State AGs Criticize Janet Yellen for “Fearmongering” on De-Banking Bans

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | August 6, 2024
20 attorney-generals from Republican states have penned a letter addressed to US Treasury Department Secretary Janet Yellen, in protest of the Treasury’s apparent push to stigmatize anti-de-banking laws as “harmful to national security.”
We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.
The signatories, led by Florida AG Ashley Moody, cited the Treasury’s recent letter that went after those states that either have or are preparing to enact laws aimed at protecting clients from de-banking.
The Treasury’s letter (sent by Undersecretary Brian Nelson), they write, was critical of laws like Florida’s HB 989, designed to prevent banks from denying financial services “based on factors that are not grounded in measurable risks.”
Previously, the Treasury prohibited banks from doing this, except in cases when a client was documented as unable to meet quantitative, impartial risk-based standards.
“Importing political activism into financial regulation” is how the Republican AGs now describe this marked shift in policy.
The AGs see opposition to said legislation as the Treasury ignoring its statutory role and serving instead to promote the Biden-Harris Administration’s campaign described as radical and fearmongering and meant to advance “activists’ extreme agendas” while sowing confusion about the purpose and nature of those state laws.
According to the letter, that purpose is to promote “responsible money management and protecting consumers from discrimination.”
But the Treasury’s meddling – bringing up national security in this context in order to allow large financial institutions and banks to abuse power – is advancing the political goals of “activists,” the AGs claim.
The activists here would be anti-conservative ones, those trying to remove access to bank services to gun manufacturers, among others.
Undersecretary Nelson’s letter made the assertion that state laws to prevent such policies by financial institutions are “interfering” with the ability to “comply with national security requirements.”
Nelson went on to claim that the legislation he singled out meant “heightened risk” of international drug traffickers, transnational organized criminals, terrorists, and corrupt foreign officials using the US financial system to not only threaten national security but also “launder money, evade sanctions.”
The Treasury has since said that this was a reaction to a “bipartisan letter from members of Congress” who expressed these concerns and that this department agrees with their stance on the issue.
But the AGs say that Nelson’s letter “deliberately misleads financial institutions about these state laws, for example, by falsely suggesting that laws such as Florida’s HB 989 would prohibit financial institutions from considering whether a consumer is associated with designated terrorist groups.”
The letter concludes that the signatories “join with the majority of Americans in looking forward to the day when federal regulators will focus on their statutory duties, rather than on advancing radical political causes and stoking unfounded fear about state laws.”
Russia decries ‘routine repression’ of dissidents in EU states

RT | August 7, 2024
The West is turning into a “neoliberal dictatorship” that is intolerant of any form of dissent, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova claimed on Wednesday. She was commenting on the prosecution of journalist Svetlana Burtseva by EU member Estonia.
Burtseva, a 57-year-old naturalized Estonian citizen, was charged this week under an article of the Estonian penal code that prohibits relations with a foreign entity with the intention of committing treason.
Specifically, Burtseva was accused of writing under a pen name for a Baltic-focused Russian-language news outlet that belongs to the Russian media group Rossiya Segodnya, which is sanctioned by the EU.
Estonian officials have claimed Burtseva committed subversive activities such as writing a book that “belittles” the Baltic country, as claimed by public prosecutor Eneli Laurits.
Commenting on the case, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zakharova said that “similar to other ‘advanced democracies’ of the Baltics, Estonia continues to systematically use repression as a routine tool for quashing dissent.”
She described the allegations against Burtseva as “obviously fabricated” and claimed that they reflect Tallin’s “flawed and absolutely irreconcilable” attitude to opposition.
Moscow perceives the prosecution as an attempt to punish Burtseva for journalism and voicing opinions critical of the Estonian government. International bodies that should defend freedom of speech share the blame, since they have neglected their duties and have long turned a blind eye to the stifling of critical press by the Baltic states, the diplomat argued.
The entire situation “showcases the deep crisis and the deterioration of the Western-style democracy, how it is morphing into a neoliberal dictatorship,” Zakharova concluded.
NY county bans masks used to hide identities in Pro-Palestine protests

Al Mayadeen | August 7, 2024
A bill banning people from wearing masks to shield their identity during pro-Palestine protests against the US support for “Israel’s” genocide in Gaza was passed in Nassau County in New York state on Monday, with 12 Republicans in the legislature voting in favor of the new law, while seven Democrats abstained.
Republican lawmakers claim that the bill applies to any form of public demonstrations to prevent protesters engaging in “violence and hate crimes” from hiding their identities and eluding responsibility. Civil rights advocates and the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) have criticized this new legislation, deeming it a violation of the right to free speech.
“Masks protect people who express political opinions that are unpopular,” Susan Gottehrer, Nassau County regional director of NYCLU, said. “Making anonymous protest illegal chills political action and is ripe for selective enforcement.”
If demonstrators break the newly passed law, they would be charged with a misdemeanor where they can face up to a year in imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. However, the bill exempts wearing masks for medical and religious reasons.
“Unless someone has a medical condition or a religious imperative, people should not be allowed to cover their face in a manner that hides their identity when in public,” Republic Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman said.
“Nassau County police offers are not health professionals or religious experts capable of deciding who needs a mask and who doesn’t,” Gottehrer said, highlighting the inadequacy of the exceptions.
Germany convicts pro-Palestine activist for ‘From river to sea’ chant
The restriction of freedom of speech when it comes to protesting in solidarity for Palestinians while condemning the ongoing aggression in Gaza is not limited to the United States, and is a common theme with governments complicit in the genocide.
A Berlin court has convicted pro-Palestine activist Ava Moayeri, a 22-year-old German-Iranian national, for the “crime” of leading the chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” back in October.
The presiding judge, Birgit Balzer, ordered Moayeri to pay a 600 euro fine. While the 22-year-old’s defense team argued that the conviction was a violation of free speech.
Balzer argued that precedents documented in different courts that describe the slogan as “ambiguous” were incomprehensible, considering the chant a declaration against the “right of the State of Israel to exist.”
Moayeri co-organized an October 11 protest in Berlin’s Neukölln district, allegedly to condemn school violence after a teacher smacked a pro-Palestinian student protesting. Police claimed the protest featured Palestinian flags and Kouffiyehs, disputing her testimony.
Moayeri’s legal team defended the slogan as part of the Palestine solidarity movement and denied any antisemitism.
It’s Weird to See a Retired General Scotch a Plea Bargain
By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | August 5, 2024
Given that we have all been born and raised under a national-security state form of governmental structure, no one in the mainstream press is batting an eyelash over Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s role in a plea bargain into which military prosecutors had entered with three men who are accused of participating in the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, and Mustafa al-Hawsawix. Austin scotched the plea bargain because it eliminated the possibility of a death sentence for the three men.
To be sure, there are some mainstream pundits who have expressed disagreement with Austin’s decision to cancel the plea bargain. But none of them question the very notion that a retired military general is making a major decision in a case involving criminal justice. That’s because the mainstream press, along with many Americans, has come to accept the normality and permanence of the judicial system that the Pentagon established in Cuba after the 9/11 attacks.
But the fact is that Austin’s role in a criminal prosecution is weird — extremely weird. A retired military general serving as U.S. Secretary of Defense has no more legitimate role in America’s criminal-justice system than he does in America’s public-school system.
The U.S. Constitution established one judicial system. It consists of U.S. District Courts, federal courts of appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. It encompasses both civil and criminal jurisdiction. Under the Constitution, when the U.S. government targets someone with criminal prosecution, it must do so within the rules and constraints of the federal-court system.
In other words, the Constitution did not set up two dual, competing criminal-justice systems — one run by civilians and one run by the military. It set up only one criminal-justice system. And that one judicial system is subject to the constraints of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments.
Contrary to popular opinion, terrorism is not an act of war. It is a criminal offense under the U.S. Code. When someone is charged with the crime of terrorism, the Constitution requires that he be treated like any other defendant in the federal-court system.
What happened after the 9/11 attacks, however, was that the military-intelligence establishment seized on the crisis, panic-filled environment to establish a brand new dual, competing judicial system at its imperial outpost in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Mind you, there was no constitutional authority for such a judicial system but given the climate of “emergency” and the dominant role that the national-security establishment had already come to play in America’s federal governmental system, the Pentagon knew that no one would interfere with its new judicial system.
Thus, under America’s dual, competing judicial systems, the military now decides how an accused terrorist is going to be handled. If the military decides that an accused terrorist, whether foreigner or American, should go into the constitutional system, that’s where he will go. In fact, there have been a number of criminal prosecutions for terrorism in America’s federal-court system, both before and after the 9/11 attacks.
However, if the military decides that an accused terrorist, including an American citizen, will instead be placed in the military’s judicial system at Gitmo, that’s where he will end up. That’s why the plea bargain into which the accused 9/11 planners entered was done with military prosecutors rather than with U.S. Attorneys and assistant U.S. Attorneys.
The difference between these two judicial systems is like day and night. In the constitutional system, the accused has the right to a speedy trial, the right to trial by jury, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments, and other procedural protections.
None of those protections exists for people who are shunted into the military’s judicial system at Gitmo. That’s why criminal defendants have been held there for some 20 years without a trial — there is no right to a speedy trial at Gitmo. The accused can also be convicted on hearsay evidence, which means that he has no right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. He can be tortured into confessing to his crimes. He has no right to trial by jury. Instead his guilt or innocence is determined by a military commission whose kangaroo-court-like verdict will inevitably turn on pleasing superior officers.
This entire dual, competing judicial system is about as weird as weird can get, including the fact that a retired military general now wields the authority to involve himself in plea bargains in criminal prosecutions. The fact that this weird judicial system has become a normal and permanent part of American life just goes to show how the national-security establishment controls, manages, and directs the federal government, with the other three branches simply playing a supportive role. See National Security and Double Government by Michael J. Glennon.
Argentina’s AI and the Rise of Pre-Crime Digital Surveillance
By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | August 5, 2024
Argentina’s new initiative to launch the Applied Artificial Intelligence for Security Unit (UIAAS) represents a concerning step toward a surveillance-heavy approach to tackling crime. Under the guise of innovation, this unit, embedded within the Ministry of Security, integrates artificial intelligence to not only sift through vast amounts of historical crime data but also to monitor social media activities ostensibly to predict and preempt criminal behavior.
This approach raises significant ethical questions, especially regarding privacy and civil liberties. The idea that AI can predict future crimes based on patterns might sound efficient, but it harbors risks of overreach, profiling, and potentially unjustified surveillance. The emphasis on monitoring social media activities and detecting “potential threats” could easily slide into invasive scrutiny of everyday citizens’ lives under a loosely defined mandate.
Critics have voiced many concerns. Their skepticism highlights a broader apprehension about the trade-offs between using AI in law enforcement and the erosion of personal freedoms. The capacity for AI to be misused under the pretext of security could set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to a dystopian reality where personal spaces and freedoms are heavily compromised by state surveillance.
Argentina’s pioneering step, therefore, should be viewed critically, demanding rigorous scrutiny and debate to ensure that the pursuit of security does not trample the very liberties it aims to protect. The line between safeguarding citizens and surveilling them must be navigated with caution to prevent an unsettling shift towards an AI-driven surveillance state.
London police chief attacks journalist’s equipment
RT | August 5, 2024
Britain’s top law enforcement official ripped out a reporter’s microphone after being asked a question about double standards in policing the immigration-related riots across the UK.
Sir Mark Rowley of the Metropolitan Police Service had just left a government meeting in Westminster about handling the unrest when journalists approached him on Monday.
“Are we going to end two-tier policing sir?” a Sky News reporter asked. Rowley responded by destroying his recording equipment and continuing to walk to his car. He took no questions from the press.
Sky News crime correspondent Martin Brunt described Rowley’s actions as a “petulant, childish even” response to a “perfectly legitimate” question.
“It was a storm in a teacup, but perception is everything,” Brunt said, adding that Rowley’s explanation that he had been in a hurry was “mitigation, not a defense.”
Though the Sky reporter could have pressed charges for assault, criminal damage, or misconduct in public office, he reportedly chose to give Rowley a pass.
Dozens of British towns and cities have seen protests and riots since last Monday, when a British teenager of Rwandan descent killed three children and injured ten others in a mass stabbing in Southport, near Liverpool. While the initial outrage was sparked by a rumor misidentifying the perpetrator as Muslim, demonstrations have since grown into a wider backlash against mass immigration, Islam, and the perception that UK authorities are more concerned with suppressing domestic dissent than tackling immigrant crime.
More than 150 people were arrested on Saturday for rioting in Liverpool, Manchester, Stoke, Leeds and other cities. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has vowed that the rioters will “face the full force of the law.”
Whitehall’s crackdown has prompted Reform Party leader Nigel Farage to suggest that there was “the impression of two-tier policing,” in comparison to the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots related to the death of George Floyd in the US.
“There is no two-tier policing. There is policing without fear or favor, exactly as it should be,” Starmer responded. “So that is a non-issue.”
According to Starmer, a “standing army of specialist officers” will be deployed to deal with the riots. “This is not protest – it is pure violence and we will not tolerate attacks on mosques or our Muslim communities,” he added.
The British government has also said it would “hold to account” social media companies that do not remove “disinformation.”
Israeli occupation forces demolish 3 Palestinian-owned homes in Jenin, Bethlehem

Palestinian Information Center – August 5, 2024
WEST BANK – Israeli occupation forces (IOF) demolished three Palestinian homes in the Jenin and Bethlehem governorates in the West Bank on Monday.
Local sources reported that the IOF demolished a one-story home in Beit Jala town, west of Bethlehem, belonging to the Lahham family.
The Lahham family was prevented from removing some belongings from inside the house prior to its demolition.
Along the same line, the Israeli forces demolished two houses in Al-Jalameh town, northeast of Jenin.
Meanwhile, the Israeli authorities issued new demolition orders against 17 homes in the Wadi al-Joz neighborhood in Occupied Jerusalem.
The notified residential facilities house nearly 70 people.
Since the beginning of the Israeli genocidal war on the Gaza Strip, the Israeli occupation has escalated its demolition policy in the so-called area C, which constitutes about 60% of the West Bank.
In July, the Israeli authorities carried out 98 demolition operations against 135 Palestinian-owned facilities, including 62 inhabited homes, 14 uninhabited homes, and 12 agricultural facilities. 16 other facilities were also notified of demolition in the West Bank governorates.
Palestinian activist succumbs to injuries after release from Israeli detention

This file photo shows female Palestinian activist Wafa Jarrar
Press TV – August 5, 2024
A female Palestinian activist has succumbed to injuries she sustained during an Israeli raid on her home back in May.
Wafa Jarrar died on Monday from injuries she had sustained when Israeli forces detained her on May 21.
Jarrar suffered severe injuries, and as a result underwent above-knee amputations.
The Israeli authorities reportedly released her shortly after her legs were amputated to avoid responsibility for her treatment.
The Israeli army claimed that Jarrar was injured in a blast while inside the military vehicle, where she was kept detained for four hours.
Despite its claim, the regime issued an administrative detention order against Jarrar before releasing and handing her over to the Palestinian Liaison Office, while she was in a critical condition.
Last month, the Euro-med human rights monitor said the Israeli army bears full responsibility for the life and safety of Wafa Jarrar.
“This is a clear effort by Israel’s army to avoid taking responsibility for the serious injuries Jarrar sustained during her detention, which resulted in the amputation of her legs above the knees as well as damage to her spine and lungs, and to avoid its legal obligation to provide the necessary medical treatment,” the Euro-med human rights monitor said on July 1.
“What Jarrar, age 49, was subjected to from the first moment of her arrest until her release reflects the repeated and systematic violations faced by Palestinians during their detention by Israeli forces, including arbitrary arrests, abuse, use as human shields, torture, and denial of medical care,” it added.
Wafa is the wife of Hamas leader Abdul Jabbar Jarrar who has been held in Israeli jails since February 2022 under administrative detention.
There are reportedly more than 8,000 Palestinians held in Israeli jails, with hundreds of the inmates incarcerated under the so-called practice of administrative detention.
Human rights organizations say Israel violates all the rights and freedoms granted to prisoners by the Fourth Geneva Convention, noting administrative detention violates their right to due process since the evidence is withheld from prisoners while they are held for lengthy periods without being charged, tried, or convicted.
Palestinian detainees have continuously resorted to open-ended hunger strikes in an attempt to express outrage at their detention. Israeli jail authorities keep Palestinian prisoners under deplorable conditions without proper hygienic standards. Palestinian inmates have also been subject to systematic torture, harassment, and repression.
Since the outbreak of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza last October, the regime has also intensified arrest campaigns in the West Bank and al-Quds.
In a report issued over the weekend, the Commission of Detainees’ and Ex-detainees’ Affairs, the Palestinian Prisoners Society, the Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association said Israeli forces had arrested about 9,920 people, including 345 women, 690 children and 93 journalists, since October 7.
More than 7,500 administrative detention orders have been issued since October 7, including new orders and renewals, according to the report.
The Israeli arrest campaigns, the groups said, were also accompanied by physical assaults, threats against detainees and their families, destruction of the detainees’ houses, and seizure of their properties.
The Israeli forces also carried out field executions against detainees and their family members, the report added.
“Since October 7, at least 20 detainees were martyred in Israeli prisons and their identities have been revealed,” the report said, adding that dozens of detainees from Gaza also lost their lives in Israeli prisons and detention centers, but the Israeli authorities refrained from declaring their names or the causes of the their death.
“The bodies of 18 detainees who were martyred after October 7 are still withheld” by the Israeli regime, the report said.
‘The Movement is Winning.’: Polling Shows Drop in Support for Free Speech

By Jonathan Turley | August 2, 2024
In my new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I write about a global anti-free speech movement that is now sweeping over the United States. While not the first, it is in my view the most dangerous movement in our history due to an unprecedented alliance of government, corporate, academic, and media forces. That fear was amplified this week with polling showing that years of attacking free speech as harmful has begun to change the views of citizens.
As discussed in the book, our own anti-free speech movement began in higher education where it continues to rage. It then metastasized throughout our politics and media. It is, therefore, not surprising to see the new Knight Foundation-Ipsos study revealing a further decline in students’ views concerning the state of free speech on college campuses.
The study shows that 70 percent of students “believe that speech can be as damaging as physical violence.” It also shows the impact of speech codes and regulations with two out of three students reporting that they “self-censor” during classroom discussions.
Not surprisingly, Republican students are the most likely to self-censor given the purging of conservative faculty and the viewpoint intolerance shown on most campuses.
Some 49 percent of Republican students report self-censoring on three or more topics. Independents are the second most likely at 40 percent. Some 38 percent of Democrats admit to self-censuring.
Sixty percent of college students strongly or somewhat agree that “[t]he climate at my school or on my campus prevents some people from saying things they believe, because others might find it offensive.”
The most alarming finding may be that only 54 percent of students believe that colleges should “allow students to be exposed to all types of speech even if they may find it offensive or biased.” That figure stood at 78 percent in 2016.
The poll follows similar results in a new poll by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) of the population as a whole. It found that 53% of Americans believe that the First Amendment goes too far in protecting rights. So there is now a majority who believe that the First Amendment, including their own rights, should be curtailed.
The most supportive of limiting free speech are Democrats at a shocking 61%. However, a majority (52%) of Republicans also agreed.
Roughly 40% now trust the government to censor speech, agreeing that they trust the government “somewhat,” “very much,” or “completely” to make fair decisions about what speech should be disallowed.
It is no small feat to convince a free people to give up their freedoms. They have to be afraid or angry. These polls suggest that they appear both very afraid and very angry.
It is the result of years of indoctrinating students and citizens that free speech is harmful and dangerous. We have created a generation of speech phobics who are willing to turn their backs on centuries of struggle against censorship and speech codes.
Anti-free speech books have been heralded in the media. University of Michigan Law Professor and MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade has written how dangerous free speech is for the nation. Her book, “Attack from Within,” describes how free speech is what she calls the “Achilles Heel” of America, portraying this right not as the value that defines this nation but the threat that lurks within it.
McQuade and many on the left are working to convince people that “disinformation” is a threat to them and that free speech is the vehicle that makes them vulnerable.
This view has been pushed by President Joe Biden who claims that companies refusing to censor citizens are “killing people.” The Biden administration has sought to use disinformation to justify an unprecedented system of censorship.
Recently, the New York Times ran a column by former Biden official and Columbia University law professor Tim Wu describing how the First Amendment was “out of control” in protecting too much speech.
Wu insists that the First Amendment is now “beginning to threaten many of the essential jobs of the state, such as protecting national security and the safety and privacy of its citizens.” He claims that the First Amendment “now mostly protects corporate interests.”
There is even a movement afoot to rewrite the First Amendment through an amendment. George Washington University Law School Professor Mary Anne Franks believes that the First Amendment is “aggressively individualistic” and needs to be rewritten to “redo” the work of the Framers.
Her new amendment suggestion replaces the clear statement in favor of a convoluted, ambiguous statement of free speech that will be “subject to responsibility for abuses.” It then adds that “all conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons.”
Franks has also dismissed objections to the censorship on social media and insisted that “the Internet model of free speech is little more than cacophony, where the loudest, most provocative, or most unlikeable voice dominates . . . If we want to protect free speech, we should not only resist the attempt to remake college campuses in the image of the Internet but consider the benefits of remaking the Internet in the image of the university.”
Franks is certainly correct that those “unlikeable voices” are less likely to be heard in academia today. As discussed in my book, faculties have largely cleansed with the ranks of conservative, Republican, libertarian, and dissenting professors through hiring bias and attrition. In self-identifying surveys, some faculties show no or just a handful of conservative or Republican members.
The discussion on most campuses now runs from the left to far left without that pesky “cacophony” of opposing viewpoints.
One of the most dangerous and successful groups in this anti-free speech movement has been Antifa. I testified in the Senate on Antifa and the growing anti-free speech movement in the United States. I specifically disagreed with the statement of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler that Antifa (and its involvement in violent protests) is a “myth.”
In the meantime, Antifa continues to attack those with opposing views and anti-free speech allies continue to “deplatform” speakers on campuses and public forums. “Your speech is violence” is now a common mantra heard around the country.
Faculty continue to lead students in attacking pro-life and other demonstrators.
Antifa is now so popular in some quarters that it recently saw two members elected to the French and European parliaments.
Antifa is at its base a movement at war with free speech, defining the right itself as a tool of oppression. It is laid out in Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook” in which he emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’”
Bray quotes one Antifa member as summing up their approach to free speech as a “nonargument . . . you have the right to speak but you also have the right to be shut up.”
However, the most chilling statement may have come from arrested Antifa member Jason Charter after an attack on historic statues in Washington, D.C. After his arrest, Charter declared “The Movement is winning.” As these polls show, he is right.
Landmark Ruling Strikes Down Warrantless Device Searches of US Citizens at Borders
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | August 1, 2024
The District Court for the Eastern District of New York has ruled that the US government must reverse course on its policy of warrantless searches of US (and foreign) nationals’ electronic devices as they enter the country.
We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.
This is not the only court decision on this issue, while this particular outcome, requiring that border agents obtain court-issued orders before performing such searches, concerns the district that is the court’s seat – therefore also a major port of entry, JFK International Airport.
It was precisely at this airport that an event unfolded which set in motion a legal case. In 2022, US citizen Kurbonali Sultanov was coerced (he was told he “had no choice”) into surrendering his phone’s passport to border officers.
Sultanov later became a defendant in a criminal case but argued that evidence from the phone should not be admitted because the device was accessed in violation of the Fourth Amendment (which protects Americans against unreasonable and warrantless searches).
Of course, all these envisaged protections refer to US citizens, and even there prove to be sketchy in many instances. Foreign travelers (even though entering the country legally) are effectively left without any protections regarding their privacy.
Sultanov’s argument was supported in an amicus brief filed the following year by the Knight First Amendment Institute and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, who said that the First Amendment is violated as well when law enforcement gains access to phones without a warrant since it invalidates constitutional protections of speech, freedom of the press, religion, and association.
The New York Eastern District Court’s decision is by and large based precisely on that amicus brief. One of the arguments from it is that journalists entering the US are often forced to hand over their devices.
The court agreed that “letting border agents freely rifle through journalists’ work product and communications whenever they cross the border would pose an intolerable risk to press freedom,” said Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press attorney Grayson Clary in a press statement.
Meanwhile, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said they were reviewing this ruling – and would not comment on what the agency said are “pending criminal cases.”
Thousands join peace and freedom rally in Berlin
RT | August 4, 2024
Thousands took to the streets of Berlin on Saturday for a “peace and freedom” rally to protest against what was called Germany’s “belligerent” foreign policy and the country’s continued arms supplies to Ukraine.
The event was organized by so-called Querdenker (‘lateral thinking’) groups, a movement initially formed during the Covid-19 pandemic in order to protest against the German government’s lockdown policies and the overall pandemic response. It has since absorbed other government critics. Some German media outlets have referred to the movement as rife with conspiracy theorists or having links to far-right groups.
Some 5,000 people registered for the march, according to the city police. Several local media outlets put the number of participants at 9,000, citing law enforcement estimates. Many people carried blue flags with a white dove of peace, while others had banners and placards that read: “No US missiles on our soil!” “No missiles against Russia!” “No arms shipments to Ukraine and Israel!” or “Peace talks!”
Some demonstrators also carried banners bearing the slogan “Create peace without weapons!” This phrase comes from the 1982 Berlin Appeal, an outspoken petition crafted by two East German dissidents that called for disarmament.
Having started at Ernst Reuter Square in central Berlin, the demonstrators eventually made their way to Tiergarten Park for a rally attended by some 12,000 people, according to police estimates. Protesters called for “regionality, direct democracy and limiting the power” of the government, which, many claimed was filled with “absolute idiots.”
Some of the demonstrators still wanted the government to “bear responsibility” for what they believed were unjust lockdown policies during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Participants also demanded that Germany be “capable of peace instead of being ready for war” in an apparent reference to a statement in June by Defense Minister Boris Pistorius that the nation “must be ready for war by 2029” while advocating military reform and a “new form of military service.” The minister had previously made similar statements, citing the alleged threat posed by Russia in particular.
Some speakers at the rally urged Germany to leave NATO. “We want a government that represents our interests and not that of the USA and big business,” one said, according to local media reports. Thousands of protesters reportedly stayed at the rally site for many hours. Some 7,000 people were still demonstrating in the early evening, according to law enforcement estimates.
The event was largely peaceful, with just a handful of detentions, the police said, adding that most of those detained had violated the rules on banned symbols, such as the logo of the German Compact Magazine, which has been deemed extremist by the country’s domestic security service (BfV).
Some smaller counter protests organized by various left-wing groups were also held in the city on Saturday.
Bringing Back Vaccine Passports
By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | August 2, 2024
One of the major authoritarian measures adopted at the beginning of this decade in the name of countering coronavirus was “vaccine passports.” These certifications, on paper or in electronic form, that a person had received the government specified minimum number of experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots were required by select governments across the world for individuals to carry and present at checkpoints in order to go about their activities.
In America, the New York government jumped in early on mandating vaccine passports. Vaccine passports were also implemented by other governments around the world, including in parts of Europe.
Today, most Europeans are over the coronavirus panic. They are enjoying the exercise of freedom unrestrained by coronavirus crackdowns.
Some European politicians, bureaucrats, and their “private sector” partners, however, are jonesing for a return to the crackdown days. The coronavirus crackdowns were in many ways a high point of power for government and of profits for connected companies. Compulsive meddlers and profiteers want that back, and permanent.
Thus, it should be no surprise that a group of five European nations — Belgium, Germany, Greece, Latvia, and Portugal — are working with the European Union on pilot testing a new European Vaccination Card. The card that will be tested in physical and electronic form and will contain individuals’ vaccination records for a variety of shots is intended to be implemented this decade. Michael Nevradakis provides the details in a Tuesday Children’s Health Defense article.
Interestingly, Nevradakis notes in his article that the European Union’s development of the European Vaccination Card dates back to 2018. Much like the September 11, 2001 attacks in America allowed the United States government to implement as the USA PATRIOT Act a wish list of authoritarian legislation that had been sitting on a shelf, the creating of a crisis out of coronavirus allowed for an early testing of vaccine passports. Now, the process continues toward imposing vaccine passports on a permanent basis.
The prospect of vaccine passports is frightening if the vaccine passports serve to restrict people’s activities only because they have not taken mandated shots. That is an extreme violation of free choice. It is also, as was shown with the coronavirus shots that turned out to be both dangerous and ineffective instead of the incessantly propagandized “safe and effective,” a major health threat.
But, vaccine passports, as I wrote an August of 2021 article, can be expected to transform into “everything passports.” Once vaccine passports are put in place for a limited purpose, the temptation will be to start using them to restrict people’s activities based upon innumerable other criteria.
Americans should pay attention to what is happening in Europe in regard to vaccine passports. There are certainly politicians, bureaucrats, and connected companies in America similarly itching to implement such a scheme. They will be looking to European efforts for direction.
