Late Night: Obama = Bush on Steroids
Posted: March 26, 2011 Filed under: Psychopaths in charge, SCOTUS, Surreality, Team Obama, torture, U.S. Military, U.S. Politics, We are so F'd | Tags: ACLU, biometrics technology, electronic police state, FBI, mass surveillance state, Miranda decision, Pentagon, SCOTUS, USA Patriot Act 18 CommentsPrepare yourself for the next stage in the enactment of Total Information Awareness. The Obama administration is in the process of enacting a “mass surveillance state.” Raw Story reports that the FBI is working on “an advanced biometrics facility” that will also be used by the Pentagon.
In an exclusive interview with Raw Story, attorney Chris Calabrese, an ACLU’s legislative counsel in Washington, D.C., warned that this move in particular was indicative of a fast approaching mass surveillance state that poses a “grave danger” to American values.
The FBI’s forthcoming biometrics center will be based on a system constructed by defense contractor Lockheed Martin, and part of that system is already operating today in Clarksburg, West Virginia. Starting with fingerprints, and creating a global law enforcement database for the sharing of those biometric images, the system is slated to expand outward, eventually encompassing facial mapping and other advanced forms of computer-aided identification.
To help ramp up the amount of data flooding into this center, the FBI said that electronic fingerprint scanners would be sent to state and local police agencies, which would be empowered to capture prints from any suspect, even if they haven’t been arrested or convicted of a crime.
Even more frightening is allowing the government and law enforcement to use facial mapping to keep tabs on all of us.
“Facial recognition is one of the most invasive biometrics because it allows surreptitious tracking at a distance,” Calabrese continued. “They can secretly track you from camera to camera, location to location. That has enormous implications, not just for security but also for American society. I mean, we are now at a point where we can automatically track people. Computers could do that. That’s what, we think, is a grave danger to our privacy.”
And that’s not all. You’ve probably heard that the Obama Justice Department has decided to ignore the Supreme Court Decision that requires Miranda warnings for crime suspects.
[On March 24,] the Obama DOJ unveiled the latest — and one of the most significant — examples of its eagerness to assault the very legal values Obama vowed to protect. The Wall Street Journal reports that “new rules allow investigators to hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning, significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades.” The only previous exception to the 45-year-old Miranda requirement that someone in custody be apprised of their rights occurred in 1984, when the Rehnquist-led right-wing faction of the Supreme Court allowed delay “only in cases of an imminent safety threat,” but these new rules promulgated by the Obama DOJ “give interrogators more latitude and flexibility to define what counts as an appropriate circumstance to waive Miranda rights.”
Let’s see now, the President claims the power to identify any American citizen as a terrorist, on his word only. Once you are labeled a terrorist, you can be held without charges, you have no Habeus rights, and no Miranda rights. You can be tortured in a foreign country or right here in the US of A. Not only that, but you can even be assassinated without trial if the President so orders. We even have emergency laws.
The government isn’t going to need martial law to control the population. We’ll be living in an electronic police state, our every move filmed and examined for suspicious behavior.
We might as well be living in Libya or Egypt.
SCOTUS Reviews “Hillary” the Movie
Posted: August 30, 2009 Filed under: Hillary Clinton: Her Campaign for All of Us, Main Stream Media, SCOTUS, Voter Ignorance | Tags: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Hillary: the Movie, SCOTUS Comments Off on SCOTUS Reviews “Hillary” the Movie{ Physical and Mental Health Warning!!! Watch right wing hate CDS youtubes at your own risk!!!}
Okay, here’s another constitutional question about which I am no authority but sure find interesting. Here’s the link to the NYT and Adam Liptak’s article today called “Supreme Court to Revisit ‘Hillary’ Documentary”. It’s high drama for the court because this basically pits first amendment rights against campaign funding. It’s also pitting interest groups that are usually allies against each other and has made strange bedfellows of the NRA and the ACLU. If the Supreme Court could actually pick away at how Corporations fund political campaigns this day and age I would be relieved, but of course not if it violates the First Amendment. So SCOTUS has to determine the fate of the baby and they’re coming back from their summer vacation early to do so. We also have some increased drama in that the court itself since it as polarized as the country itself and definitely the interest groups that are involved in providing huge campaign donations. I’m intrigued.
Ginsberg Puts the Brakes on the Chrysler Deal
Posted: June 9, 2009 Filed under: Bailout Blues, Equity Markets, Global Financial Crisis, SCOTUS, Team Obama, U.S. Economy | Tags: Bankruptcy Law, Chrysler bankruptcy, GM Bankruptcy, Primacy of Corporate Bonds, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, SCOTUS, TARP funds used for Chrysler Comments Off on Ginsberg Puts the Brakes on the Chrysler Deal
I’ve talked about the issues involving primacy of commercial bond debt and the issues in the Obama administration attempt to wheel-and-deal GM and Chrysler around the standard bankruptcy process. It seems Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsberg may have similar concerns. She put a stay on the sale of Chrysler to Fiat. The action puts into question the future of Chrylser in that there will be no other bidders for Chrysler if this deal does not go through by June 15. It also would cause bond holders to re-visit the GM restructure.
This from Scotus Blog.
The action had almost no legal significance, however. The deal remains in legal limbo until Ginsburg, as the Circuit Justice, or the full Court takes some definitive action. There is now no timetable for further action at the Supreme Court, although the terms of the deal allow Chrysler’s new business spouse — Fiat, the Italian automaker — to back out as of next Monday if the deal has not closed. Moreover, the papers filed in the Supreme Court have suggested that Chrysler is losing money at the rate of $100 million a day, pending the sale. That gives the Justices some incentive not to let much time pass before acting.
Among the likely explanations for Ginsburg’s action:
* Ginsburg may have decided to share the decision on what to do with her eight colleagues, and they needed more time to think or talk about it.
* Members of the Court may have decided that they wanted to give some explanation, or perhaps some may have decided to dissent and wanted a chance to prepare a statement saying so. In the meantime, it was her task, as the Circuit Justice, to impose a limited stay.
* Ginsburg or the Court may be waiting to see how the Second Circuit explains its decision to uphold the terms of the sale. The Circuit Court issued no opinion on Friday, indicating that such an explanation would come “in due course,” although the expectation was that one or more opinions would emerge from those judges on Monday.
The wording of Ginsburg’s order — “stayed pending further order” — is the conventional way by which a Justice or the Court carries out an action that is expected to be short in duration, and not controlling — or even hinting at — the ultimate outcome. Any speculation that her order meant the Court was leaning toward a further postponement would be unfounded.
Use by the Obama administration of TARP funds may be at the heart of the issue, although there is no way to determine that from the stay. This from Yahoo news.
Chrysler claims the agreement with Fiat is the best deal it can get for its assets and is critical to the company’s plan to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
But a trio of Indiana state pension and construction funds, which hold a small part of Chrysler’s debt, have been fighting the sale, claiming that it unfairly favors Chrysler’s unsecured stakeholders ahead of secured debtholders like themselves.
As part of Chrysler’s restructuring plan, the automaker’s secured debtholders will receive $2 billion, or about 29 cents on the dollar, for their combined $6.9 billion in debt. The Indiana funds bought their $42.5 million in debt in July 2008 for 43 cents on the dollar.
The funds also are challenging the constitutionality of the Treasury Department’s use of money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to supply Chrysler’s bankruptcy protection financing. They say the government did so without congressional authority.
Consumer groups and individuals with product-related lawsuits also are contesting a condition of the Chrysler sale that would release the company from product liability claims related to vehicles it sold before the “New Chrysler” partnered with Fiat is created.
Individuals with claims against “Old Chrysler” would have to seek compensation from the parts of the company not being sold to Fiat. But those assets have limited value and it’s doubtful that there will be anything available to pay consumer claims.
The appeals come as Congress intensifies its scrutiny of the Obama administration’s government-led restructuring of Chrysler and General Motors Corp. The Senate Banking Committee said it planned to call Ron Bloom, a senior adviser to the auto task force, and Edward Montgomery, who serves as the Obama administration’s director of recovery for auto communities and workers, to a hearing Wednesday.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., the committee’s chairman, planned to review the use of TARP funds to help the auto companies and look at whether taxpayers will receive a return on their investment.
GM and Chrysler executives faced questions last week from Congress over the elimination of hundreds of dealerships as part of the companies’ reorganizations.







Recent Comments