#CGC15: Interview with Christian Liflander, Cyber Defence Section, NATO
CeBIT Global Conferences 2015: NATO #39;s approach to cyber defence and the role of cyber in crisis management and conflicts was the titel of the Speech of Christian Liflander, Officer,...
By: cebitchannel
Go here to read the rest:
#CGC15: Interview with Christian Liflander, Cyber Defence Section, NATO - Video
State Dept. spox flops on question of NATO exercises near Russian border
Russia using Vietnamese air bases to refuel bomber aircraft raises tensions with the West, yet there is nothing wrong with US and NATO drills near the Russian border, according to State Department...
By: RT America
Read the original post:
State Dept. spox flops on question of NATO exercises near Russian border - Video
ALERT! NATO Sends Tanks Into Latvia as Build-Up to World War 3 Escalates!
Look Inside My Book!: http://book.themoneygps.com ******************************************************************** My Free eBooks: FLUORIDE: http://fluoride.themoneygps.com GMO: http://gmo.th...
By: The Money GPS ~ Author Exposing the Truth
Here is the original post:
ALERT! NATO Sends Tanks Into Latvia as Build-Up to World War 3 Escalates! - Video
Russia Threatens Denmark Wiith Nuclear Attack: Danish navy may be target due to NATO defence shield
Tough talk from Russia as it threatens to use nuclear weapons against Denmark. Moscow has warned that if Denmark joins NATO #39;s missile defence shield, the Danish navy will be a fair target for...
By: UKRAINE TODAY
Read the original:
NATO Commander: West Must Contest Russia #39;s Social-media Postures in #39;informational Warfare #39;
NATO #39;s supreme commander says the West must do more to counter Russia by employing a rapid-reaction approach to internet communications that counteracts Russia #39;s "false narratives" spread on...
By: wochit General News
More:
NATO Commander: West Must Contest Russia's Social-media Postures in 'informational Warfare' - Video
MC Dick LC - Cachorro Nato LIFESTYLE PRODUCTIONS (DJ Dengue)
MC DICK LC - CACHORRO NATO (2015) Prod. DJ Dengue // Studio Made in Favela CONTRATE (11) 94811.7937 LINK PARA DOWNLOAD: http://mfi.re/listen/m4u4nxrhbddcan8 INSCREVA-SE ...
By: Lifestyle Productions
Read more from the original source:
MC Dick LC - Cachorro Nato LIFESTYLE PRODUCTIONS (DJ Dengue) - Video
Tron (1982) - NATO Trailer
NATO: National Association of Theater Owners http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084827/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1.
By: Movie Trailer Graveyard
See original here:
NATOs top official says Canada and the rest of the military alliance should be prepared to keep in place efforts to deter Russian aggression in Europe for years.
Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, made a brief stop in Canada on Monday to meet Stephen Harper and discuss alliance business.
Its been more than one year since Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed Ukraines Crimean Peninsula a shock to European security that breathed new life into NATO and its Cold War collective defence pact.
Russias belligerent turn continues unabated, with a shaky ceasefire between Russian-backed rebels and Kiev in eastern Ukraine and military exercises close to Estonia. On Saturday, Moscows Ambassador to Denmark, Mikhail Vanin, threatened to train nuclear missiles on Danish warships if Copenhagen joins a U.S.-led missile defence shield; Denmarks frigates would carry special radar systems as part of the effort.
Mr. Stoltenberg rejected Russias concerns about the program. Its a defensive system and Russians know its not targeted at Russia, he said in an interview Monday.
He said the Russian ambassadors comments are part of a pattern weve seen over time where Moscow has beefed up military spending, dispatched bombers on more training runs in international airspace, demonstrated the willingness to use force and featured talk of its nuclear arsenal prominently in messaging.
NATO has reacted in the past year by overhauling its defence plans and moving troops, airplanes and warships closer to its eastern flank. Canada has joined air patrols along the Baltic states that border Russia, deployed troops to joint NATO exercises in the region and assigned a vessel to allied patrols in the Black Sea and Mediterranean.
The alliance has created a 5,000-troop rapid reaction force that can be deployed in Europe within 48 hours and is more than doubling the size of its existing NATO reaction force to 30,000 soldiers.
Its also creating six command and control centres in the Baltic states and the member countries along its eastern flank, including Poland, Bulgaria and Romania, that could co-ordinate military action should the need arise.
The response is to make sure our deterrence is credible in the future, Mr. Stoltenberg said.
See the article here:
NATO secretary general tells Canada and allies to keep Russia in check
Ints Kalnins / ReutersSoldiers of the U.S. Army deployed in Latvia as part of NATO's Operation Atlantic Resolve during a joint military exercise Feb. 26.
Russian military expansion over thepast year has electrified NATO, but theCold War military alliance is failing todeliver onpromised increases indefense spending.
Six months after pledging tohit 2 percent spending targets across theentire alliance by2020, only those NATO members onRussia's periphery are moving toquickly boost defense budgets, while most ofWestern Europe continues tocut or freeze spending.
Although only half ofthe alliance's 28 states have published budget predictions for2015, astudy released last week bythe European Leadership Network (ELN), aLondon-based think tank, revealed that action has lagged behind rhetoric since last September, when members agreed toreverse defense cuts andmove closer tothe 2 percent target ata summit inWales.
"It comes down towho inEurope is really inclined totake aninterest indefending itself against Russia or any other threat," said Keir Giles, anexpert inRussian security policy atChatham House.
Russia's annexation ofCrimea last year, support forpro-Russian rebels ineastern Ukraine andexpanded aerial andnaval patrols have rattled NATO. But though thealliance sees Russia as aproblem, only newer members, many ofthem inEastern Europe, see thethreat as serious enough tochange domestic funding priorities.
Russia has been pouring vast sums ofmoney intoits military. But NATO still vastly outspends Moscow andits forces are considered tobe better trained, equipped andmore experienced.
NATO's European members spent acollective $269 billion ondefense last year, according todata collected bythe Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
Russia in2014 budgeted 3.4 percent ofits gross domestic product, or 2.5 trillion rubles (around $70 billion, adjusting forexchange rate volatility), ondefense, thehead ofthe State Duma's defense committee, Admiral Vladimir Komoyedov, said inOctober, adding that 2015's budget could reach as high as 4.2 percent ofRussian output.
Anemic economic growth andefforts tocut spending amid high public debt inWestern Europe have dampened calls tofund against aresurgent Russian threat.
See the article here:
The Heat looks at the NSA and if it #39;s violating human rights pt1
Critics have lambasted the NSA ever since 2013, when documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the extent of the agency #39;s digital spying reach. A lawsuit has been ...
By: CCTV America
See more here:
The Heat looks at the NSA and if it's violating human rights pt1 - Video
NSA GAMING - CS:GO Boom Headshot
By: NSA Gaming
The rest is here:
The current law, due to expire on June 1, allows the NSA to collect bulk data on numbers called and the time and length of calls, but not their content.
Efforts by Congress to extend the law so far have proved fruitless, and Congressional aides said that little work on the issue was being done on Capitol Hill.
Read More Want to be invisible online? There's an app for that
There are deeply divergent views among the Republicans who control Congress. Some object to bulk data collection as violating individual freedoms, while others consider it a vital tool for preventing terrorist attacks against America.
Ned Price, a national security council spokesman, told Reuters the administration had decided to stop bulk collection of domestic telephone call metadata unless Congress explicitly re-authorizes it.
Some legal experts have suggested that even if Congress does not extend the law the administration might be able to convince the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to authorize collection under other legal authorities.
But Price made clear the administration now has no intention of doing so, and that the future of metadata collection after June 1 was up to Congress.
Read MoreiPhone encryption 'petrified' NSA: Greenwald
Price said the administration was encouraging Congress to enact legislation in the coming weeks that would allow the collection to continue.
But Price said: "If Section 215 (of the law which covers the collection) sunsets, we will not continue the bulk telephony metadata program."
Read this article:
Summary:Although Edward Snowden revealed many of the NSA's clandestine activities, Ron Wyden remains one of the only hopes of US intelligence reform from within Congress.
Sen. Ron Wyden talks in April 2011 of secretly-interpreted laws (Credit: AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)
A number of US surveillance programs that target Americans have yet to be revealed, a Democratic senator has warned.
In an interview with BuzzFeed earlier this month, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) said there are "plenty" of domestically-focused surveillance programs that have not yet been revealed by the Snowden leaks. He declined to discuss the subject further, saying that the programs are still classified.
Wyden has spent years quietly attacking the US intelligence community from his seat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, only to face resistance from not just the intelligence agencies, but also his colleagues and even the president. Although Edward Snowden revealed a considerable portion of the NSA's clandestine activities, Wyden remains one of the only hopes -- even if he is a lone wolf -- of US intelligence reform from within Congress.
The senator's position on the committee gives him access to some of the government's biggest secrets -- who is spying on whom, specific threats to the US homeland, and the details of ongoing surveillance operations and programs. These privileged few committee members are also cursed. They are barred from telling anyone about most of their work, including their fellow lawmakers -- let alone their own staff, most of which do not have "top secret" security clearance.
That poses a problem for members of Congress whose job it is to create new laws based on the information they have -- including privileged information.
"There are other things that need to be disclosed or debated among those who vote on and write the legislation," said Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky-based congressman, in a phone interview earlier this year.
Massie remains concerned about further infractions by the government. Although a great deal has been disclosed about the NSA's activities -- including the PRISM surveillance system and the bulk phone records collection programs -- he said he was acutely aware that Edward Snowden "hasn't disclosed everything."
Massie, who was elected in part thanks to his pro-privacy stance and views on government reform, said he wasn't surprised by the disclosures. He described the news as a "disappointing confirmation" of things he suspected.
View original post here:
I am part of a group of constitutional and property law scholars who have filed an amicus brief in, Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture, an important Supreme Court case that will determine whether a federal program that forces owners to turn over large quantities of raisins to the government creates a taking that requires compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The brief is available here.
The Ninth Circuit court of appeals rejected the owners claim in large part because it concluded that the just compensation requirement of the Takings Clause affords less protection to personal [property] such as the raisins, than to real property (real property is the legal term for property in land).
Our brief points out what should have been obvious from the start: the text, history, and original meaning of the Takings Clause Fifth Amendment does not distinguish between real and personal property. The text specifically references private property generally, and is not limited to any particular type of property right. Nor does it indicate that one type is given less protection than another. Moreover, as we note, the desire to protect personal property against government requisitions was one of the main reasons why the Takings Clause and similar provisions in state constitutions were adopted in the first place. Modern Supreme Court precedent also makes clear that personal property is protected against uncompensated seizure, no less than real property.
The federal government also claims that there is no taking because the owners of the raisins benefit from the program that mandates their seizure. The purpose of the program is to artifically reduce the supply of raisins on the market, thereby creating a cartel that benefits producers. We point out that such benefits might reduce the amount of compensation the government owes. But it does not change the fact that a taking has occurred. Otherwise, the government could avoid paying full compensation in numerous other cases where property is taken by the state for purposes that might benefit the owners in some way. For example, if part of a coastal property is used by the government to build a military base, the owner may derive some benefit from the construction, because his remaining land may be more secure against attack. But that does not mean no taking has occurred, or that he is not entitled to full market value compensation.
The other signers include prominent academic experts on constitutional property rights, including my James Ely (Vanderbilt, author of The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights), Nicole Garnett (Notre Dame), and my George Mason University colleague Adam Mossoff, among others.
Horne is one of the rare cases that that has gone to the Supreme Court twice. In 2013, the Court unanimously rejected the federal governments claim that the property owners should not even be allowed to present their Takings Clause argument in federal court without first paying some $483,000 in fines and pursuing various likely futile administrative remedies.
Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University. His research focuses on constitutional law, property law, and popular political participation. He is the author of "The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain" (forthcoming) and "Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter."
Continue reading 10 minutes left
Go here to read the rest:
Back in 2013, a lot of attention focused on a Third Amendment claim against Henderson, Nevada police officers. I wrote about the case here. The Third Amendment, which forbids the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owners consent, is often the butt of jokes because it is so rarely litigated. But in this case, a Nevada family claimed that local police had violated the Amendment by forcibly occupying their home in order to gain a tactical advantage against suspected criminals in the neighboring house.
In this recent ruling, federal district court Judge Andrew Gordon dismissed the Third Amendment claim [HT: VC reader Sean Flaim]. Although it occurred several weeks ago, the ruling seems to have gotten very little attention from either the media or legal commentators outside Nevada. That is unfortunate, because the ruling raises important issues about the scope of the Third Amendment, and its applicability against state and local governments. A Here are the key passages from the opinion:
In the present case, various officers of the HPD and NLVPD entered into and occupied Lindas and Michaels home for an unspecified amount of time (seemingly nine hours), but certainly for less than twenty-four hours. The relevant questions are thus whether municipal police should be considered soldiers, and whether the time they spent in the house could be considered quartering. To both questions, the answer must be no.
I hold that a municipal police officer is not a soldier for purposes of the Third Amendment. This squares with the purpose of the Third Amendment because this was not a military intrusion into a private home, and thus the intrusion is more effectively protected by the Fourth Amendment. Because I hold that municipal officers are not soldiers for the purposes of this question, I need not reach the question of whether the occupation at issue in this case constitutes quartering, though I suspect it would not.
This reasoning is very plausible and quite possibly correct. But it may too readily conclude that municipal police can never be considered soldiers for purposes of the Amendment. When the Amendment was enacted in 1791, there were virtually no professional police of the sort we have today. The distinction between military and law enforcement officials was far less clear than in the world of 2015. Moreover, many parts of the Bill of Rights were in part of inspired by abuses committed by British troops attempting to enforce various unpopular laws enacted by Parliament.
A second complicating factor is the increasing militarization of police forces in many parts of the country, which has resulted in cops using weapons and tactics normally associated with military forces. If a state or local government decides to quarter a SWAT team in a private home, it is not clear whether that is meaningfully different from placing a National Guard unit there.
In sum, Judge Gordon may well be right that the officers involved in this case are not plausibly considered soldiers under the Third Amendment. But he is too quick to conclude that no municipal police officer could ever qualify as such.
The issue of how long the soldiers (or militarized police) have to stay in a private home before their occupation of it qualifies as quartering is also a tough question. Without actually resolving the issue, Judge Gordon suspects that a 9 to 24 hour period is too short. I am not convinced. It seems to me that spending one night in the house does qualify as quartering, albeit for only a brief period. Just as the First Amendment covers even brief restrictions on freedom of speech and the Fifth Amendment requires compensation for the taking of even small amounts of private property, so the Third Amendment forbids even brief involuntary quartering of troops in private homes.
It is also worth noting that the Third Amendment is (along with the Seventh Amendment) one of the few parts of the Bill of Rights that has not yet been incorporated against state governments by the Supreme Court. Judge Gordon follows a 1982 Second Circuit decision in concluding that the Amendment does apply to state governments. I think that is almost certainly the right conclusion. Over the last few decades, leading scholars on different sides of the political spectrum have converged on the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment was originally understood to incorporate all of the individual rights protected by the Bill of Rights. It would be anomalous for courts to refuse to apply the Third Amendment to the states when almost all of the rest of the Bill of Rights does apply to them. A future Supreme Court decision on the subject would need to address the issue in more detail than Judge Gordon gives it here.
The difficult issues raised by the militarization of police forces suggest that it may be time to stop treating the Third Amendment as just a punchline for clever legal humor. Contrary to popular belief, there have been some egregious violations of the Amendment in the past, and we should not be too quick to assume such things wont recur.
Read the original here:
Volokh Conspiracy: Federal court rejects Third Amendment claim against police officers
Crapo: Operation Choke Point must not become an end-run around Second Amendment rights
Idaho Senator Mike Crapo offered an amendment to end the controversial Department of Justice program known as Operation Choke Point to the Senate budget proposal. The amendment was ...
By: Senator Crapo
More:
Crapo: Operation Choke Point must not become an end-run around Second Amendment rights - Video
Madison #39;s Music
What if most of what we think we know about reading the text of the First Amendment is just wrong? For years, the Supreme Court has treated the First Amendment like a laundry list of isolated...
By: Tom McIntyre
Go here to read the rest:
HCSO First Amendment Audit (pivothead video gasses unedited)
pivothead http://www.pivothead.com/#stay-in-it-alt March 10th 2015, shortly after taking this photo from a public sidewalk, Undercover Hillsborough County Sheriff #39;s Detectives conducted...
By: HONORYOUROATH
The rest is here:
HCSO First Amendment Audit (pivothead video gasses unedited) - Video
GWEN IFILL: It was a busy day at the Supreme Court. The justices decided not to take up a voter I.D. case out of Wisconsin, and they heard arguments over the right to issue license plates in Texas that feature a Confederate Flag.
NewsHour contributor Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal was there again and joins me now.
Lets start by talking about this Wisconsin case. In 2011, it was a big deal, this idea that voters had to present photo I.D.s at the polls. And this was considered by Democrats to be voter suppression and by Republicans a chance to beat back voter fraud.
So now this gets to the Supreme Court, and they decided to end it?
MARCIA COYLE, The National Law Journal: Not really.
They decided not to hear the Wisconsin case, so that leaves in place the lower court decision upholding Wisconsins law. But the court said nothing about the merits of the challenge to Wisconsins law. And, Gwen, right now, there are a number of other cases pending and moving up the pipeline that challenge other states voter I.D. laws, and, in particular, Texas and North Carolina.
Texas, there was a full-blown trial and the judge in that case found intentional racial discrimination by the state of Texas, unlike in Wisconsin. That case is now on appeal in the Fifth Circuit, and it is expected whoever loses will take it to the Supreme Court. So as of today, we really dont know how the justices think about some of these laws.
GWEN IFILL: But we know that, originally, this was put on hold not because of the merits of the case, but because it was too close to an election.
MARCIA COYLE: Exactly. Theres a court doctrine. The court doesnt like to see changes to election law shortly before elections.
The Wisconsin law was going to go in effect right before midterm elections. Now, today, the ACLU and other groups that have challenged Wisconsins law immediately went to the lower court to ask again that it be put on hold temporarily, because there is an April 6, I believe, election. And, again, they havent had time to implement the changes.
Here is the original post:
How the First Amendment affects your specialty license plate
The case marks the first time the justices will consider the First Amendment implications of the program, similar to other programs across the county, and whether the speech depicted on the plates is government speech or the speech of the driver.
In Texas, individuals can choose to have standard issue plates, or pay a fee and design a plate that is subject to the approval of the state. It can be rejected if state officials find it offensive.
READ: Supreme Court takes on specialty license plates
In court, Texas Solicitor General Scott A. Keller stressed the messages on the licenses plates constitute government speech. He said the state "etches its name onto each license plate" and that the law gives Texas the "sole control and final approval authority over everything that appears on a license plate."
Mary-Rose Papandrea, a constitutional law professor at Boston College Law School, said that "in general the free speech clause of the First Amendment does not apply when the government is speaking."
"The only check on what the government can say is the political process, " she said.
But Keller ran into skeptical questions.
Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, expressed doubt that the license plate program constitutes government speech. He said there is no coherent government message but instead it seems like they are "only doing this to get the money."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed to one plate that says "Mighty fine Burgers".
"Is it government speech to say 'Mighty fine Burgers' to advertise a product?" she asked.
Original post: