Fri 19 Aug 2011
A prime aim of the growing Surveillance State
Posted by k under Civil Liberties , Democracy1 Comment
Glenn Greenwald Salon
Several weeks ago, a New York Times article by Noam Cohen examined the case of Aaron Swartz, the 24-year-old copyright reform advocate who was arrested in July, after allegedly downloading academic articles that had been placed behind a paywall, thus making them available for free online. (more…)
August 22nd, 2011 at 11:10 am
EXPECT MORE POLICE CORRUPTION WITH NO-WARRANT SEARCHES
U.S. Government wants the power without a warrant, to introduce as evidence in criminal prosecutions and government civil trials, any phone call record, email or Internet activity. Alarmingly, that would open the door for Police to take out of context, any innocent–hastily written email, fax or phone call record to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a person’s arrest, fines and or civil asset forfeiture of their property. There are more than 200 laws and violations that can subject property to government asset forfeiture: Government civil asset forfeiture requires only a civil preponderance of evidence for police to forfeit property, little more than hearsay.
If the Justice Department has its way, any information the FBI derives from (no warrant) acquisition of Web Server Records; User Internet Activity, emails; and phone records, can be used by the FBI for (fishing expeditions) to issue subpoenas in hopes of finding evidence, to prosecute Citizens for any alleged crime or violation–circumventing the Fourth Amendment. Consider: neither Congress nor the courts–determined what NSA electronic surveillance, perhaps illegal under Bush II, could be used by police or introduced into court by a government agency to prosecute U.S. Citizens criminally or civilly. If the Justice Department is permitted (No-warrant) surveillance of all electronic communications, it is problematic state and local law enforcement agencies and private government contractors will want access to Bush II /NSA and other government (retained electronic records) of Internet activity; emails and phone call information to secure evidence to arrest Americans and or civilly forfeit their homes, businesses and other assets under Title 18USC and other laws. Of obvious concern, what happens to fair justice in America if police become dependent on “Asset Forfeiture” to help pay their salaries and budget operating costs?
The “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” (effectively eliminated) the “five year statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture: the statute now runs five years (from the date) police claim they “learned” that an asset became subject to forfeiture. It is foreseeable should (no warrant electronic surveillance) be approved; police will relentlessly sift through businesses and Citizens’ (retained Internet data), e.g., emails to allege a crime or violation. A corrupt/despot U.S. Government, could use no warrant (retained Internet data and phone call information) to extort Americans, corporations and others in the same manner Hitler used his 1933 passed Discriminatory Decrees to extort corporations and the wealthy to support totalitarian legislation–voiding the Constitutional Freedoms of German Citizens.
Under U.S. federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Most U.S. Citizens, property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture claim an “innocent owner defense.” This defense can become a (Catch 22) a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt made to government when questioned about committing a crime “even when you did not do the crime” may “involuntarily waive” a defendant’s right to assert in their defense–the “Criminal Statute of Limitations” past for prosecution; any fresh denial of guilt even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during a Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeding to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason many innocent Americans, property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579. U.S. See paragraph (6) at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC1.html