[Okay, this is long because it has "notation" as this is the read version of what I was going to post as a written blog without the notations. I found I had to make notations in this one because the issue isn't as simple. Here is where I read this out, http://www.blogtalkradio.com/toddy-littman/2013/06/15/patriot-act-nsas-biggest-nightmare. I'll suggest listening to the show while reading the following, as some of the notations didn't make the show and some of what is discussed on the show didn't make it into the notations, thinking aloud. As "scribbled type" notations, the grammar is probably lacking, I ask you pardon those instances, thank you.]
A few times people asked and a few times I offered up what I'm about to go over, eventually it was said, by my good friend @GregWHoward “that this needs more than 140 characters a line,” so here goes...
Unbeknownst to anyone, for the most part, but the intelligence community and member governments, there were a series of what appear to be Executive (Presidential) Agreements done. The NSA title and first paragraphs of their disclosure page are instructive...
“UKUSA Agreement Release
1940-1956
“The tradition of intelligence sharing between NSA and its Second party partners has deep and widespread roots that have been cultivated for almost three quarters of a century. During World War II, the U.S. Army and Navy each developed independent foreign SIGINT [i] relationships with the British and the Dominions of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These relations evolved and continued across the decades. The bonds, forged in the heat of a world war and tempered by decades of trust and teamwork, remain essential to future intelligence successes.
“The March 5, 1946, signing of the BRUSA (now known as UKUSA) Agreement marked the reaffirmation of the vital WWII cooperation between the United Kingdom and United States. Over the next 10 years, appendices to the Agreement, some of which are included with this release to the public, were drafted and revised. These appendices and their annexures provide details of the working relationship between the two partners and also address arrangements with the other Second Parties (Australia, Canada, and New Zealand).” -- Emphases mine, http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/ukusa.shtml
[NOTATION: Put link in chatroom.]
Can I tell you all about this agreement? Obviously not, for even though this all took place some 70 years ago, and was not concluded, apparently portions of it remain secret, kept from the public.
Just for the simplicity of it, anyone can sift through this incomplete group of documents that are part of a public disclosure, via the web obviously, and, as I want to avoid being a “nerd in the weeds,” I ask you to go to what is the last link at the time of writing this blog/article, “New UKUSA Agreement – 10 May 1955” and look at the references to NSA on page 2, note the setting up of NSA, its Director, and their responsibilities are mentioned for discussion there.
I ran across this in looking up information for a couple of other ChangingWind.Org articles, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.142 and http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.143. These articles were more in regard to the politics of having the Tea Party come into Congress and being upset in their not doing something significant in regard to these longstanding clandestine surveillance programs that go against the Limited Government Principles of the Tea Party.
Echelon never was held accountable for its suggestion that “virtually [as in virtual drives perhaps?] 97% of all communications worldwide [in the late 1990s] was monitored, recorded, and held,” government just having an ever-available grip on the hindsight of all communications and those who made them. Duncan Campbell of the Statesman tried to shed a bright light on this, http://www.duncancampbell.org/content/echelon. However, as per usual with the leftwing INTERNATIONAL media, he was silenced by their editorialism, their being “reasonable” in thinking that this is way too much for people to handle, that it will upset people worldwide to know this is going on, and how it works; and also being unreasonable, that the idea of a handful, say 1000 editors whose approval is required and believe in a collectivist order at any cost, would go with other stories – And you thought the Monica Lewinsky “she saved the dress” scandal was just a personal matter, never knowing it was a story spun out of control in media and government frenzy to avoid something much bigger than a Presidency. We almost seem to be in a similar place in media, frenzy, and “crisis not to go to waste” history, a sort of “déjà vu,” only now, the admission is greater, and, the fact is each event, Clinton’s Echelon-to-Lewinsky, and now, Obama's Benghazi-to-NSA, are steps of acceptance by the American public of increments of Socialism, and of global government if we do not call for a halt of the surveillance, which, amazingly would be done by us through the Patriot Act, not by politics.
However, a little tying pieces together in is in order regarding the “sigint” agreements.
Let's say America spies on Britain, Britain spies on Canada, Canada spies on China, and China spies on America, and then each of these governments share the information they surveilled with the country they spied on. Legally, do you or any one of us have standing to bring a lawsuit against the government of a foreign country for spying on us when we did not know? Do any of the people in these other countries have legal standing? Obviously, no, none of us do – And, it is this limited liability to governments while gaining trustworthy intelligence that gave “sigint” such an appeal. Some might think, “well we have legal standing now because we know about it.” Simply put: We, any single one of us, are not a party to the agreements between these governments. I'll cite a little article about a case brought to challenge the 2008 FISA Court (what the Patriot Act affected, essentially):
“The 9th Circuit noted that this case was similar to another suit before the U.S. Supreme Court, Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l, where government surveillance programs under the 2008 incarnation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) were challenged for Fourth Amendment reasons.
“Like the plaintiffs in Clapper, the 9th Circuit demanded proof that the government had surveilled them. Since CCR [center] did not provide that proof, the 9th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case.” -- Emphasis mine, this article find care of https://twitter.com/sue51684, article link, http://blogs.findlaw.com/decided/2013/06/nsa-warrantless-wiretapping-lawsuits-dismissal-affirmed.html.
Does anyone else see the trouble with the criteria of “prove that government surveilled you” for a clandestine Executive Agreement program made between governments that requires the highest government clearances in each of them to even know about? -- And people wonder why the anti-federalists thinking the original 13 colonies breaking into 3 or for separate nations was a bad idea!
Now, if this is enough, put this article away with a sticky note for later, but know I am planning not to go too much further, so I'd ask you to indulge me.
I laid this out to you to understand that government surveillance of the American People isn't a new thing, knowing about it is, and that maturity, objectivity, and a sober mind are paramount necessities to assure we do not essentially hand government eventual SCOTUS case precedents to be used to further the masquerade of all of this.
I'll just cite 2 pieces of the original Patriot Act itself so you can understand why this is the agenda of the Obama Administration’s 2nd term, to get rid of the Patriot Act, by Executive fiat (Executive Order) and, if possible, by repeal. The public sentiment hasn't reached an apex that makes maneuvering them significant enough for the House to be overwhelmingly taken by Progressives if the current “GOP controlled” House will not repeal the Patriot Act (and if none of this happens, great, I wanna be wrong! hahaha).
“`Sec. 2712. Civil actions against the United States
“ `(a) IN GENERAL- Any person who is aggrieved by any willful violation of this chapter or of chapter 119 of this title or of sections 106(a), 305(a), or 405(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) may commence an action in United States District Court against the United States to recover money damages. In any such action, if a person who is aggrieved successfully establishes such a violation of this chapter or of chapter 119 of this title or of the above specific provisions of title 50, the Court may assess as damages--
“ `(1) actual damages, but not less than $10,000, whichever amount is greater; and
“ `(2) litigation costs, reasonably incurred.
“ `(b) PROCEDURES- (1) Any action against the United States under this section may be commenced only after a claim is presented to the appropriate department or agency under the procedures of the Federal Tort Claims Act, as set forth in title 28, United States Code.
“ `(2) Any action against the United States under this section shall be forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within 2 years after such claim accrues or unless action is begun within 6 months after the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail, of notice of final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented. The claim shall accrue on the date upon which the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.” -- Emphasis mine, there's more here, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR: just click the link for section 2712.
[NOTATION: i.e. SF 95 & procedure, http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/fas/SF95.pdf]
[NOTATION: Explain how “reasonable opportunity to discover the violation” means that the clock starts from the time the person bringing the lawsuit had actual knowledge of their right to make a claim, that offense done 10 years ago, is not barred if you didn't know until today you had a right to make a claim, that this is when the clock for the 2 years or 6 months starts. You can't be held accountable for what you didn't know, and when asked to prove when you knew, you need to show when without it being able to be considered “unreasonable” though they'll argue that, tell the truth of not knowing and when you did know, and the course of events itself will engender reasonableness.]
[NOTATION: Explain that the Civil Case is a great opportunity for discovery, and that by using it narrow and yet accurately you want to submit those things that will lead to ease in filing a complaint to get a prosecution started, pursuant to the next section, for, as records in a courtroom, whether judgment in your favor or not, they are public records that, if taken in by the court as evidence, are generally irrefutable as submittable as evidence in another case. If you won, it will be easier to get them submitted in a subsequent case brought under the following section.]
And...
“SEC. 329. CRIMINAL PENALTIES.
“ Any person who is an official or employee of any department, agency, bureau, office, commission, or other entity of the Federal Government, and any other person who is acting for or on behalf of any such entity, who, directly or indirectly, in connection with the administration of this title, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for--
“ (1) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
[NOTATION: This could just include a raise or elevation in stature/position]
“ (2) being influenced to commit or aid in the committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
[NOTATION”: If someone says there was information gathered about you, but it is false, if you don't know about the information the agency will never know the information isn't true, right?]
“ (3) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person,
[NOTATION: which obviously would be more than merely influence, more covert/overt, threatening etc.]
“ shall be fined in an amount not more than 3 times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both. A violation of this section shall be subject to chapter 227 of title 18, United States Code, and the provisions of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.” --
Full text of the original Patriot Act as passed same as above, (I strongly suggest using a Mark Levine group, ACLJ or other lawyer, and feel free to share this article with them as well, the depth of what is going on is unfathomable), http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR: Just click the link to Section 329. Thomas treats all of these links from the main Patriot Act text as “temporary” searches that expire within 30 minutes or I'd just post a link to the sections directly.
As you can see, there is a means of remedy, both civil and criminal, however, the roadblock of grounds to sue becomes the issue if you follow these paths directly. So, and this is my concluding portion of this article, I suggest your lawyers look closely at the above provisions of the Patriot Act, recognizing the discovery opportunities to establish standing on the basis of the law's self-executing provisions regarding civil/criminal liability, depending on who you are and who your lawyers are, how they practice law, and the type of remedy pursued. The legal specifics must of course be included in the SF-95 (http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/fas/SF95.pdf), and, as you can see in the order of things, the notice and opportunity to the agency to give you a hearing, and deny your claim is required by the law as well. The key to this for us is that it is in the course of this administrative claim process that the waiver of the agency's presumption of sovereign immunity occurs when you get no remedy.
Method, order, and keeping your wits about you, for you and your lawyers, is essential. But while others are screaming as though this is a conspiracy of banks (or lizard people), the reality is that even Prison Camps have been with us since the 1940s, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4125 (hit the “notes” tab after the link loads).
Of course, the necessity is to recognize that the only ones upset are those trying to deceive and mislead you, having a political or monetary agenda fed by their sensationalism, or that they truly are panicked, and likely would be best served by your use of seasoned reason and objectivity to help them become a client to your lawyer so we can have myriad individual cases that win, that set hundreds, if not thousands of Supreme Court precedents that end the entire idea of surveillance behind the NSA program.
I'd share more details but at 4 pages in my word processor, I am sure I've outworn my welcome to your eyes, and ears, should I read this on a BTR radio show.
Thank you for reading and/or listening, God Bless,
Toddy Littman
