04.23.13
by

Christian Science Monitor: Could chemical weapons in Syria force Obama’s hand?

President Obama may soon have to come to grips with what it means to issue a “red line” to a foreign government.

On Tuesday, Israeli military officials said they have evidence and are “nearly 100 percent certain” that forces of Syria‘s Bashar al-Assad regime have used chemical weapons – a step Mr. Obama said would be a game changer for the US in its policies toward Syria and the civil war raging there. Last August, Obama declared that any use or even “moving around” of Syria’s substantial chemical weapons stockpile would constitute a “red line” for the US – any crossing of which “would change my calculus … change my equation.”

With the closest US ally in the region now asserting that chemical weapons have been used, Obama will come under more pressure to demonstrate – possibly through the use of American force – that his “red line” was not a hollow threat, US foreign policy analysts say.

“If you make a flat statement like that and you don’t follow it up, then you undermine your credibility,” says Lawrence Korb, a former Pentagon official who is now a national security analyst at the Center for American Progress (CAP) in Washington.

Obama has been reluctant to deepen US involvement in the Syria war, limiting US assistance to food and supplies for refugees and internally displaced Syrian civilians, and to nonlethal material for the rebel fighters the US supports. But use of chemical weapons by Mr. Assad’s forces could prompt a more interventionist approach, some analysts say: for example, direct measures by US forces to destroy or safeguard Assad’s chemical weapons. Obama could also cite a crossed red line as justification for arming the rebels or taking other, more robust measures to protect Syrian civilians.

—

Click below for the full article.  What do you think about foreign aid to other nations or aiding them in wars?  Do you think it is constitutional or ethical for the United States to police the world?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0423/Could-chemical-weapons-in-Syria-force-Obama-s-hand

04.22.13
by

PC Magazine: What is CISPA, and Why Should You Care?

A controversial cyber-security bill known as CISPA is once again in the news. The House approved the bill last week, and it now moves to the Senate, but opponents of the measure are not going down without a fight. Today, in fact, hacker collective Anonymous is calling on websites to go dark in protest of CISPA as they did last year against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA).

But what is CISPA and why is it creating such a ruckus? Why is it being compared to SOPA and PIPA? Let’s break it down.

What is CISPA? CISPA stands for Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).

What does it do? CISPA would allow for voluntary information sharing between private companies and the government in the event of a cyber attack. If the government detects a cyber attack that might take down Facebook or Google, for example, they could notify those companies. At the same time, Facebook or Google could inform the feds if they notice unusual activity on their networks that might suggest a cyber attack.

Sounds OK. What’s the problem? Backers argue that CISPA is necessary to protect the U.S. against cyber attacks from countries like China and Iran. But opponents said that it would allow companies to easily hand over users’ private information to the government thanks to a liability clause. This, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, “essentially means CISPA would override the relevant provisions in all other laws—including privacy laws.”

Is that true? The bill’s sponsors, Reps. Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger, say no. But amidst backlash over the vague wording in the bill, the congressmen introduced an amendment that would require the government to anonymize any data it turns over to a private company.

Did that do the trick? Not exactly. The White House has threatened to veto CISPA, in part because it does not require private companies to do the same and anonymize the data they hand over to the government. That would impose an onerous burden on private companies and perhaps deter them from participating in this voluntary program, backers claim.

What type of personal information are we talking about? According to the EFF, “CISPA is written broadly enough to permit your communications service providers to share your emails and text messages with the government, or your cloud storage company could share your stored files.” Bill sponsors, however, argued that CISPA is needed to keep that data safe, pointing to foreign hackers who have hit U.S. companies in an effort to steal information. The ability to share data about incoming cyber attacks as quick as possible could thwart the improper use of that data, they said.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2417993,00.asp

04.22.13
by

Reuters: House Republican blocks consumer watchdog from testifying

A Republican lawmaker escalated a partisan fight over the new consumer protection watchdog on Monday, saying the bureau’s leader was not welcome to appear before a congressional panel that oversees financial regulators.

Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, a Republican who leads the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, said Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray could not appear before the panel because he has not been confirmed to his position by the U.S. Senate.

Lawmakers have battled over the bureau since it was created in 2010. President Barack Obama appointed Cordray in January 2012 to lead the consumer watchdog on a temporary basis, but Senate Republicans have refused to confirm him for a full term until Democrats agree to change the bureau’s structure.

The bureau’s critics argue a recent court ruling proves that Cordray’s position is invalid, though Democrats and the consumer watchdog dispute that conclusion because the case did not deal directly with him.

Cordray is scheduled to appear before a Senate committee on Tuesday to present a semi-annual report on the bureau’s activities, but Hensarling said he would not be asked to deliver the report to the House panel.

“The Committee on Financial Services stands ready to accept the testimony of the director of the CFPB on the semi-annual report as soon as an individual validly holds this position,” Hensarling said in letters to Cordray and to bureau general counsel Meredith Fuchs.

The CFPB, formed after the 2007-2009 crisis to protect Americans from financial scams, oversees mortgages, credit cards and student loans.

Obama used a controversial maneuver known as a “recess appointment” to install Cordray temporarily while most lawmakers were out of Washington, after Senate Republicans refused to confirm him to a full term. They say the bureau should be run by a bipartisan board and not a single director.

Republicans said Cordray’s appointment, as well as three additional appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, was invalid because lawmakers were not technically on recess at the time.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/23/us-financial-regulation-consumerbureau-idUSBRE93L1DM20130423

04.22.13
by

ABC News: Boston Bombing Suspect to Be Tried as Civilian Over Strident Objections

The surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, will not be tried as an enemy combatant, the White House said today, rejecting calls from some lawmakers to do so.

“He will not be treated as an enemy combatant. We will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters today. “Under U.S. law, United States citizens cannot be tried in military commissions. And it is important to remember that since 9/11, we have used the federal court system to convict and incarcerate hundreds of terrorists.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., today blasted the decison as “premature.”

“It is impossible for us to gather the evidence in just a few days to determine whether or not this individual should be held for questioning under the law of war,” Graham told reporters.

In the wake of 9/11, Congress passed a joint resolution called the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which granted the president the power to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

A Supreme Court ruling three years later seemed to suggest that a U.S. citizen captured while fighting for al-Qaida could legally be held as an “enemy combatant,” but left unanswered was how to proceed if the accused is nabbed on U.S. soil.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/boston-bombing-suspect-civilian-strident-objections/story?id=19016171#.UXX-l1_D_HY

04.22.13
by

National Constitution Center: Constitution Check: Are there limits on questioning a bombing suspect?

Lyle Denniston looks at the issues of Miranda warnings, Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Tsarnaev’s protections under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, and the public safety exception.

The statements at issue:

“The police can interrogate a suspect without offering him the benefit of Miranda [warnings] if he could have information that’s of urgent concern for public safety. That may or may not be the case with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The problem is that Attorney General Eric Holder has stretched the law beyond that scenario.”

– Emily Bazelon, a columnist for Slate.com, in an article on April 19, “Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?” 

“[As of Saturday night] Authorities have not read him his Miranda rights, which include the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Federal law enforcement officials said they plan to use a public safety exception, outlined in a 1984 Supreme Court decision, ‘in order to question the suspect extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to gain critical intelligence.’”

– Washington Post story on April 21, by reporters Joel Achenbach and Robert Barnes, “Authorities seek answers in Boston Marathon bombing.”

We checked the Constitution, and…

Some three decades ago, the Supreme Court for the first time gave police and federal agents the authority to avoid giving criminal suspects Miranda warnings about their constitutional rights, when the public safety justified that suspension. That authority, given in the 1984 decision of New York v. Quarles, has since been expanded by lower courts so that, even if a suspect has claimed the right to remain silent or the right to a lawyer, the questioning can go on if the public safety threat remains.

How long such questioning can continue, and what kinds of questions can be asked, is now the source of considerable uncertainty, as officials have developed interrogation policies they think are necessary in dealing with terrorist incidents. But one thing does remain certain: the Constitution still requires that the police not use outright coercion in order to get answers even to the most pressing questions. If authorities want to use the evidence that they gain by such questioning, that evidence must have been given voluntarily.

In the case of the 19-year-old suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon and other crimes after that, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, there is no doubt that he has some protection under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment against being forced to implicate himself. He is a U.S. citizen, so he has the legal shield of the Constitution. (On April 2, we discussed the rights during terrorism investigations of suspects who are not U.S. citizens; those rights may differ.)

—

Click below for the full article.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/04/constitution-check-are-there-limits-on-questioning-a-bombing-suspect/

04.21.13
by

Motley Fool: Will Obama Really Confiscate Your Retirement Savings?

The budget proposal President Obama recently submitted had several provisions designed to increase government tax revenue. But one provision concerning retirement accounts triggered alarm bells for many Americans, raising fears that the government will confiscate your retirement savings.

Why people think confiscation is possible The provision in the Obama budget calls for tax laws to “prohibit individuals from accumulating over $3 million in tax-preferred retirement accounts.” Specifically, the budget refers to a complicated formula that involves figuring out how much money a person would need in order to buy an annuity contract that would guarantee annual payments to retirees of $205,000 for the rest of their lives. The proposal would raise $9 billion over the next 10 years, according to the budget’s forecast.

Immediately, many analysts jumped to the conclusion that the provision might involve actually taking away money from retirement accounts. CNBC’s Larry Kudlow described the measure in a special editorial in the New York Sun as an “incredible and arbitrary limit or tax on — or even possible confiscation of — IRA-type tax-advantaged savings account [emphasis added].”

Past confiscation fears Constitutionally, the idea that the government could simply confiscate your retirement savings without compensation goes directly against the due process and takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment. More skeptical analysts will note that retirement accounts make up trillions of dollars in assets that major banks Bank of America (NYSE: BAC  )  and Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC  )  and many other major financial institutions use to drive profits, giving them a huge incentive to use their political power to ensure that those assets don’t disappear instantaneously.

Yet this isn’t the first time that the issue of confiscation has come up. Even before President Obama was elected, Congress looked at a proposal to replace 401(k) plans with government-managed retirement accounts. Under the plan from Prof. Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School’s Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis, these accounts would have had savers contributing 5% of their pay to a government-run retirement plan that would invest in bonds paying a fixed, guaranteed return over the rate of inflation. Ghilarducci’s plan did not propose confiscation, and as she described in an interview with Seattle talk show host Kirby Wilbur at the time, “Whatever you have in your 401(k) now will keep its tax break.”

Moreover, historians point to the 1933 executive order that required individuals to deliver gold coins, bullion, and certificates to banks in exchange for regular currency at a rate of $20.67 per ounce as being functionally equivalent to confiscation. With the government proceeding to devalue the dollar to $35 per gold ounce the following year, those who complied with the order suffered a substantial loss of purchasing power. Indeed, many gold investors use that same argument in arguing against bullion ETFs SPDR Gold Trust (NYSEMKT: GLD  ) , iShares Gold (NYSEMKT: IAU  ) , and iShares Silver Trust (NYSEMKT: SLV  ) , preferring instead to take physical possession of their gold and silver to ensure its safekeeping themselves.

Click below for the full article.
04.21.13
by

Daily Kos: The Slow Death of the Fourth Amendment

The government has been chipping away at the 4th Amendment since the start of the War on (some) Drugs. The stop-and-frisk policy in New York is just one of the latest steps in destroying privacy in this country.

Now the DHS has decided that the freedom from suspicionless searches doesn’t apply near the nation’s borders.

 “We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits,” the executive summary said.

 The President George W. Bush administration first announced the suspicionless, electronics search rules in 2008. The President Barack Obama administration followed up with virtually the same rules a year later. Between 2008 and 2010, 6,500 persons had their electronic devices searched along the U.S. border, according to DHS data.    According to legal precedent, the Fourth Amendment — the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures — does not apply along the border. By the way, the government contends the Fourth-Amendment-Free Zone stretches 100 miles inland from the nation’s actual border.

Did you catch that? 100 miles inland. That includes shipping ports. That means that around 2/3rd of the nation’s population, around 190 million, lives in these areas that are free of the 4th Amendment restrictions.Photobucket

The DHS has already set up 33 “internal checkpoints” deeper in the country.

The expansion of the police state in America would be mindboggling to anyone living as recently as the 1980’s or 1990’s. It doesn’t seem to matter which political party is in power.

Click below for the full article.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/10/1185972/-The-slow-death-of-the-4th-Amendment

04.21.13
by

Motley Fool: Gold Fell to $1,400? Welcome to the New Gold Rush!

With everyone talking about how the great gold boom is over, that with the price of gold tumbling to $1,400 an ounce the back of the yellow metal as a safe-haven investment  has been broken, you might be surprised to learn there’s actually a new gold rush going on. With every drop in the price of gold (and silver, too), individuals are buying as much of the precious metal as they can.

According to the former assistant secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, the price collapse was an orchestrated attack on gold and silver coordinated by the Federal Reserve. The assault saw prices plunge an unprecedented 10% in one day at one point.  SPDR Gold Shares  (NYSEMKT: GLD  )  is now 12% lower from where it started April, while the iShares Silver Trust  (NYSEMKT: SLV  )  is down 18%.

For the tinfoil hat brigade, the collapse, coming as it did just days after President Obama met with the heads of Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America, was enough of a nexus to indicate that this was a response to the threats posed by gold (and even Bitcoin) to the Federal Reserve system.

Gold Price in US Dollars Chart

Gold Price in US Dollars data by YCharts, Shaded area represents U.S. recession.

While I’m not sure I buy into conspiracy theories like that, I do know that if it’s true, then the Law of Unintended Consequences must surely be at play. There’s anecdotal evidence everywhere that despite the dumping of tons of paper gold assets on the market, demand for physical gold and silver has never been greater.

The new gold rush Bullion dealers are reporting they’re seeing individual purchases every bit as strong as occurred back in 2008. My bullion and coin dealer, JM Bullion, has upwards of a three-week delay in shipping American Silver Eagles, yet dealers everywhere are finding it increasingly difficult to get supply. Buyers from India to China are also racing to scoop up gold, with the China Gold Association reporting retail sales tripling in the country between April 15 and April 16, while Hong Kong and Macau have reported volume surges of as much as 150%.

Click below for the full article.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/04/21/gold-fell-to-1400-welcome-to-the-new-gold-rush.aspx