identifiers associated with Americans, such as an email address, to query the information lawfully acquired using Section 702 authority.

But this does not entail the collection or search of any new information, and the practice has been upheld by the FISA court and all other federal courts that have considered this issue. It is also consistent with the long history of our legal system. Imposing a warrant requirement to conduct such data queries, as some in Congress have proposed, would be legally unnecessary and a step toward re-erecting pre-9/11 barriers to our ability to identify foreign terrorists and their contacts.


It's legal because the law says it's legal. That's not exactly an argument against changing the law if people don't agree with the amount of authority it grants to both the NSA and the FBI.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), who appears to have hitched his star to any wagon promising a more authoritarian government, is leading an effort among pro-surveillance Senate Republicans to keep 702 and the rest of the FISA authorities intact.

Even if the Republican Party controls Congress and has a supportive White House, that doesn't mean Cotton and Trump are going to get what they want. Pro-surveillance leaders in the Senate initially resisted the USA Freedom Act, which placed some limits on the government collection of Americans metadata, but the House's refusal to renew an expiring part of the Patriot Act (and a filibuster in the Senate by Sen. Rand Paul) essentially forced its hand.

Section 702 expires if Congress refuses to act, and there are libertarian-leaning Republicans in both the House and the Senate who might resist permanent renewal. It's really hard to pass a bill through Congress these days, and if enough Republicans refuse, Cotton may end up with the opposite of what he's demanding here. Those who are resistant to blanket renewal have the leverage here.

Even as the administration is trying to keep its surveillance powers intact, it's retreating on a promise under the Obama administration (and repeated under the Trump administration) to give Americans an estimate of how many of them have had their data secretly collected by the NSA.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) under former head James Clapper promised to provide some basic information so Americans had a better understanding of it breadth. But Dan Coats, Clapper's successor, said last week he would not be able to provide an estimate.

Tom Bossert's Op-Ed in the NYT, arguing for reauthorization & expansion of 702.

Congress Must Reauthorize Foreign Surveillance
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/opinion/congress-reauthorize-foreign-surveillance.html

[spoiler]
WASHINGTON — Congress will hear testimony on Wednesday on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, part of which is set to expire at the end of the year. It will be debating the fate of an authority — the FISA Amendments Act — that has helped thwart terrorist attacks around the world.

The most important section under consideration, Section 702, allows a federal court to approve and supervise, under specific conditions, the collection of information on foreign persons, in foreign countries, who happen to use American communications services and internet technology. The authority has existed and Congress has reauthorized it under two administrations.

Congress created Section 702 authority to address an intelligence-collection gap that resulted from the evolution of technology in the years after FISA became law in 1978. This gap allowed foreign terrorists to benefit from the legal protections enjoyed by American citizens. On Tuesday, Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, proposed a bill to permanently reauthorize Section 702 without modification. The Trump administration supports his bill, without condition.

While there are many examples of the value of this tool, they are likely to remain classified for years to preserve our national security. But in one instance that is public, intelligence collected under Section 702 helped prevent Al Qaeda’s Najibullah Zazi from conducting a suicide bombing on the New York City subway. Simply put, the use of this authority has helped save lives.

Yet there are two serious misconceptions about what Section 702 permits the government to do that threaten the reauthorization.
Continue reading the main story

First, it does not permit the targeting of Americans. The authority expressly forbids intentional targeting of a United States person for surveillance. Electronic surveillance of Americans, or even foreigners inside the United States, requires an individual court order supported by probable cause.

Second, it does not permit backdoor targeting of Americans, whose communications with foreign persons can be incidentally captured in the process. National security officials may use search terms or identifiers associated with Americans, such as an email address, to query the information lawfully acquired using Section 702 authority.

But this does not entail the collection or search of any new information, and the practice has been upheld by the FISA court and all other federal courts that have considered this issue. It is also consistent with the long history of our legal system. Imposing a warrant requirement to conduct such data queries, as some in Congress have proposed, would be legally unnecessary and a step toward re-erecting pre-9/11 barriers to our ability to identify foreign terrorists and their contacts.

Over nearly a decade of rigorous oversight, no intentional abuse of the Section 702 authority has ever been identified, and the government has quickly taken action to rectify unintentional mistakes. The Section 702 authority has enabled actionable warnings of violent attacks and the collection of information about weapons proliferators and cyberhackers. And it has revealed other threats to our nation’s security.

Nevertheless, any surveillance authority is powerful and must be exercised with prudence and care. Congress engineered Section 702 with substantial constraints, and it is implemented with rigorous oversight by all three branches of our government. The government’s internal training, oversight, technology and inspector-general regime, along with oversight by the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board — which deserves special praise — and Congress, all ensure that the government uses these important authorities properly.

Safeguarding our nation consists of not only protecting us from threats abroad, but also ensuring we have the appropriate balance of security and privacy in the tools the government uses. There are indeed legitimate privacy concerns with any surveillance, but the significant statutory and oversight protocols address those concerns.

Under President Barack Obama, the National Security Agency used the authority more broadly to acquire internet communications about foreign intelligence targets. Under President Trump’s leadership, we have refined the application of this authority to target only those internet communications sent directly to or from a lawful foreign intelligence target. This smart choice will reduce incidental collection on Americans without sacrificing our security. We proposed, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved, the new procedures, which achieve this goal and protect Americans’ privacy.

Cabinet officials and security professionals from different agencies will testify on this matter on Wednesday. President Trump stands with them 100 percent on the need for permanent reauthorization of Section 702. Officials from the past two administrations also agree that we cannot have a blind spot in our defenses simply because a foreign terrorist on foreign land chooses an American email provider.

We cannot allow adversaries abroad to cloak themselves in the legal protections we extend to Americans. And Section 702 is one of the most effective tools for identifying and preventing threats. Congress should do its part to make America safe again and leave the politics of distraction for another day.

Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:25 pm

Surveillance Showdown Looms: Rand Paul Threatens Filibuster Over Intelligence Reauthorization Bill
http://ijr.com/2017/08/961459-surveillance-showdown-looms-rand-paul-threatens-filibuster-intelligence-reauthorization-bill/

Image

Key surveillance powers granted to U.S. intelligence agencies for collecting information and monitoring national security threats outside the U.S. are set to expire unless Congress reauthorizes them before the end of the year, and finding consensus won't be easy.

Known as FISA Section 702, the crucial component of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows the U.S. intelligence community to conduct surveillance of non-U.S. persons of foreign intelligence interest who are located outside of the U.S.

Section 702 was last reauthorized in 2012 without any reforms in the FISA Amendments Act, over the protests of privacy advocates.

But Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told Independent Journal Review in an interview Wednesday that reauthorizing Section 702 without enhanced privacy protections won't be as simple this time around.

“We'll do anything we can to try and stop it, and that includes filibuster,” Paul said.

That doesn't jibe with the surveillance-friendly position of most Republicans, such as Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who recently introduced a bill to make the Section 702 powers permanent. But the reauthorization will be subject to a 60-vote threshold for passage, and there are only 52 Republicans in the Senate. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will have to court Democrats for support.

Paul said he expects to team with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and others to buck leadership and push for changes to the law, such as requiring intelligence agencies to obtain a warrant before searching databases for information on American citizens incidentally collected under Section 702 surveillance of non-U.S. persons.

He told IJR there may be more lawmakers opposed to reauthorizing Section 702 unchanged this year than in the past for a few reasons:

First, he noted there may be more pushback from his colleagues on the other side of the aisle because “the Democrats tend to be more unified now that there's an opposite party at the White House.”

Second, Paul argued that some Republicans, such as House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), may have shifted their stance on Section 702 after President Donald Trump repeatedly accused the Obama administration of surveilling and unmasking members of his presidential campaign without evidence in the spring.

“If we truly get a coalition, could we get to 40 [votes]?” Paul wondered. “There is a possibility there.”

Image

Intelligence officials argue the program adequately protects the privacy of Americans and are emphatic Section 702 plays an indispensable role in preventing terror attacks at home and abroad, along with supporting other national security operations.

“Failure to reauthorize Section 702 will deprive the intelligence community of a critical tool to combat global proliferation efforts at a time when North Korea is working day and night to build a nuclear-tipped ICBM capable of hitting the United States," Dean Boyd, director of public affairs at the Central Intelligence Agency, told IJR this week.

“Section 702 is not a ‘nice-to-have.' It is a ‘must-have,'” Boyd said.

But while 702 reauthorization is at the forefront of the intelligence community's mind, it's on the back burner for Congress: Lawmakers will have a full plate when they return from their month-long August recess after Labor Day.

Between raising the debt ceiling, passing a budget resolution in order to proceed with GOP tax reform plans, and passing appropriations bills to keep the government up and running — complete with a looming government shutdown fight over funding for Trump's proposed border wall between the U.S. and Mexico — it's sure to be a busy fall.

Matt Tait, a former information security specialist at the British intelligence agency, GCHQ, and senior fellow in cybersecurity at the Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin, told IJR he half expects Section 702 not to be reauthorized by the Dec. 31 deadline because the White House hasn't been actively shepherding the effort through Congress.

Tait noted U.S. intelligence agencies such as the National Security Agency have been recently putting out statements about how important the powers provided by Section 702 are to them.

“That’s a little bit conspicuous that they’re doing this on their own backs,” he said. “They’re not doing this through the White House, which suggests to me there’s some dysfunction in how they’re trying to get it reauthorized.”

Apart from perceived dysfunction, Paul described the administration's position as “perplexing” because Trump has been critical of the intelligence community and sympathetic to his position on the issue.

“On the other hand, most of the people [Trump has] appointed [...] are great advocates of unlimited power for surveillance agencies,” Paul said.

Image

Thomas Bossert, Trump's homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, penned an op-ed in The New York Times in June endorsing Cotton's bill to permanently reauthorize Section 702. In the same essay, Bossert shot down Paul's demands.

“Imposing a warrant requirement to conduct such data queries, as some in Congress have proposed, would be legally unnecessary and a step toward re-erecting pre-9/11 barriers to our ability to identify foreign terrorists and their contacts,” he wrote.

But because Republicans need Democratic support, a permanent authorization isn't sure to pass. If Section 702 is reauthorized before Dec. 31, Tait said, he expects it to be another short-term flat reauthorization without any substantive policy changes.

When IJR asked if he would support such a reauthorization, Paul answered, “Absolutely not.”

Paul didn't flinch about the possibility of allowing the intelligence program to lapse.

It wouldn't be the first instance in which Congress failed to authorize a surveillance program on time — three intelligence programs reauthorized by the USA Freedom Act had to be shut down for a period in 2015 when the Senate didn't pass the legislation on time.

Section 702 is a much larger program, though, and shutting it down would have a greater impact not only at home, but also abroad among allies who depend on U.S. intelligence analysis.

“A surveillance program shouldn’t be shut off just because Congress can’t get their sh*t together,” Tait said. “If that happens with 702, it’s going to cause dramatically more serious problems across the intelligence community.”

Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:15 pm



The NSA admitted last October that its monitoring of Americans was far more widespread than believed. Even the normally compliant FISA Court was shocked. Will "reform" do the job? Or should the authority to spy on us without a warrant be totally removed?

The Future of Surveillance: Reform, Repeal, or Renewal for Section 702? (7/27/17)
https://www.cato.org/events/future-surveillance-reform-repeal-or-renewal-section-702



One of the most potent and controversial tools in the American intelligence community’s arsenal is set to lapse at the end of this year. Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 allows the government to intercept the communications of foreign targets as they cross U.S. soil—including conversations with American citizens. Spy agencies claim it’s a vital weapon against terrorists and should not only be reauthorized but also made permanent. Civil libertarians, however, worry that the law’s incredible scope—targeting some 100,000 people and hauling in hundreds of millions, if not billions, of communications each year—makes it ripe for abuse without significant reform.

Among the law’s most vocal critics have been two senators from opposite sides of the political spectrum: Ron Wyden and Rand Paul. At this Cato forum, they’ll explore how section 702 works and whether it needs stronger safeguards to protect Americans’ privacy. Should a warrant be required to search for citizens’ communications in the vast 702 database? Is it feasible to demand an estimate of how many Americans have been “incidentally” caught up in 702 surveillance—a number that the intelligence community has said it’s unable to provide? And does the foreign backlash against 702 surveillance threaten global Internet commerce? We’ll delve into these questions in a wide-ranging discussion.

Image


Return to “The Grand Chessboard”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 122 guests