Our Duty as Active/Prior Servicemen Regarding the NSA

A recent review by the federal government’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board concluded that the NSA monitoring programs “implicates constitutional concerns under the First and Fourth Amendments, raises serious threats to privacy and civil liberties as a policy matter, and has shown only limited value.”

All while their effectiveness was likewise shown to be questionable to non-existent. “We have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the telephone records program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation,”

http://reason.com/archives/2014/01/24/secret-government-is-the-chief-threat-to
Another article, though with it’s own bias being an anti-war site, makes some valid points looking at the historical perspective of monitoring. And how it near uniformly takes on a political/economical focus.

http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2014/01/19/its-about-blackmail-not-national-security/

It is my opinion, that the NSA’s present activities constitutes a threat far more dangerous than any posed by Al Qaeda. And that these activities constitute a threat to the Constitution so grave that every active and prior service person who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution is duty bound to act.

Let me exemplify…

Our congressmen are sleaze balls. We all know that.  But there is one thing we can always trust them to do… that which is in their personal interest. The problem with the NSA’s grand spying, which they’ve essentially admitted includes Congress.  Is that it endangers Democracy. It enables them to manipulate Congress. 

Recently Diana Feinstein a Liberal Californian Democrat, who surely would of objected to these actions under President Bush, came out in support, exclaiming the necessity, for the NSA’s programs.

OR DID SHE????

Maybe Senator Feinstein has a bit O’dirt on her. (Do you think there is a Senator who does not?)   Maybe she hates the NSA programs. But they called her and said you either support us or we will reveal those unscrupulous financial deals and you can spend a few decades sitting in prison. Next thing Senator Feinstein knows is that she’s speaking at a press conference in their support and praising the necessity of their programs. 

Did that happen? We have no way of knowing, and therein lies the problem.
It doesn’t matter if it happened or not. Regardless we can no longer trust that out elected officials are in fact making decisions based on ours or even their interests.

Let’s exemplify further, just say the crazy notion of President Obama having been born in Kenya was in fact true. (I am not saying that such is true or not, just using it as a poignant example.) And the NSA has acquired evidence to that fact. They call up President Obama and inform him of their acquisition and blackmail him. Suddenly the President who preached withdrawal from the Middle East, the danger of raising the debt ceiling, critical of the Patriot Act, etc, etc, has policies indistinguishable from his predecessor.  And there in lies the danger. 

Service people take an oath to protect the Constitution and follow the chain of command and take orders from the President. But what happens when something so grievious puts doubt even to the authenticity of the President’s orders?  Do you not see how that is a grave and agregious threat to the U.S. system of government?

It is my opinion that the NSA is now actively an enemy of the state and that Americans have not faced a threat this dangerous since WWII. A threat that I feel obligates any “oath taker” to act.

So am I calling all service men to raise up arms? No… What I’m asking is that every service person, active or prior, raise up their vote. That we do not let ANY candidate get on the ticket unless they vow to oppose this abomination. And that vote AGAINST every sitting Senator or Representative who votes in support of the NSA. Even if it means voting against your party’s candidate, this issue suppasses all others. We must vote against this threat to the Constitution and the U.S. government.  This is OUR DUTY.

 

Advertisements
Published in: on January 27, 2014 at 8:00 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , ,

Supreme Court refuses to hear EPIC vs FISA (NSA monitoring)

SCOTUS refused to hear EPIC’s challenge against the FISA court in regards to the broad surveillance the NSA is enganged in.

I will say, that on the surface, this appears cowardly. But the article does mention a number of similar cases are filed. So perhaps there is in this queue a better case, litigant, etc.  In which I will hold out to hear. But I am disappointed that no comment was provided. And if ALL these other cases are dismissed in similar fashion. I would call SCOTUS cowardly and derelict in duty.

Who, if not the Supreme Court, is to review the actions of other courts on their merits of violating the Constitution. If they refuse to hear and address all of the cases filed, then I believe that the SCOTUS members would need to be removed from office.

And I am sorry, while I may not be a Constitutional scholar, I am pretty darn sure that if reviewed objectively, what is being done is clearly without a doubt unconstitutional.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Regardless if email, cell phones, etc. did not exist, papers were clearly the form of communication in the day. And it is protected, as such it is a fair extension. Afterall, we do call it electronic mail for a reason. And if not papers, than they are “my effects”.

Second, a warrant is to require probable cause, and that is supposed to be toward an individual or narrow group of individuals. Not a blanket warrant for every person in the nation.

Third, a warrant is to be specific, denote what is to be searched or seized.  Saying we’re going to seize a copy of every email, is not specific.

 http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/1118/Supreme-Court-rejects-case-on-NSA-spying-on-Americans-phone-calls

Published in: on November 18, 2013 at 4:02 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

LAX Shooting -the Day America Civil War began…

UPDATE: Gerardo Hernandez, who would have turned 40 next week. He is the first TSA officer killed in the line of duty. While I greatly despise the TSA.  It is good remember that those working are really just average Joe’s.  The policies are set in DC. That is where we need to enact change. VOTE ‘EM OUT!!!!

***

LAX Shooting, the TSA, and broken security….that was the original title upon hearing about the shooting. I wrote the entirety of the article below the link based on that topic. But part of me wondered, was this shooting directed at the TSA itself?  Was this the first person to say that they were willing to give up their life to stand up against the TSA/NSA/etc.

We didn’t know…

But the latest report is that the shooter went around asking “”Hey, are you TSA?” and — if a person answered “no” — he would move on, according to the official”. 

If true, this wasn’t a mad man nor was this a terrorist (he wasn’t attacking civilians). This was out and out rebellion against the government.   I wager the NSA had just as much influence in the shooter’s decision, they likely just found the TSA a much more available target. Today most American’s may not realize it. But this may date, 11-1, may be more monumental that 9-11. What, I’m crazy you say….how could a couple of TSA agents being shot equate to the worst attack in modern history on America? Can’t I see the Twin Towers are gone, GONE!!!

Yes, but one needs to remember history.  Powder kegs are often preceded by several matches.  When did the American revolution begin? Did it begin on July 4, 1776?  Did it begin in December 16, 1773 at the Boston Tea Party?  Or did it begin March 5, 1770 when Crispus Attucks was killed at the Boston Massacre?

What becomes the measuring point?   Is it when one man stands in opposition? 10?  100?

We can debate the morality of this shooting.  But I do not look at this event as an act of terrorism, nor some deranged lunatic. Had it been those, the targets would have been anyone near by. This was an act of war, declared by one individual against a government which is increasingly becoming invasive and tyrannical. 

And that is why, some ways, today, 11-1 is scarier than 9-11. My point is THIS shooting is DIFFERENT

*** 

THE FOLLOWING WAS WRITTEN BEFORE THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THE SHOOTER WAS SPECIFICALLY TARGETING THE TSA

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/01/us/lax-gunfire/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
 
The CNN report is that the shooter drew an assault rifle from out of a bag and began to fire. The result is one TSA officer killed, and two individuals injured. (Are the other injuries TSA officers as well or just civilians? The reason I ask is because it could point to a motive.)
 
Having just flown from the West to the East Coast on Wednesday. This stirs up a lot of feelings.  First off, while a tragedy. TSA is security, that is who WE WANT to have be killed in these type of situations. So in thise case, it appears at least one TSA officer did their job.
 
That said, it does show just how ineffective security at airports really is.  First off, TSA has always been “responsive” rather than “proactive”.  Considering that there are almost no two terrorist attacks that are the same, this seems to pose a significant failing.
 
Second, most of the policies are focused on reaction, and usually with little intelligence or insight.  We have to take off our shoes because Mr Reid tried to blow his up. By this same logic, why do we not have to take off our underwear after the Underwear bomber’s attempt?
 
It pretty much confirms that the checks imposed upon us by the TSA are mainly security theater. They give the perception of safety and effectiveness but really do not accomplish much.
 
 
The article states
 
“A gunman concealing an assault rifle walked up to a Los Angeles International Airport checkpoint and opened fire on a TSA agent Friday morning”
 
If this is the case, it almost appears that TSA itself was the intended target. And having seen some of the videos of TSA abuse, I wonder if we are going to identify this individual as one of the victims of TSA abuse. And suddenly have a case where not a single camera in the area will have the video of the prior incident.
 
 
Is this incident part of a brewing backlash against the TSA?
 
I don’t know…

Published in: on November 1, 2013 at 5:17 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,