NATO: ‘Ready to deploy forces’ in response to all security challenges – Video

Posted on by


NATO: #39;Ready to deploy forces #39; in response to all security challenges
NATO is ready to rise to every challenge, its Secretary General said ahead of the alliance #39;s summit in Wales on Thursday and Friday (September 4-5). Anders Fogh Rasmussen said an action plan...

By: euronews (in English)

See the article here:

NATO: 'Ready to deploy forces' in response to all security challenges - Video

Belgium: "NATO will strengthen its presence in eastern Europe"- Rasmussen – Video

Posted on by


Belgium: "NATO will strengthen its presence in eastern Europe"- Rasmussen
Video ID: 20140901-018 M/S Anders Fogh Rasmussen coming in W/S Press conference SOT Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO Secretary General (English): "We will agree a readiness action plan to make...

By: RuptlyTV

See the rest here:

Belgium: "NATO will strengthen its presence in eastern Europe"- Rasmussen - Video

NATO summit: Russia, ISIS take center stage in Obama’s Europe trip – Video

Posted on by


NATO summit: Russia, ISIS take center stage in Obama #39;s Europe trip
President Obama is traveling to Wales for major summit of the leaders of NATO countries. They will discuss the ISIS threat and the tensions in Ukraine. Obama will also head to Estonia to address...

By: CBS This Morning

Here is the original post:

NATO summit: Russia, ISIS take center stage in Obama's Europe trip - Video

NATO's big plan for Russia

Posted on by

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Kiev, Ukraine (CNN) -- NATO members meeting this week in Wales are expected to create "a very high-readiness force" to deal with Russian aggression in Ukraine and other international conflicts, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Monday.

In a speech on the NATO website, Rasmussen said the fighting force will be part of an overall Readiness Action Plan that "responds to Russia's aggressive behavior -- but it equips the alliance to respond to all security challenges, wherever they may arise."

He said this "spearhead" force would be able to "travel light, but strike hard if needed."

NATO will look at possible upgrades to infrastructure that could include airfields and ports, he said.

The White House supports the idea of a rapid response teams for NATO, but National Security Spokesman Caitlin Hayden cautioned that the force would be "defensive" in posture.

The new force is "not intended as a provocation, or as a threat to Russia, but rather as a demonstration of NATO's continued commitment to our collective defense," Hayden said.

New bases will be set up and equipment pre-positioned at bases, a NATO diplomatic source said.

"We are also facing crises to the southeast and south," said a senior NATO official. The plan "needs to be able to deal with all crises that we might be facing in the future from wherever they might come."

Rasmussen said President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine will attend the summit and NATO will "make clear our support for Ukraine."

See the original post:

NATO's big plan for Russia

NSA Scoops Up Data On American Public, Shares With Other US Agencies

Posted on by

SAN FRANCISCO - Not only is the National Security Agency scooping up vast troves of data on the American public, it's also sharing that data with other US government agencies.

The NSA has granted access across "nearly two dozen" agencies to data on "more than 850 billion records" that covers more than 30 different kinds of metadata on phone calls, cell phone locations, faxes, emails, and Internet chats, says a new report in The Intercept. Details were reported by CNET News.Com.

Based on classified documents provided by whistleblower and former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the planning documents for the search engine, called ICREACH for Intelligence Community Reach, implicate the participation of the Drug Enforcement Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation.

ICREACH was designed, according to the documents, to allow analysts to search for specific attributes, such as a phone number, and receive a list of results of calls made and received over a specific time period, such as a month. Those results could then be used to determine who the targeted person of interest communicated with regularly.

While the database that ICREACH searches covers an enormous swath of communication data, The Intercept story says that does not include information from the NSA's database that stores information on American's phone calls and collected under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. The 215 database can only be searched during terrorism investigations and only by a small group of analysts.

It's not clear from the report how much information crosses over between the databases.

However, Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the New York University School of Law's Brennan Center for Justice, told The Intercept that ICREACH allowed the government to to circumvent restrictions on retaining data about Americans.

Office of the Director of National Intelligence spokesman Jeffrey Anchukaitis told the Intercept that sharing information was a "a pillar of the post-9/11 intelligence community."

Read more from the original source:

NSA Scoops Up Data On American Public, Shares With Other US Agencies

Posted in NSA

NSA Data-Sweep Lawfulness Challenged in NY Appeal Hearing

Posted on by

The National Security Agencys program of collecting phone records, deemed lawful by a Manhattan federal judge, was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union as the most sweeping surveillance operation ever directed against the American public by the government.

The ACLU urged a three-member appeals panel to overturn the lower court ruling at a hearing in New York today.

The lawsuit filed in June 2013 is one of several challenging the NSAs data collection program, first revealed by former contractor Edward Snowden. A U.S. district judge in Washington called the program almost Orwellian in a December ruling and said it probably violates constitutional privacy rights. The Obama administration appealed the ruling.

The ACLU is a customer of Verizon Business Network Services, which was secretly ordered by a national security court to turn over data on customers, according to a report in the Guardian newspaper that cited Snowdens documents. The order required the company to turn over on an ongoing daily basis phone call details such as who calls are placed to and from, and when those calls are made, the group said.

The ACLU alleged the records collection exceeds the limits set by the Patriot Act, a law passed after the 2001 terrorist attacks that expanded the governments surveillance and data collection efforts to combat terrorism.

While the collection is indeed broad, the scope of counterterrorism investigations is unprecedented, District Judge William H. Pauley III wrote in a December 27 order. The question of whether that program should be conducted is for the other two coordinate branches of government to decide.

The case is American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 13-cv-03994, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

To contact the reporter on this story: Bob Van Voris in federal court in Manhattan at rvanvoris@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net Joe Schneider, Peter Blumberg

Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.

Continued here:

NSA Data-Sweep Lawfulness Challenged in NY Appeal Hearing

Posted in NSA

Fifth Amendment (United States Constitution …

Posted on by

Fifth Amendment,amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that articulates procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of the criminally accused and to secure life, liberty, and property. For the text of the Fifth Amendment, see below.

Similar to the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment is divided into five clauses, representing five distinct, yet related, rights. The first clause specifies that [n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger. This grand jury provision requires a body to make a formal presentment or indictment of a person accused of committing a crime against the laws of the federal government. The proceeding is not a trial but rather an ex parte hearing (i.e., one in which only one party, the prosecution, presents evidence) to determine if the government has enough evidence to carry a case to trial. If the grand jury finds sufficient evidence that an offense was committed, it issues an indictment, which then permits a trial. The portion of the clause pertaining to exceptions in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia is a corollary to Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the power [t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces. Combined, they justify the use of military courts for the armed forces, thus denying military personnel the same procedural rights afforded civilians.

The second section is commonly referred to as the double jeopardy clause, and it protects citizens against a second prosecution after an acquittal or a conviction, as well as against multiple punishments for the same offense. Caveats to this provision include permissions to try persons for civil and criminal aspects of an offense, conspiring to commit as well as to commit an offense, and separate trials for acts that violate laws of both the federal and state governments, although federal laws generally suppress prosecution by the national government if a person is convicted of the same crime in a state proceeding.

The third section is commonly referred to as the self-incrimination clause, and it protects persons accused of committing a crime from being forced to testify against themselves. In the U.S. judicial system a person is presumed innocent, and it is the responsibility of the state (or national government) to prove guilt. Like other pieces of evidence, once presented, words can be used powerfully against a person; however, words can be manipulated in a way that many other objects cannot. Consequently, information gained from sobriety tests, police lineups, voice samples, and the like is constitutionally permissible while evidence gained from compelled testimony is not. As such, persons accused of committing crimes are protected against themselves or, more accurately, how their words may be used against them. The clause, therefore, protects a key aspect of the system as well as the rights of the criminally accused.

The fourth section is commonly referred to as the due process clause. It protects life, liberty, and property from impairment by the federal government. (The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, protects the same rights from infringement by the states.) Chiefly concerned with fairness and justice, the due process clause seeks to preserve and protect fundamental rights and ensure that any deprivation of life, liberty, or property occurs in accordance with procedural safeguards. As such, there are both substantive and procedural considerations associated with the due process clause, and this has influenced the development of two separate tracks of due process jurisprudence: procedural and substantive. Procedural due process pertains to the rules, elements, or methods of enforcementthat is, its procedural aspects. Consider the elements of a fair trial and related Sixth Amendment protections. As long as all relevant rights of the accused are adequately protectedas long as the rules of the game, so to speak, are followedthen the government may, in fact, deprive a person of his life, liberty, or property. But what if the rules are not fair? What if the law itselfregardless of how it is enforcedseemingly deprives rights? This raises the controversial spectre of substantive due process rights. It is not inconceivable that the content of the law, regardless of how it is enforced, is itself repugnant to the Constitution because it violates fundamental rights. Over time, the Supreme Court has had an on-again, off-again relationship with liberty-based due process challenges, but it has generally abided by the principle that certain rights are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty (Palko v. Connecticut [1937]), and as such they are afforded constitutional protection. This, in turn, has led to the expansion of the meaning of the term liberty. What arguably began as freedom from restraint has transformed into a virtual cornucopia of rights reasonably related to enumerated rights, without which neither liberty nor justice would exist. For example, the right to an abortion, established in Roe v. Wade (1973), grew from privacy rights, which emerged from the penumbras of the constitution.

See original here:

Fifth Amendment (United States Constitution ...