@dustcirclenews - HEADLINES: America Discredited, Rules of War, Palestinian Genocide, Facial-Scanning System, Affordable Care Act, Poverty Reduces Brainpower, NSA Email Collection, Israel's Siege of Gaza, Moral Obscenities in Syria, Whistle-blowers Good for Democracy, more.

We have tons of quotes at: http://www.dustcircle.com

America Totally Discredited
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36036.htm

Facebook report reveals governments' requests for user data
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/15325489-facebook-reveals-government-request-for-user-data-in-new-report

Our Democracy?
http://www.countercurrents.org/jensen300813.htm

What Are the Rules of War?
http://news.discovery.com/history/us-history/rules-of-war-130830.htm#mkcpgn=emnws1

The Palestinian Genocide By Israel
http://www.countercurrents.org/boyle300813.htm

Facial-scanning system for crowds shows improvement in tests by Homeland Security
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/facial_scanning_system_for_crowds_shows_improvement_in_tests_by_homeland_se/

Is the Affordable Care Act Actually Affordable? For Millennials, Maybe Not
http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/affordable-care-act-actually-affordable-millennials-maybe-not

Poverty reduces brainpower 
http://machineslikeus.com/news/poverty-reduces-brainpower

NSA Email Collection Violated 4th Amendment: FISA Court
http://blogs.findlaw.com/decided/2013/08/nsa-email-collection-violated-4th-amendment-fisa-court.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_downloadthis

Why America Cannot Live without Wars
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/29-4

New Snowden revelation details vast US intelligence “black budget”
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/08/31/nsas-a31.html

BBC editor urged colleagues to downplay Israel’s siege of Gaza
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/amena-saleem/bbc-editor-urged-colleagues-downplay-israels-siege-gaza

What To Expect During The Next Stage Of Collapse

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/what-to-expect-during-the-next-stage-of-collapse_082013

Moral Obscenities in Syria
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/27-7

People of the World are Fighting Back

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36052.htm

Whistle-Blowers Are Good for Democracy
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/daniel_ellsberg_whistle-blowers_are_good_for_democracy_20130829/

Fool Me Twice, Shame on US

"It's shocking to me that in this day and age, after what this world has been through, that there can be any argument that what the United States plans to do is legal. For the United States to go in there, you need two sets of laws to be complied with. One is international law, UN law, and the other is our own domestic Constitution of the United States. Since the Second World War, there's only two ways that you can make war on another nation. One is in self-defense. So if you're being attacked by a missile or a rocket from that country, etc., you can use self-defense against that country to try and stop it. And the second one was under the authority of United Nations, the Security Council."—Michael Ratner

More at The Real News

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 4 (Bill of Rights)

About 2 years since I posted on the United States Constitution. About time I continue! For Amendments 1-3, click one of the relevant tags at the bottom of this post. Remember: I am NOT a lawyer. I simply post the Amendment from the U.S. Constitution, as well as definitions of less-common words from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Interpretation and pro-action is up to the individual and/or group. I claim no responsibility for what happens if you stick up for your American rights, nor if you don't.
- Steve

Congress Just Sold You Out: Leadership Plans To Extend Patriot Act For Four Years With NO Concessions | Techdirt

Techdirt
by Mike Masnick

As we've discussed, there were some very questionable provisions in the Patriot Act which were set to expire last year, but got extended, officially to allow time for debate. There was none, and when the extension was set to expire, Congress extended the clauses again for 90 days, supposedly to debate them. There were some superficial discussions, but the end result is what many people knew would happen anyway: the provisions are going to be extended for four years, with no concessions or greater oversight. Not only that, but the leadership from both major parties, who have agreed to this "deal," want to pass it with little or no debate:

The deal between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner calls for a vote before May 27, when parts of the current act expire, according to officials in both parties who spoke on condition of anonymity. The idea is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government.

So, let's see. The government grants itself the power to abuse the 4th Amendment and spy on people with little oversight, and it would prefer that there not be any debate over this, because pesky people might raise the fact that this is wide open for abuse, and the senators don't want to have to talk about that.

[REPRINT]

4th Amendment? What 4th Amendment?

Supremes Say Police Can Create Conditions To Enter Home Without A Warrant | Techdirt
by Mike Masnick, TechDirt.com [Reprint]

We've been discussing various ways that our government and the courts have been slowly chipping away at the 4th Amendment, what with warrantless wiretaps, searching laptops, TSA agents groping people, etc. And the Supreme Court just took a huge chunk out of the 4th Amendment in saying that police can raid homes without a warrant if there are "exigent circumstances" -- even if those "exigent circumstances" are created by the police themselves.

The law, to date, had been that police cannot enter a home without a warrant unless they had both (a) probable cause and (b) "exigent circumstances" in which getting a warrant would not make sense. In this case, police were searching for a drug dealer who had gone into an apartment complex. Outside of one apartment, they smelled marijuana -- which created probable cause. At this point, they should have obtained a warrant. Instead, they banged on the door and shouted police. At which point they heard a scramble inside, and busted in the door, claiming that they believed the scramble was the possible destruction of the drugs. The argument then was that this noise -- even though it was entirely created due to police action -- represented exigent circumstances that allowed them to bust in the door without a warrant. The Kentucky Supreme Court said that while the noise might be exigent circumstances, since it was illegally created by the police, it could not be used.

Tragically, the Supreme Court -- by an 8-to-1 vote -- has now disagreed, saying that this is perfectly consistent with the 4th Amendment. With all due respect to the 8 Justices and the Court, I can't see how that's reasonable at all. This sets up a dreadful situation which will be abused regularly by law enforcement. It lets them create yet another situation where they may avoid oversight, by creating their own exigent circumstances, and then using that as an excuse for avoiding a warrant and any required oversight or limitations. I believe that Justice Ginsburg's dissent is much more compelling. Her dissent points out that exigent circumstances are only supposed to be used in very rare circumstances when getting a warrant is not possible or practical. Yet, in this case, the police easily could have secured a warrant quickly upon smelling marijuana.

That heavy burden has not been carried here. There was little risk that drug-related evidence would have been destroyed had the police delayed the search pending a magistrate’s authorization. As the Court recognizes, "[p]ersons in possession of valuable drugs are unlikely to destroy them unless they fear discovery by the police." ... Nothing in the record shows that, prior to the knock at the apartment door, the occupants were apprehensive about police proximity.

In fact, she notes that "Home intrusions, the Court has said, are indeed 'the chief evil against which . . .the Fourth Amendment is directed.'" So it seems positively ridiculous to claim that such a home invasion is acceptable under the 4th Amendment. This is a tragically bad ruling by the Supreme Court that will have massive and dangerous consequences. We already have law enforcement pushing the boundaries of individual privacy rights, and now they have even more tools to take that further.

[REPRINT]

US Government Talks The Talk On Privacy & Civil Liberties, But Isn't Walking The Walk

Techdirt
[REPRINTED]

The federal government very often seems to say one thing when it comes to privacy and civil liberties, while doing exactly the opposite. The Commerce Department has come out with a new report calling for a Privacy Policy Office that will look at commercial use of personal information, to make sure that privacy is protected. At the same time, President Obama has nominated Jim Dempsey to serve on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which is supposed to "review the civil liberties impact of anti-terrorism policies and programs." There are few people who I think would be better for the job. For a while now, Dempsey has been president for public policy of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a group that has fought, quite strongly, for civil liberties in the technology arena. Apparently, President Bush also nominated Dempsey for the same board... but the Senate never bothered to confirm him (or anyone that Bush nominated for the board).

Of course, it seems odd to see our government pushing for privacy and civil liberties at the same time that it's been working so hard to dismantle many aspects of the 4th Amendment, which is used to protect Americans' privacy. It makes you realize that many of the decision makers in the government probably don't even realize how its actions have regularly gone against the 4th Amendment and basic civil liberties. The administration seems to be offering lip service to the concept of privacy -- and I have little doubt that they actually mean what they say. But, what they don't realize is how their actions, when it comes to specific situations, appear to violate those very concepts. In many ways, it's like those who crusade for stronger copyright laws, but regularly infringe themselves. They rationalize it away, by saying that there's a "good reason" for doing what they do, without realizing that it highlights what appears to be hypocrisy between their words and their actions.

RELATED LINKS:

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-commerce-department-calls-for-new-privacy-office/

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101215/17064512293/yet-another-court-explains-to-obama-administration-that-4th-amendment-means-you-need-to-get-warrant.shtml