Why Do Both Major Parties Suck So Badly On Civil Liberties?

from the power-corrupts? dept

Over the weekend, I saw an article on Salon about how shameful it is that supporters of President Obama, who were loud in their condemnation of attacks on civil liberties by George W. Bush, seemed to ignore that President Obama has been worse in many ways (despite many public promises to the contrary). We've already noted that the Democratic Party -- which had fixing civil liberties abuses in its 2008 platform -- has removed all traces of that from the new platform. You would think that, for those who believe strongly in civil liberties, this would be a major concern. Rather than fix them, President Obama continued or expanded many of the very questionable policies of his predecessor, and then added a number of terrifying new ones.

Of course, if civil liberties is the issue you vote over, the other major party offers you no help either (as you should already know, based on Bush's presidency). As Adam Serwer notes, when debating issues of civil liberties, there really is no significant choice between Obama and Romney on this particular issue. There may be some differences at the margins, but that's about it.

Serwer's piece argues that much of this is driven by the American public, who seem particularly fond of giving up our own civil liberties in the face of non-stop fear mongering about terrorism. It seems likely that there is also something to the fact that, once in power, people generally don't like to scale back their own ability to "do stuff." Either way, it amazes me that avid supporters of one side or the other, who absolutely hate the idea of the "other side" getting into power, never seem concerned about how the other side will make use of the same policies they put in place to support themselves.

There are, of course, real differences in many of the other policies from the two candidates, but the lack of significant differences on civil liberties is a real shame. We should demand better.

Filed Under: barack obama, civil liberties, democrats, mitt romney, republicans

It Takes Jon Stewart To Finally Ask Obama About Civil Liberties... But Lets Him Off The Hook On Bogus Answer

from the sad dept

In the various Presidential debates, no one seems to want to bring up President Obama's near complete about-face on his promises concerning civil liberties. It's so ridiculous that the Democratic party simply removed the issue from their platform -- and that's because he hasn't just continued former President Bush's abuses of civil liberties, he's gone even further with them. And no one seems to want to ask the candidates about it... except a comedian. When President Obama appeared on The Daily Show recently, Jon Stewart actually asked him about this:

STEWART: I think people have been surprised to see the strength of the Bush era warrantless wiretapping laws and those types of things not also be lessened—That the structures he put in place that people might have thought were government overreach and maybe they had a mind you would tone down, you haven’t.

OBAMA: The truth is we have modified them and built a legal structure and safeguards in place that weren’t there before on a whole range issues.

However, as the EFF explains in great detail, President Obama's answer is simply not true. It's not even close to true.

To the contrary, there’s no indication that the still-active warrantless wiretapping program—which includes a warrantless dragnet on millions of innocent Americans’ communications—has significantly changed from the day Obama took office. With regard to the FISA Amendments Act, the Obama Administration has actively opposed all proposed safeguards in Congress. All the while, his Administration has been even more aggressive than President Bush in trying to prevent warrantless wiretapping victims from having their day in court and has continued building the massive national security infrastructure needed to support it. 

They then go on to look more closely at all of these different promises from President Obama related to this, all of which he's fallen down on. Unfortunately, Stewart doesn't push back on this point, as they then go straight to a joke, before moving on to another topic. Of course, for those of us who aren't shackled to a party and, instead, find civil liberties to be a key issue, we're left with two major candidates who don't seem to care about massive abuses by the federal government.

Filed Under: barack obama, civil liberties, jon stewart, warrantless wiretapping

DOJ Railroads CIA Torture Whistleblower Into Reduced Guilty Plea

from the shameful dept

Back in April, we wrote about how the Obama administration, for the astounding sixth time, had used the Espionage Act -- which is supposed to be used against spies -- to bring criminal charges against a former government employee-turned-whistleblower. All other Presidents prior to Obama put together had used the Espionage Act in this manner three times. Yes, the Obama administration has doubled all previous such uses. Last year, lots of attention was paid to the case of Thomas Drake, which ended in a weak plea bargain, after much of the government's case fell apart. This year, the attention was on this latest case, against former CIA agent, John Kiriakou, who blew the whistle on how the CIA tortured people via waterboarding.

In a sane society, such whistleblowing would receive a hero's welcome, and the people involved in torture would be in jail. President Obama has said that waterboarding is torture, as has Attorney General Eric Holder, who runs the DOJ. Given that, combined with Obama's repeated insistence that his administration must encourage whistleblowing, you would think that the administration, led by the DOJ, would celebrate a CIA agent who exposes such practices, and seek to punish those who carried them out.

Instead, we have the reverse. This morning, Kiriakou plead guilty, though to a much lesser charge -- that of "revealing an undercover operative's identity." Similar to the Drake case, they found narrow grounds for a guilty plea. The plea document and the associated "statement of facts" are embedded below for your horror. They tell... uh... a very one-sided view of the story, leaving out all the pesky little details about torture. Kiriakou was more or less forced into taking the deal after a judge had ridiculously ruled that you didn't have to intend to harm the US to be guilty under the Espionage Act. How is it possibly espionage against a country if you don't intend to harm that country?

The whole proceeding (and all of these other cases) have seriously called into question the Obama administration's supposed support of whistleblowers. It's clear that was a horrible joke played on the public when Obama insisted he wanted to encourage whistleblowing. Before these latest events, Bloomberg had an absolutely scathing story and editorial about the administrations abuse of power under the Espionage Act to beat down any whistleblowers.

As the Government Accountability Project notes, the tragedy in all of this is that Kiriakou goes to jail, while the actual torturer, remains free. They note that this plea lets the case be over, and makes sure that Kiriakou will be out of jail in 2.5 years -- and will get to see his children grow up. But the whole claim of "outing" is ridiculous:

"Outing" is quotes because the charge is not that Kiriakou's actions resulted in a public disclosure of the name, but that through a Kevin Bacon-style chain of causation, GITMO torture victims learned the name of one of their possible torturers. Regardless, how does outing a torturer hurt the national security of the U.S.? It's like arguing that outing a Nazi guarding a concentration camp would hurt the national security of Germany.

They further note that the CIA agent "outed," Thomas Fletcher, was widely known to reporters well before Kiriakou mentioned his name to reporters. As GAP notes:

An effectively-forced plea from John Kiriakou will be the tragic bookend to the torture narrative: Kiriakou will be going to jail, while Fletcher happily enjoys retirement in Vienna VA, safe with protection from "the most transparent administration in history."

Oh, and not just that, but:

The only person to be criminal prosecuted, and now likely jailed, as a result of the Bush-era torture regime is John Kiriakou, who refused to participate in torture, helped expose the program, and said on national television that torture was wrong.

Shameful. Oh, and as an aside to folks here who have spent time following the Megaupload case, the guy who headed up this case for the DOJ, Neil MacBride... is the same guy who's heading up the Megaupload prosecution.

Filed Under: barack obama, doj, eric holder, espionage act, john kiriakou, thomas fletcher, torture, waterboarding, whistleblowing

Reddit Sleuths In Action: Highlight How Obama Answered A 'Planted' Question [Update: Or Not?]

from the but-let's-talk-about-rampart dept

Update: There are some good points raised in the comments, showing that the woman in question has responded to the claims and insist that she wasn't a plant.

We were a bit disappointed in how President Obama handled his recent Reddit AMA, giving mostly canned politician's answers to a community that tends to expect a bit more human emotion. It was no Woody Harrelson debacle, but it did seem like a missed opportunity. And, now, some Redditors are suggesting that parts of it were actually stage. Some internet sleuthing pointed out that among the only 10 questions that Obama chose to answer (out of hundreds that were asked almost immediately) was one from someone who appears to have been planted by the administration. The evidence:

• Profile created mere hours before minutes after the AMA was announced, and literally six seconds before asking a well written, paragraph long question (approximate typing speed assuming it was typed after creating the account? 1570 wpm)
• Created a profile 5 minutes 39 seconds after the AMA going live, when servers were having a fit.
• Asked question explicitly requesting ways to recruit the youth that Obama relied on last election (many of whom are disillusioned with him, for all the reasons she presents herself as being subject to)
• Is literally only 1 of 10 questions answered.
• asked by one hmlee who (according to some internet detective work):
  • has only one comment in her history, total
  • Posted a blog entry supporting Obama
  • lists herself as working/having worked as an intern at the Department of Justice

So, is it possible that she heard about it on her own, created an account, and typed up an eloquent question that is a PR man's wet dream all within less than 6 minutes? Yes, it's possible. It's just not particularly likely.

It isn't that surprising that the administration would plant questions, though it is a bit surprising that they thought they'd get away with such a blatantly obvious planting. Why not find a supporter who was an actual Redditor and have them ask the question? Either way, we've pointed out that the key to a good Reddit AMA tends to be showing off your human side. Responding to planted questions with politicians' answers doesn't seem to qualify.

Filed Under: ama, barack obama, planted questions
Companies: reddit

Obama And Romney Each Have An Ad Disappear As The Olympics Gets Snippy About Anyone Referencing The Olympics

from the non-political-because-politics-don't-pay dept

While we've had plenty of stories about the Olympics being overly aggressive in over protecting its (loosely defined) intellectual property rights, it appears that it's now also targeting both major parties' presidential campaigns. Both Obama and Romney apparently launched commercials recently with "Olympic Themes." The Olympics then called out the Obama Super PAC campaign for supposedly infringing on its copyright. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) claims that it does not allow footage to be used for political purposes, though I do wonder how it deals with cases of fair use (which this may or may not be). Either way, soon after that a Romney ad that also had an Olympics theme (both ads used footage of Romney in his role as CEO of the Olympic Organizing Committee for the Salt Lake City Olympics a decade ago) went offline as well.

One would hope that -- yet again -- these stories get the campaigns interested in the ways in which copyright law can restrict certain forms of speech. No matter who you support for President, the idea that neither major candidate can reference the Olympics seems absurd. Yes, the Olympics doesn't want to be associated with politics (for obvious reasons), but that's a moral rights issue, and in the US, such moral rights don't apply to (most) forms of copyright (and definitely don't apply in this case). What's left, then, is that the two campaigns are limited in their ability to express themselves freely. That seems like a serious issue, but one which it's likely the two campaigns will mostly (unfortunately) ignore.

Filed Under: barack obama, copyright, mitt romney, olympics, politics

YouTube Decides Obama Singing Al Green Is Fair Use; Restores All The Videos

from the your-move,-BMG dept

Earlier this week, we wrote about BMG issuing a takedown to YouTube over a Mitt Romney advertisement that used a clip of President Obama singing one line of an Al Green song. As we noted at the time, this seemed like a clear fair use case. Also, people pointed out that it was clearly an attempt to stifle speech since BMG only went after the Romney commercial, and not the original clips of Obama singing. Realizing this, BMG then also issued takedowns for those videos. If YouTube wanted to retain its DMCA safe harbor provisions, it is supposed to keep those videos down for 10 days and then it could (but does not need to) restore them. However, Google has jumped the gun and restored the videos already (you can see it here), saying that the company made a determination that the content does not violate copyright laws.

At this point, the ball is back in BMG's court. Technically, it can now file a lawsuit against the uploaders of the video if it wants (so, the Romney campaign, the Associated Press and others). Also, it could potentially try to go after Google itself, claiming that the safe harbors no longer apply due to the early reposting. Of course, one would hope that BMG realizes that pursuing any of these strategies would lead to ridicule and, quite possibly, a court issued rebuke for wasting their time with a bogus copyright claim. Unfortunately, for reasons that remain a mystery to me, when it comes to copyright claims, many copyright holders fail to recognize this kind of likely outcome ahead of time.

Filed Under: al green, barack obama, copyright, fair use, mitt romney
Companies: bmg, google, youtube

Even Obama Is A Pirate: BMG Issues New Takedown On Original Obama Singing Al Green Clip

from the this-may-get-interesteing dept

Wow. So earlier today, we wrote about how BMG issued a takedown on the new web-based ad put out by the Romney campaign, which included a brief clip of President Obama singing Al Green's "Let's Stay Together." As we argued, this use seemed to be pretty clearly "fair use." And, of course, it was noteworthy that BMG only seemed to go after the Romney ad, making it pretty clear that this was politically motivated. The original clips of Obama singing Al Green were all over YouTube... and BMG only chose to go after the one used in a Romney commercial. It appears that someone pointed out to BMG's lawyers that this looks really bad, so rather than backing down, BMG has doubled down and issued takedowns to a bunch of the original videos of Obama singing that one line from Al Green. Here's one that shows BMG issued the takedown. The original one that we linked to was actually from the Associated Press, who -- as a news organization -- has an even stronger fair use claim. But that video is missing as well, though it has a slightly different message on the site now: That's... weird, because the video was absolutely available just this morning. Has the Associated Press really decided to block that video in the US? Seems... strange. Why would the AP allow itself to be bullied like that? Because I'm curious about these things, I hopped on my handy dandy VPN system and magically transported my connection to Canada... where the video came back. Magic. So, it's not entirely clear what's going on here, but if you're in the US (and not using a VPN) it appears that these clips of Obama singing Al Green are quickly disappearing from the web, despite clear fair use claims. The entire thing is 9 seconds and there's no way that anyone could make a reasonable claim that this use takes away from the original work or somehow acts as a substitute.

And, of course, in true Streisand Effect manner, all this is doing is calling a lot more attention to the video... and BMG's ridiculous censorious response to the situation.

Update: And... as Michael Weinberg points out, BMG appears to only be targeting President Obama singing Al Green. There are tons of other clips of Al Green singing the song himself or others singing the song. All left up. Hmm...

Filed Under: al green, barack obama, copyright, dmca, fair use, takedown
Companies: bmg

Insanity: Romney's Ad Featuring Obama Singing Al Green Shut Down Via Copyright Claim

from the seriously? dept

YouTube campaign videos get pulled over bogus copyright claims with alarming regularity. And now, as we're entering silly season for the US Presidential campaign, it means we'll be seeing more high profile takedowns. Back during the 2008 campaign, the McCain campaign even sent YouTube a letter trying to explain fair use to the company (seriously), and suggesting that Presidential campaigns should get special treatment to prevent videos from being pulled down. Of course, what might be better is if the Presidential candidates spoke up about how they'd fix the "shoot first, ask question later" aspect of the DMCA takedown procedures, but no one seems willing to do that yet. Back in the 2008 primaries, Mitt Romney also had to explain fair use to Fox News, so he should be ready for this issue again.

In fact, he appears to be the first "fair use victim" this time around. Romney's campaign had posted a web video ad on YouTube that included some of the well-known footage of President Obama singing a single line of Al Green's "Let's Stay Together." Apparently, that triggered BMG to issue a takedown on the Romney ad. This confuses me. If you look at the original footage of Obama singing, it's a grand total of 9 seconds long. If there ever were a clear-cut case of fair use -- a very brief snippet, used in a political ad -- this would be it.

One hopes that Romney, who spoke out against SOPA during the primaries, will start to realize that perhaps he should take a stronger stand in favor of digital free speech rights and against copyright excessiveness, now that he's (yet again) a victim of such things. But perhaps that's just wishful thinking.

Filed Under: al green, barack obama, copyright, fair use, mitt romney, politics, youtube
Companies: bmg

Senator Wyden Asks President Obama: Isn't Congress Required To Approve ACTA?

from the good-question dept

As the US Trade Rep (USTR) under the Obama administration has made it clear that it has no intention of allowing Congress to ratify ACTA, but instead believes it can sign it unilaterally, we've finally seen someone in Congress notice that this appears to be unconstitutional. Senator Wyden has sent President Obama a letter asking some basic questions. From the letter:

Although the USTR insists that current U.S. law, and its application, conform to these standards, there are concerns that the agreement may work to restrain the U.S. from changing such rules and practices. As you know, the executive branch lacks constitutional authority to enter binding international agreements on matters under Congress's plenary powers, including the Article I powers to regulate foreign commerce and protect intellectual property. Yet, through ACTA and without your clarification, the USTR looks to be claiming the authority to do just that.

The letter also responds to the repeated claims of the USTR that it can have this signed as an executive agreement because it doesn't require changes to US law, by pointing out that's not the rule:

The statement by the USTR confuses the issue by conflating two separate stages of the process required for binding the U.S. to international agreements: entry and implementation. It may be possible for the U.S. to implement ACTA or any other trade agreement, once validly entered, without legislation if the agreement requires no change in U.S. law. But, regardless of whether the agreement requires changes in U.S. law, a point that is contested with respect to ACTA, the executive branch lacks constitutional authority to enter a binding international agreement covering issues delegated by the Constitution to Congress' authority, absent congressional approval.

Wyden details the situations under which the US can take part in binding international agreements, and points out that: "ACTA appears to be none of these." He then asks President Obama to make clear that ACTA creates no international obligations for the US:

Mr. President, if you allow the USTR to express your assent to ACTA, then the agreement can bind the U.S. under international law even without Congress' consent, because international law, not U.S. law, determines the binding effect of international agreements. According to many international law scholars, customary international law recognizes the ability of the chief executive of a country to bind its nation to an international agreement regardless of domestic legal requirements.

I request that as a condition of the U.S. putting forward any official instrument that accepts the terms of ACTA that you formally declare that ACTA does not create any international obligations for the U.S. -- that ACTA is not binding. If you are unwilling or unable to make such a clarification, it is imperative that your administration provide the Congress, and the public, with a legal rationale for why ACTA should not be considered by Congress, and work with us to ensure that we reach a common understanding of the proper way for the U.S. to proceed with ACTA. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Filed Under: acta, barack obama, constitution, copyright, executive agreement, ron wyden, ustr

Obama Says It's Okay To Treat Manning The Way He's Been Treated Because He 'Broke The Law'

from the missing-the-point dept

In the continuing saga of President Obama's tone deafness to the concerns of many (including the UN) around the world regarding the treatment of Bradley Manning -- who's accused of being the source of many of Wikileaks major releases -- the President responded to some protesters in San Francisco by defending the treatment of Manning:

OBAMA: So people can have philosophical views [about Bradley Manning] but I can't conduct diplomacy on an open source [basis]... That's not how the world works.

And if you're in the military... And I have to abide by certain rules of classified information. If I were to release material I weren't allowed to, I'd be breaking the law.

We're a nation of laws! We don't let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate. He broke the law.

[Q: Didn't he release evidence of war crimes?]

OBAMA: What he did was he dumped...

[Q: Isn't that just the same thing as what Daniel Ellsberg did?]

OBAMA: No it wasn't the same thing. Ellsberg’s material wasn't classified in the same way.

Now, the folks who posted this are taking the biggest issue with Obama's statement of "he broke the law," pointing out that he hasn't been convicted of breaking any laws. I actually don't find that to be all that problematic. The government has charged him with breaking the law, so clearly it believes he has broken the law. Obama stating the same thing that his own Defense Department has stated doesn't seem that ridiculous.

But, that still doesn't excuse the treatment of Manning in any way, shape or form. I don't know for certain if he broke the law. But even if he did, he deserves to have a trial on the matter, and prior to that trial he shouldn't be held in conditions that much of the world considers to be torture. That's the key issue, and one not dealt with here.

Separately, some of Obama's other remarks are troubling as well. The claim that he "can't" conduct diplomacy if information is open is false. It may be more difficult and he may not like it, but he's not in this job because it's easy. Finally, as the report also notes, while Obama is technically correct that the material Ellsberg released "wasn't classified the same way," he appears to be missing out on how that actually goes in favor of Manning, since the content Manning is charged with leaking was classified at a lower level than what Ellsberg released ("classified" rather than the Pentagon Papers' "top secret").

Filed Under: barack obama, bradley manning, daniel ellsberg