In Brief

The Very Book The Government Does Not Want You To Read Just Went #1 In The World

… “went #1 in the world” …

Hmmm …

It surely must be true since it says so on the Internet, but I can’t find it.

So, Deckard, please show exactly where this far-reaching and momentously important event in our lifetime that you are calling to our attention actually took place and went #1 In The World:

New York Times Bestsellers: Current List

This Week's Bestsellers: September 23, 2019

WALL STREET JOURNAL-BEST SELLERS

The Guardian - The 100 best books of the 21st century

The Barnes & Noble® Top 100 Best Sellers list

USA TODAY's Best-Selling Books list

Indie Bestseller Lists for September 18, 2019

Best seller lists | Amazon Official Site‎

Best Seller Websites | Search Best Seller Websites‎

Uh Freedom of Speech …

Despite the absolute language of the First Amendment, wars, threats of wars, and perceived risks to national security have prompted the government to, at times, restrict freedom of speech and other First Amendment freedoms throughout U.S. history.

Sedition Act is an example of a freedom restriction for the sake of national security

A prime example is the legislation passed only seven years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, in 1791. In 1798 the Federalist Congress, fearful of an impending, full-blown war with France, adopted the Sedition Act, which attempted to stifle any speech that criticized the president, who was conducting an undeclared conflict with France at sea. The Federalist Party justified the Sedition Act as a measure needed to prevent threats to national security from within the country.

Other wars have seen First Amendment restrictions to protect national security interests

During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in some parts of the North, especially those that were unstable, and the Confederate government acted in a similar fashion.

World War I saw the adoption of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, which led to the first Supreme Court decisions, among them Schenck v. United States (1919) and Abrams v. United States (1919), that punished political dissidents because their speech allegedly presented a clear and present danger to national security and war efforts.

During World War II, the government incarcerated Japanese Americans. That war and the Cold War that followed spurred adoption of the Smith Act (making it illegal to call for the overthrow of the U.S. government), intrusive congressional investigations into personal beliefs and associations, and other efforts to suppress domestic Communism.

The prolonged U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and its high death toll prompted the eruption of protests nationwide, along with efforts to suppress them. Such issues were rekindled in the aftermath of the al-Qaida attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, and the U.S. responses to those events.

Periodically, the Supreme Court has examined whether the government can restrict speech to further the compelling interests of national security. In doing so, the Court has recognized that national security, as a governmental interest, does justify restrictions on First Amendment rights. In the landmark free press decision Near v. Minnesota (1931), the Court established a general rule against prior restraints on expression. However, the Court did note that the government could shut down a newspaper if it published military secrets: “No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops.”

Nevertheless, the government must provide proof that national security interests really are in play—that is, the government cannot simply use national security as a blank check to sidestep constitutional challenges. In New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the majority of the Court rejected the government’s national security justifications for attempting to prevent the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, the top-secret history of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. In his concurring opinion, Justice Hugo L. Black explained that “the word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.”

War on Terror led to debate over the balance of liberty and security The War on Terror that commenced after the September 11 attacks on the United States brought into focus the debate over national security and the proper balance between liberty and security. One controversy arose over certain provisions of the USA Patriot Act, which Congress passed forty-five days after the attacks, especially the widespread use by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of national security letters (NSLs) under Section 505 of the act.

A national security letter is an administrative subpoena instrument used by the FBI to compel recipients of the letter to comply with requests for various data and records on the person who is the subject of the subpoena. This instrument requires no probable cause or judicial oversight. It also contains a gag order preventing recipients from even acknowledging they have received an NSL. A 2007 Department of Justice audit revealed that in 2005, 47,221 requests applicable to 18,000 people were issued. Similar numbers were posted for 2003 and 2004.

"Secret evidence" is a questionable instrument used by the government in national security cases

“Secret evidence” is another questionable instrument sometimes favored by the government, especially in immigration cases. In 2003 Sami al-Arian, a tenured professor of computer engineering at the University of South Florida, was arrested, based on secret evidence, for his alleged ties to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The al-Arian case caused an uproar within academia because of its free speech and free association implications as well as his termination from his academic posting.

Despite the credible nature of the charges against him, several prominent academicians came to al-Arian’s defense, demanding an inquiry and reinstatement. Al-Arian was charged with seventeen separate counts, but as part of a plea agreement, he was convicted on one count of conspiracy and sentenced to nineteen months in jail beyond the fifty seven months already served. Al-Arian admitted that he had raised funds for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

"Outing" intelligence operatives is a controversial national security issue

Yet another national security issue that continues to generate controversy is the published “outings” of known intelligence operatives. The best-known case is that of career Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative Philip Agee.

Agee served in Latin America but became disaffected by the CIA’s role there. He left the agency in 1968, a self-avowed socialist. In the 1970s, Agee published Inside the Company in which he named over 250 operatives and assets for the CIA in Latin America. In 1974 he announced a campaign against the CIA.

In response to Agee’s activities, Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr. revoked Agee’s passport. Agee countered by charging that his right to criticize the government under the First Amendment had been infringed by Secretary Haig’s action. In its 7-2 decision in Haig v. Agee (1981), written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Supreme Court disagreed. Justices William J. Brennan Jr. and Thurgood Marshall dissented.

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) of 1982 was drafted in the wake of the disclosures made in part by Philip Agee and the assassination of CIA Station Chief Richard Welch by the Greek terrorist group 17 November after his identity was revealed in the magazine Counter-Spy. The IIPA has been invoked twice since its passage: in the 1985 case of CIA operative Sharon Scranage, the only person convicted thus far under the IIPA, and most recently in the Valerie Plame affair.

In 2003 newspaper columnist Robert Novak publicly revealed that Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a vociferous critic of the George W. Bush administration and the prewar intelligence on Iraq, was a nonofficial cover operative of the CIA. Later, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was indicted by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald under the IIPA for disclosing Plame’s name to journalists, who, in turn, disclosed her identity to the American public. On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. However, in the end he was not convicted under the IIPA.

Ultimately, policy makers are responsible for maintaining the delicate balance between the First Amendment and national security—a balance with which society continues to struggle in an age of international terrorism.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1134/national-security

Edward Snowden is a hero.

Why?

Provides Proof The Government Is Spying On Citizens.

And now at the dawn of the Snowden revelations, many wondered – and hoped – that the U.S. intelligence community would be destroyed. It was not. It has strengthened since the opposite has happened. Despite undoubted intelligence losses, new collection barriers, and diplomatic embarrassments, the community has emerged as a stronger organization despite, indeed because of, Snowden.

Snowden actually helped that agencies. He made them aware of a problem and they scrapped much and they were forced to develop and install new and much better capabilities faster than before and ever planned.

Snowden’s influence has in many other ways been limited. For example, there in the rise of “smart speaker”, exemplified by Amazon’s Echo. It has left many privacy activists baffled. Why, just a few years after a global scandal involving government surveillance, would people willingly install always-on microphones in their homes?

Proving they really don’t give a shit – right? With the new-found privacy conundrum prevelant by installing a device that can literally listen to everything you’re saying represents a chilling new development in the age of internet-connected things.

Edward Snowden an American hero.

Why?

It is said that he provided proof that the government is spying on citizens.

… “provided poof” …

If you didn’t already know that and needed to be “provided proof” of such actions – then the only proof provided was that you were dumber that a pile of shit.

What some hoped for with Snowden’s revelations was that the U.S. intelligence community would be destroyed. It was not. Exactly the opposite has happened - It has strengthened since Edward Snowden became your American hero.

Despite undoubted intelligence losses, new collection barriers, and diplomatic embarrassments, the community has now emerged as a stronger organization discounting – yes indeed and because of – Snowden.

Snowden actually helped the agencies. He made them aware of a problem and they scrapped much and they were forced to develop and install new and much better capabilities faster than before and ever planned.

We are being spied on better and faster today because of your American hero, Snowden.

We are being spied on better and faster today because of in spite of your American hero, Snowden.

Fixed it.

Uh …

How?

It’s saying the same thing with the same end results.

But if you like your version better – then I am perfectly okay with it.

If you didn’t already know that and needed to be “provided proof” of such actions – then the only proof provided was that you were dumber that a pile of shit.

What some hoped for with Snowden’s revelations was that the U.S. intelligence community would be destroyed. It was not. Exactly the opposite has happened - It has strengthened since Edward Snowden became your American hero.

Despite undoubted intelligence losses, new collection barriers, and diplomatic embarrassments, the community has now emerged as a stronger organization discounting – yes indeed and because of in spite of – Snowden. Snowden actually helped the agencies. He made them aware of a problem and they scrapped much and they were forced to develop and install new and much better capabilities faster than before and ever planned.

We are being spied on better and faster because of. in spite of your American hero, Snowden.

You seem to love warrantless spying on ALL American citizens.

Obviously, you are one of those sheep who constantly bleat "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear".

Those are the words of tyrants and their submissive sycophants.

ANYBODY with 2 IQ points to rub together knows the government "spies" on citizens.

Stop with the bullshit that “No one really knew the extent until Snowden revealed it.”

Since 2001 it has been common knowledge that the government has engaged in massive, illegal dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary citizens. There were full blown press reports in late 2005. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been at the forefront in an attempt to stops it. you can even read the timelines here.

In early 2006, EFF obtained whistleblower evidence (.pdf) from former AT&T technician Mark Klein showing that AT&T is cooperating with the illegal surveillance. The undisputed documents show that AT&T installed a fiberoptic splitter at its facility at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco that makes copies of all emails web browsing and other Internet traffic to and from AT&T customers and provides those copies to the NSA. This copying includes both domestic and international Internet activities of AT&T customers. As one expert observed, “this isn’t a wiretap, it’s a country-tap.”

News reports in December 2005 first revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been intercepting Americans’ phone calls and Internet communications. Those news reports, combined with a USA Today story in May 2006 and the statements of several members of Congress, revealed that the NSA is also receiving wholesale copies of American's telephone and other communications records. All of these surveillance activities are in violation of the privacy safeguards established by Congress and the US Constitution.

https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying

Stop with the bullshit that “No one really knew the extent until Snowden revealed it.”

It is a fact that no on[e] knew the extent. [Definition of Extent: The degree to which something happens].

NOTE – The date of Snowden’s information release was on June 5, 2013.

The massive, illegal dragnet surveillance of the domestic communications and communications records of millions of ordinary Americans since at least 2001 was first reported by the press and discovered by the public in late 2005. ^source

NOTE – The date of the MASSIVE surveillance was first discovered by the public in late 2005. [Definition of Massive: very large in size].

News reports in December 2005 first revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been intercepting Americans’ phone calls and Internet communications. Those news reports, combined with a USA Today story in May 2006 and the statements of several members of Congress, revealed that the NSA is also receiving wholesale copies of American's telephone and other communications records. [Definition of Wholesale: Done on a large scale; extensive]. ^source

Secret government documents, [furnished by Snowden then] published by Guardian and Washington Post in 2013, confirmed – CONFIRMED – that NSA obtains full copies of everything that is carried along major domestic fiber optic cable networks.

Real Americans understand that: It is a fact that no on[e] knew the extent.

While I await that, I will continue by stating tjat I simply cannot find information to agree with your statement that “it is a fact that no on[e] knew the extent.” I find in different articles that everyone knew from press reports about the massive, wholesale, illegal dragnet surveillance since late 2005 and all that Snowden did was to confirm that on June 5, 2013.

I would say that YOUR real Americans knew of the massive, wholesale, illegal dragnet surveillance – the simply did not know the amount [extent] of the sophisticated being used.

Snowden did not reveal the “extent of WHAT” – since that was already known – he revealed the “extent of HOW.” And I am fully prepared to discuss with you the biggest actual revelations from Snowden’s leaks.

The contract can't make him keep things that are illegal secret. Since it requires a search warrant to search someone and they aren't they are in violation.

Real Americans understand that.

Snowden signed non-disclosure agreements [contracts] with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA) agreeing to keep ALL things there and from there SECRET – and yes, it definitely does include anything illegal.

You are right In that they can’t MAKE him keep the things that are illegal secret – but they sure as hell can take him to court for violating the non- disclosure agreements [contracts] and seek a judgment against him.

Which they are now doing …

For on Tuesday, the US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Edward Snowden for publishing a book, Permanent Record, in violation of non-disclosure agreements he had with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA).

Since it requires a search warrant to search someone and they aren't they are in violation.

They are using a law for prohibit free speech.

Since congress shall make no law.....

You can believe some lawyer talk …

Let me see – how shall I properly express my take on this to you …

I will start by saying, Yes – they are using a law to prosecute him. But they are not using a law to prohibit his free speech. They are suinging him for breach of contract.

Please permit me to give you an example …

Okay. Let’s say that you [A K A Stone} want to come to work for me [Gatlin] and before I hire you, I have you sign a written agreement [contact] whereby you formally and legally agree that you will never tell anyone anything about me. But after you sign that agreement [contract] and come to work for me, you learn some things about me that you want to tell everybody about. So you say to me: “I am going to tell everyone things about you.” And then you proceed to do just that. Well, after you do that – I can then sue you for breech of contract and I will not be “ using a law [to] prohibit free speech.”

That, my dear friend, is as clear as I can possibly make it. And that is exactly what is happening between the DOJ and Snowden.

It has nothing – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING – to do with his freedom of speech.

And I close by wishing a happy Sunday morning to you.

Well they don't have a warrant to listen to everyone's calls. They were breading the law.

Huh – you say.

Well, it turns out that Rand Paul is absolutely correct.

Let’s understand how that is …

Rand Paul was asked about President Trump’s accusation that President Obama ordered the NSA to wiretap his calls. The Kentucky senator expressed skepticism about the mechanics of Trump’s specific charge, saying: “I doubt that Trump was a target directly of any kind of eavesdropping.” But he then made a broader and more crucial point about how the U.S. government spies on Americans’ communications — a point that is deliberately obscured and concealed by U.S. government defenders.

Paul explained how the NSA routinely and deliberately spies on Americans’ communications — listens to their calls and reads their emails — without a judicial warrant of any kind:

The way it works is, the FISA court, through Section 702, wiretaps foreigners and then [NSA] 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.

Paul’s explanation is absolutely correct. That the NSA is empowered to spy on Americans’ communications without a warrant — in direct contravention of the core Fourth Amendment guarantee that “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” — is the dirty little secret of the U.S. Surveillance State.

[…]

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/13/rand-paul-is-right-nsa-routinely-monitors- americans-communications-without-warrants/

None of these internees was ever found guilty of a crime or proven to be a threat to national security.