Keep in mind the S. Res. 1705: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 compromises free expression and privacy rights already gravely eroded, and will be coming up for vote soon as the Senate returns. Under that backdrop, let’s take a look at what this administration has in mind. FBI Comfy recently testified at a Senate hearing. Not only are his words chilling, let us take a second look at his background. Here we go:
.. like a frog sitting idly in a pan of steadily-warming water, too many Americans still seem unaware that the slow boil of big government is killing their constitutional liberties.
The latest sign of this stealth takeover of civil rights and freedom was epitomized in recent Senate testimony by FBI Director James Comey, who voiced his objections to civilian use of encryption to protect personal data – information the government has no automatic right to obtain.
As reported by The New American, Comey testified that he believes the government’s spy and law enforcement agencies should have unfettered access to everything Americans may store or send in electronic format: On computer hard drives, in so-called i-clouds, in email and in text messaging – for our own safety and protection. Like many in government today, Comey believes that national security is more important than constitutional privacy protections or, apparently, due process. After all, aren’t criminals the only ones who really have anything to hide?
In testimony before a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee entitled “Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and the Balance Between Public Safety and Privacy” Comey said that in order to stay one step ahead of terrorists, as well as international and domestic criminals, Uncle Sam’s various spy and law enforcement agencies should have access to available technology used to de-encrypt protected data. Also, he believes the government should be the final arbiter deciding when decryption is necessary.More over at Zero Hedge
Just who is FBI Director Comfey?James B. Comey, new F.B.I. nominee is not what you think June 23, 2013
What you will not hear from the Obama-friendly media, and our somnolent members of Congress, is this: Not only was the Patriot Act expanded under the supervision of Comey, Mueller and Ashcroft, when Comey left the AG’s office in 2005 he went to work as the top lawyer for…wait for it…”Big Brother” himself – Lockheed Martin.
When most people hear Lockheed Martin they think military contracts. Well, welcome to 1984. “Big Brother” is another name for Lockheed Martin, and security and surveillance is their game. They’ve been working closely with the National Security Agency (AKA: NSA, as in No Such Agency) for many years.
So ask yourself: Why would the Obama regime appoint a new FBI Director who works for a prime contractor that sells NSA the technology to spy on Americans? Would PETA hire a fur coat distributor?
Oh, by the way, where’s John Ashcroft today? Why he’s on the Board of Directors of Blackwater USA,which now goes by the harmless sounding name – Academi – conjuring up images of ivy-covered buildings and lounging intellectuals.
So in the days ahead, when the media and politicians tell you that James B. Comey will stand up for your civil liberties as FBI Director (citing a hospital room performance over the Patriot Act), remember: If Comey didn’t support spying on Americans, why would he work for a leading company that sells the government the tools to spy on Americans?
Are the manufacturers of hunting rifles against hunting?
Comey and Ashcroft – Lockheed Martin and Blackwater: Defenders of our civil liberties?
FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday said he would have to go back and check with the Department of Justice whether Attorney General Eric Holder’s “three criteria” for the targeted killing of Americans also applied to Americans inside the U.S.
Pressed by House lawmakers about a recent speech in which Holder described the legal justification for assassination, Mueller, who was attending a hearing on his agency’s budget, did not say without qualification that the three criteria could not be applied inside the U.S.
“I have to go back. Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not,” Mueller said when asked by Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ga., about a distinction between domestic and foreign targeting. Graves followed up asking whether “from a historical perspective,” the federal government has “the ability to kill a U.S. citizen on United States soil or just overseas.”
“I’m going to defer.