Monthly Archives: February 2016

Internet Free Speech – American Civil Liberties Union

Posted: February 21, 2016 at 11:41 pm

The digital revolution has produced the most diverse, participatory, and amplified communications medium humans have ever had: the Internet. The ACLU believes in an uncensored Internet, a vast free-speech zone deserving at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to traditional media such as books, newspapers, and magazines.

The ACLU has been at the forefront of protecting online freedom of expression in its myriad forms. We brought the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared speech on the Internet equally worthy of the First Amendments historical protections. In that case, Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, the Supreme Court held that the government can no more restrict a persons access to words or images on the Internet than it can snatch a book out of someones hands or cover up a nude statue in a museum.

But that principle has not prevented constant new threats to Internet free speech. The ACLU remains vigilant against laws or policies that create new decency restrictions for online content, limit minors access to information, or allow the unmasking of anonymous speakers without careful court scrutiny.

See original here:
Internet Free Speech - American Civil Liberties Union

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Internet Free Speech – American Civil Liberties Union

Free Speech v. – Federal Election Commission

Posted: at 11:41 pm

On June 14, 2012, Free Speech filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming challenging the constitutionality of the Commissions regulations, policies and practices regarding the determination of when a communication constitutes express advocacy, whether a communication is a solicitation, and whether a group is a political committee. The group sought injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that the rules are unconstitutional, on their face and as applied.

Free Speech is a Wyoming-based, unincorporated association with a stated purpose of promoting and protecting free speech, limited government, and constitutional accountability." The political organization plans to use individual donations to finance $10,000 in Internet, newspaper, TV, and radio ads during the months leading up to the 2012 election. Free Speech states that it will not coordinate any of its advertising expenditures and will not accept donations from foreign nationals and federal contractors. Nor will it contribute to federal candidates, political parties, or political committees.

The lawsuit follows the Commissions May 8, 2012, response to the groups advisory opinion request. In AO 2012-11, the Commission concluded that two of the 11 ads Free Speech planned to run expressly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate under the Act; four of the proposed advertisements do not; and two of the four proposed donation requests are not solicitations. The Commission could not approve a response by the required four votes with respect to the five remaining ads and the two remaining donation requests, nor could it approve a response as to whether Free Speech would have to register and report as a political committee. 11 CFR 100.22 and 100.5(a).

Free Speechs suit focuses primarily on the regulatory definition of express advocacy at 11 CFR 100.22(b). The suit argues that this regulation and related FEC rules, policies and practices abridge Free Speechs First Amendment freedoms. It also questions the Commissions interpretation and enforcement process regarding political committee status, solicitation tests, the major purpose test, and express advocacy determinations. See 2 U.S.C. 431(4), 431(8), 441d; 11 CFR 100.5(a), 100.52(a), 110.11(a).

The groups main argument consists of three parts. First, it states that the Commissions definition of express advocacy is put forth in unclear terms leaving those who guess wrong [to be] subject to criminal or civil penalties. Secondly, it argues the Commissions political committee registration and reporting requirements are burdensome for all groups whose expenditures aggregate more than $1,000 in a calendar year. See 2 U.S.C. 431; 11 CFR 100.5. Lastly, Free Speech disputes whether independent expenditures must include disclaimers and be reported to the Commission. See 2 U.S.C. 434; 11 CFR 104.4.

On March 19, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming dismissed Free Speech's case. The court denied the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction in a telephonic ruling on October 3, 2012.

Express Advocacy

Commission regulations define express advocacy communications as those that: (a) use explicit words of advocacy; or (b) in context, can only be interpreted by a reasonable person as advocating a candidates election or defeat. 11 CFR 100.22(a) and (b). Communications that meet either of the regulatory definitions and are not coordinated with a candidate or party are independent expenditures and must be disclosed. See 2 U.S.C. 434(c) and 11 CFR 109.10.

Free Speech argued that the Commissions interpretation of express advocacy at 11 CFR 100.22(b) is vague and offers no clear guidelines for speakers to tailor their constitutionally protected conduct and speech, and that the regulation fails to limit its application to expenditures for communications that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate (i.e., through use of the so-called magic words such as vote for, elect, support, etc.).

The district court noted that the Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that the definition of express advocacy may also include, in addition to use of the magic words, communications that are the functional equivalent of express advocacy. See McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. at 193 (2003) and FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL), 551 U.S. 449 (2007).

In WRTL, the Supreme Court stated that other courts should find that a communication is the functional equivalent of express advocacy only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate. WRTL, 551 U.S. at 460-470. The district court noted that the functional equivalent test is closely correlated to the Commissions regulation at 100.22(b), which provides that a communication is express advocacy if it could only be interpreted by a reasonable person as containing advocacy of the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s).

The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of express advocacy in Citizens United v. FEC (2010). The court found that a communication at issue in that case was the functional equivalent of express advocacy and further upheld the disclosure requirements as they applied to all electioneering communications.

As a result, the district court held that the Supreme Courts ruling in Citizens United directly contradicts the plaintiffs argument that the definition of 100.22(b) is overly broad with respect to disclosure requirements: if mandatory disclosure requirements are permissible when applied to ads that merely mention a federal candidate, then applying the same burden to ads that go further and are the functional equivalent of express advocacy cannot automatically be impermissible.

Solicitation Standard

Commission regulations require any person who solicits a contribution through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing or any other type of general public political advertising to include an explicit disclaimer on the solicitation. 2 U.S.C. 441d(a).

The Commission determines whether a request for funds amounts to a solicitation based on whether the request indicates that the contributions will be targeted to the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate. See FEC v. Survival Education Fund, Inc., 65 F.3d 285, 293 (2d Cir. 1995). The plaintiff challenged this approach, arguing that it is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

The court disagreed with the plaintiff and noted that the plaintiff is free to spend unlimited funds on its solicitations and to solicit unlimited funds for its express advocacy activities. Communications that amount to solicitations merely trigger disclosure requirements; they do not prevent the plaintiff from speaking. Since disclosure serves an important governmental interest in insuring that the voters are fully informed about the person or the group who is speaking, the court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish any constitutional deficiency in the Commissions approach to determining whether a communication is a solicitation for contributions.

Political Committee Status

The plaintiff also challenged the Commissions method of determining when an organization meets the definition of political committee. The Act and Commission regulations define a political committee as any committee, club, association or other group of persons that makes more than $1,000 in expenditures or receives more than $1,000 in
contributions during a calendar year. 2 U.S.C. 431(4)(A). In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court concluded that defining a political committee only in terms of contributions and expenditures could be interpreted to reach groups engaged purely in issue discussion. As such, the Court limited application of the Commissions political committee requirement to organizations either controlled by a candidate or those groups whose major purpose is the nomination or election of candidates.

The Commission has adopted a case-by-case analysis of an organizations conduct and activities for evaluating whether an organizations major purpose is the nomination or election of federal candidates. See Political Committee Status, 72 Fed. Reg. 5595, 5601 (Feb. 7, 2007).

The district court held that the Commissions method of determining political committee status is a permissible approach that is consistent with Supreme Court precedent and does not unlawfully hinder protected speech. The district court granted the Commissions motion to dismiss. On March 25, 2013, Free Speech appealed the district courts dismissal of the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

On June 25, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district courts dismissal, holding that the district court correctly resolved each of Free Speechs constitutional challenges. The Court of Appeals adopted the district courts opinion in its entirety.

On May 19, 2014, the Supreme Court declined to hear Free Speechs constitutional challenge to the FECs process for determining whether an organization qualifies as a "political committee." The Courts denial of certiorari lets stand the June 2013 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to affirm the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyomings dismissal of the suit.

Source: FEC Record -- June 2014; August 2013; April 2013; August 2012

(Top of Page)

See the article here:
Free Speech v. - Federal Election Commission

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Free Speech v. – Federal Election Commission

Severoatlantick aliance Wikipedie

Posted: February 20, 2016 at 9:50 am

Severoatlantick aliance (anglicky North Atlantic Treaty Organization NATO, francouzsky Organisation du Trait de lAtlantique Nord OTAN; doslova Organizace Severoatlantick smlouvy) je euroatlantick mezinrodn vojensk pakt. Byl zaloen 4.dubna 1949 podpisem Severoatlantick smlouvy. Aliance sdl vBruselu vBelgii.

Na svm potku byla Severoatlantick aliance jen otrochu vce ne politick sdruen. Korejsk vlka ale podntila lensk stty kvytvoen vojensk struktury pod dohledem dvou americkch velitel. Slovy prvnho generlnho tajemnka Hastingse Ismaye bylo kolem NATO udret Ameriku vEvrop, Rusko mimo zpadn Evropu a Nmecko pi zemi.[1] Vroce 1966 odela Francie zvojenskch struktur NATO kvli snaze oudren si vojensk nezvislosti na Spojench sttech. Kvli tomu se sdlo pesunulo zPae do Bruselu.[2][3]

Po pdu Berlnsk zdi vroce 1989 se Aliance angaovala ve vlce vJugoslvii. Prvn vojensk operace NATO vhistorii probhly mezi lety 1992 a 1995 pi vlce vBosn a Hercegovin[4] a pozdji vroce 1999 vJugoslvii. Aliance se snaila zlepit vztahy svchodnmi stty, co vystilo vjej rozen nkolika stty bval Varavsk smlouvy vletech 1999 a 2004. lnek5, kter tvo zklad Severoatlantick smlouvy, byl poprv pouit po teroristickch tocch 11.z 2001, co znamen, e tok byl povaovn za tok proti vem 19lenskm sttm.[5] Od roku 2003 vede Aliance innost Mezinrodnch bezpenostnch podprnch sil vAfghnistnu. Do konce roku 2011 zajiovala vcvik nov armdy vIrku, astn se protipirtskch operac[6] a vroce 2011 vyhlsila bezletovou znu nad Liby vsouladu srezoluc Rady bezpenosti OSN .1973. Pvodn cl akce, na n intervenn sly dostaly mandt, byl vak rozen (u mimo mandt OSN), co vedlo ke svren dosavadnho vldnoucho reimu.

16.prosince 2002 byla mezi NATO a Evropskou uni podepsna dohoda ospoluprci Berln plus, kter mimo jin umouje Evropsk unii vyuvat prostedky ikapacity NATO.[7] Vsouasnosti je soust Severoatlantick aliance 28lenskch stt, nejnovjmi leny jsou od dubna2009 Albnie a Chorvatsko.[8] Celkov armdn vdaje vech len NATO tvo pes 70% celosvtovch armdnch vdaj.[9] Samotn Spojen stty zodpovdaj za 43% celosvtovch vdaj na armdu[10] a Spojen krlovstv, Francie, Nmecko a Itlie za dalch 15%.[9]

24. listopadu 2015 sestelilo tureck letectvo rusk bitevn letoun Suchoj Su-24 dajn naruujc tureck vzdun prostor nadprovincii Hatay. lo o prvn pm stetnut mezi ozbrojenmi silami lenskho sttu a Ruska v padestilet historii Severoatlantick aliance.[11]

Za pedchdce NATO je povaovn Bruselsk pakt, kter 17.bezna 1948 podepsaly Belgie, Nizozemsko, Lucembursko, Francie a Spojen krlovstv. Kobran proti Sovtskmu svazu byla ale zapoteb iast Spojench stt, a proto se zaalo mluvit onov vojensk alianci.[12] To vystilo vSeveroatlantickou smlouvu, kter byla podepsna 4.dubna 1949 ve Washingtonu, D.C. pti stty Bruselskho paktu, Spojenmi stty, Kanadou, Portugalskem, Itli, Norskem, Dnskem a Islandem. Podle msta podpisu se nkdy nazv Washingtonskou smlouvou.[13]

Smlouva obsahuje 14lnk, mezi hlavn pat lnek5:

Ve lnkuIV Bruselskho paktu se vslovn pe, e reakce stt na ozbrojen tok mus bt vojenskho charakteru.[15] Tm se li od lnku5 Severoatlantick smlouvy, kde je vojensk tok pouze jednou zmonch reakc. Navc Severoatlantick smlouva (ve lnku6) omezuje pole psobnosti nad obratnk Raka.[14] To je dvod, pro NATO nezashlo pi vlce oFalklandy.

Zatek Korejsk vlky vroce 1950 podntil NATO krozvoji vojenskch struktur.[16] Na konferenci vroce 1952 vLisabonu se dohodla, e zavede minimln 50diviz do konce toho roku stm, e do dvou let poet roz na 96.[17] Pt rok byl ale poadavek snen na zhruba 35diviz. VLisabonu byla tak zavedena pozice Generlnho tajemnka NATO, jm se jako prvn stal baron Hastings Lionel Ismay.[18]

Vz 1952 zaalo prvn velk vojensk cvien NATO na moi: pi operaci Mainbrace nacviovalo obranu Dnska a Norska pes 160plavidel.[19] Mezi dal velk cvien pat nap.operace Grand Slam, pi n NATO poprv nacviovalo veStedozemnm moi, operace Mariner, kter se astnilo 300lod a 1000letadel,[20] operace Italic Weld probhajc vsevern Itlii, operace Grand Repulse vNmecku nebo operace Monte Carlo simulujc podmnky satomovmi zbranmi.[21]

Vroce 1952 se leny NATO staly ecko a Turecko. Nkdy vt dob zapoalo budovn st Gladio, evropskho protikomunistickho odboje organizovanho Severoatlantickou alianc.[22] Vroce 1953 oznmil Sovtsk svaz, e by se ml pipojit kNATO, aby se zachoval mr vEvrop. lensk zem se ale bly, e Sovtsk svaz chce Alianci oslabit, a tak nvrh zamtly.[23] Pijet Zpadnho Nmecka do Aliance 9.kvtna 1955 popsal Halvard Lange, tehdej ministr zahrani Norska, za rozhodujc zlomov bod vdjinch naeho kontinentu.[24] Odpovd Sovtskho svazu na tuto udlost bylo vytvoen Varavsk smlouvy, kterou 14.kvtna 1955 podepsaly Sovtsk svaz, Maarsko, eskoslovensko, Polsko, Bulharsko, Rumunsko, Albnie a Nmeck demokratick republika (NDR).

Vdruh polovin roku 1957 NATO uskutenilo nkolik velkch vojenskch cvien. Operac Counter Punch, Strikeback a Deep Water se astnilo vce ne 250000 vojk, 300lod a 1500letadel.[25]

Sjednocenost NATO byla naruena bhem vldy francouzskho prezidenta Charlese de Gaulla, kter do adu nastoupil roku 1959. Ten protestoval proti silnmu vlivu Spojench stt na Alianci a blzkm vztahm mezi Spojenmi stty a Spojenm krlovstvm.[26] 17.z 1958 poslal prezidentovi Dwightu D. Eisenhowerovi a britskmu premirovi Haroldu Macmillanovi memorandum, ve kterm dal vyzdvien Francie na stejnou pozici, jakou maj USA a Spojen krlovstv, a rozen psobnosti NATO na oblasti jako Francouzsk Alrsko, kde Francie potebovala pomoci vboji proti vzpourm.[26][27]

Odpov na memorandum de Gaulla neuspokojila, a tak zaal pro Francii vytvet nezvislou obrannou slu. Chtl tak Francii poskytnout monost uzavt mr sVchodnm blokem, msto aby byla zataena do globln vlky mezi NATO a stty Varavsk smlouvy. Vbeznu 1959 Francie sthla sv prvn jednotky zvelen NATO; vervnu de Gaulle zakzal umisovat ciz jadern zbran na francouzsk zem. Vroce 1966 byly zvojenskch struktur NATO staeny vechny francouzsk jednotky a Francie vykzala vechny ciz jednotky ze svho zem.[28][29] Protoe pedtm bylo Vrchn velitelstv spojeneckch sil v Evrop (SHAPE) umstno pobl Pae, muselo se pesunout do Belgie.[3] Francie zstala lenem Aliance a zavzala se, e vppad toku komunist pouije na obranu Evropy sv vlastn jednotky. Mezi francouzskmi a americkmi sttnmi ednky byly uzaveny tajn dohody, kter popisovaly nvrat francouzskch jednotek do struktur NATO vppad, e vypukne vlka mez Vchodem a Zpadem.[30]

Po druh berlnsk krizi a Karibsk krizi si ob strany studen vlky uvdomily nutnost institucionalizovat proces uvolovn napt.[31] Vroce 1967 NATO pijalo strategii vytyujc dv funkce Aliance: udret vojenskou bezpenost a zrove prosazovat politiku dtente. Touto strategi se NATO dilo a do konce studen vlky.[32]

Vroce 1964 nastoupil na msto generlnho tajemnka NATO italsk politik Manlio Brosio. Jednou zjeho prvnch akc bylo zaloen Vboru pro obrann plnovn, jejmi podzenmi orgny byly vroce 1966 ureny ji existujc Vojensk vbor a nov vznikl Skupina pro jadern plnovn.[33] Vechny rozhodovac pravomoci ve vojenskch zleitostech byly pevedeny na Vbor pro obrann plnovn a tak bylo Francii umonno setrvat vpolitick struktue Aliance.[33]

Vroce 1969 uinily Spojen stty a Zpadn Nmecko zsadn zmny ve sv zahranin politice, kter umoovaly lpe prosazovat dtente.[34]Richard Nixon zavedl Nixonovu doktrnu a vZpadnm Nmecku zaala platit Ostpolitik, kter nahradila Hallsteinovu doktrnu, kter stanovovala, e Zpadn Nmecko nebude navazovat ani udrovat diplomatick vztahy sdnm sttem, kter nave diplomatick vztahy sNDR.[34]

Vt dob byly uinny snahy ojadern odzbrojovn. Vbeznu 1970 vela vplatnost Smlouva o neen jadernch zbran a vkvtnu 1972 Richard Nixon a Leonid Ilji Brenv podepsali smlouvy SALTI a ABM.[35] Vroce 1979 pak byla Brenvem a novm americkm prezidentem Jimmym Carterem podepsna smlouva SALTII, m pestala platit SALTI. SALTII ale nikdy nevstoupila vplatnost, protoe jej ratifikaci odmtl Sent USA kvli sovtsk agresi vAfghnistnu. Jej limity ale oba stty vcelku dodrovaly.[36]

Vroce 1976 zaal Sovtsk svaz vEvrop rozmisovat jadern systmy typu SS-20.[37] Odpovd NATO bylo pijet tzv.dvoukolejnho rozhodnut zroku 1979. Aliance se rozhodla vEvrop rozmstit tm 600odpalovacch zazen zench stel a zrove vyslovila podporu kontroly zbrojen.[38]

Po vtzstv vprezidentskch volbch roku 1980 vyhlsil Ronald Reagan novou Reaganovu doktrnu, kter urila nov smr politiky Zpadu. Reagan povaoval celosvtovou kampa za demokracii, pouh obrana proti komunismu mu nepipadala dostaten.[39]

Vroce 1982 se lenem Aliance stalo panlsko. Vt dob zaalo NATO tlait na Sovtsk svaz ohledn dodrovn lidskch prv.[40] Vsouvislosti stm Reagan na zatku roku 1983 oznail komunistick svt za i zla, co velk st zpadnch mdi povaovala za pehnan.[41] 1.z 1983 sovtsk protivzdun obrana sestelila bez varovn jihokorejsk civiln letadlo; zemelo 250lid a tato tragdie podpoila Reaganovu politiku voch zpadn veejnosti.[41] Konec studen vlky se pak thl ve znaku vzjemnch dohod oodzbrojovn.[42] Prvn schze Reagana a novho sovtskho vdce Michaila Gorbaova probhla vroce 1985 venev. Na druh schzi vReykjavku se Gorbaov snail Reagana pesvdit, aby ustoupil od jm plnovan Strategick obrann iniciativy, co on odmtl.[42] Na tetm setkn ve Washingtonu pak Reagan a Gorbaov podepsali Smlouvu olikvidaci raket stednho a krtkho doletu (INF).[43]

Znik Varavsk smlouvy vroce 1991 odstranil de facto hlavnho protivnka NATO a podntil nov debaty oelu a povaze Aliance. Vsledkem je roziovn NATO po Evrop a rozen jejch aktivit do oblast, kter pedtm nebyly vjejm poli psobnosti.

Prvn rozen NATO po studen vlce pilo se znovusjednocenm Nmecka 3.jna 1990, kdy se bval NDR pipojila ke Spolkov republice Nmecko a Alianci. To bylo dohodnuto Smlouvou dva plus tyi dve tho roku. Aby stmto bodem smlouvy souhlasil Sovtsk svaz, strany se dohodly, e vbval NDR nebudou umstny ciz vojensk jednotky a jadern zbran. Stephen F. Cohen vroce 2005 prohlsil, e NATO se tehdy zavzalo, e se nebude roziovat dle na vchod,[44] ale podle Roberta Zoellicka, tehdejho zstupce ministra zahraninch vc USA, kter se astnil smlouvn opodmnkch Smlouvy dva plus tyi, dn takov zvazek neexistoval.[45] Vkvtnu 2008 Michail Sergejevi Gorbaov prohlsil, e Amerian slbili, e NATO se nebude roziovat dl ne za hranice Nmecka po studen vlce.[46]

Soust rekonstrukce NATO po studen vlce byla reorganizace jej vojensk struktury. Vznikly nkter nov sloky, nap. Velitelstv spojeneckho sboru rychl reakce, a byly uzaveny dohody oredukci vojenskch sil. Smlouva o konvennch ozbrojench silch v Evrop (CFE) mezi NATO a stty Varavsk smlouvy, kter byla uzavena vroce 1990, vyadovala snen potu jednotek na hodnoty, kter nepekrauj urit hranice.[47] Vroce 1999 byl pak vytvoen adaptovan text smlouvy, ve kterm byla odstranna blokov architektura (NATO vs.Varavsk smlouva). Stty NATO ale zatm adaptovan text neratifikovaly, protoe ekaj, a Rusko sthne sv jednotky zGruzie a Moldavska.[48] Vroce 1995 se Francie navrtila do Vojenskho vboru NATO a od t doby se zvila jej spoluprce svojenskmi strukturami Aliance. Politika Nicolase Sarkozyho nakonec vystila vnvrat Francie do vojenskho velen NATO 4.dubna 2009.[2]

Vroce 1999 se lenskmi zemmi NATO staly esko, Maarsko a Polsko.

Na praskm summitu vroce 2002 NATO zruilo nkter star struktury a zaloila nov. Byly vytvoeny Sly rychl reakce NATO, bylo zrueno Vrchn velitelstv spojeneckch sil v Atlantiku (SACLANT) a vzniklo Velitelstv spojeneckch sil pro transformaci (ACT) a zVrchnho velitelstv spojeneckch sil vEvrop (SHAPE) se stalo Velitelstv spojeneckch sil pro operace (ACO).[49]

Na praskm summitu se tak zaalo hovoit ovstupu sedmi novch stt do NATO: jednalo se oEstonsko, Lotysko, Litvu, Slovensko, Slovinsko, Bulharsko aRumunsko. Do Aliance tyto stty vstoupily 29.bezna 2004, krtce ped summitem vIstanbulu. 30.bezna zaala mise Baltic Air Policing, kter podporuje suverenitu Baltskch stt poskytovnm vojenskch letoun za elem ochrany ped ppadnm leteckm tokem.[50]

Summit vroce 2006 vRize byl prvnm summitem NATO, kter probhal na bvalm zem Sovtskho svazu. Hlavnm tmatem byla otzka Afghnistnu a snahy odal rozen NATO a Partnerstv pro mr.[51] Na summitu vBukureti vroce 2008 byly ke lenstv vAlianci pizvny Chorvatsko a Albnie, kter se oficiln pipojily vdubnu 2009. Ukrajin a Gruzii bylo pislbeno pijet do Aliance vbudoucnosti.[52]

Na praskm summitu bylo dohodnuto pezkoumn monosti ochrany zem Aliance ped raketovmi hrozbami. Spojen stty pozdji zaaly vyjednvat sPolskem a eskem ovybudovn protiraketov obrany na jejich zem.[53] Vroce 2007 bylo dohodnuto, e zkladny maj bt do provozu uvedeny do roku 2015.[54] Vervenci 2008 esko a Spojen stty podepsaly pedbnou dohodu oumstn zkladny protiraketov obrany na eskm zem[55] a sPolskem byla podobn dohoda uzavena vsrpnu.[56] Vreakci na to vesku vce ne 200000 lid podepsalo petici poadujc referendum ozzen zkladny.[57]

Vreakci na vyjednvn rusk prezident Vladimir Putin prohlsil, e uskutenn tchto pln by mohlo vst knovm zvodm ve zbrojen. Tak naznail, e Rusko odstoup od Smlouvy okonvennch ozbrojench silch vEvrop (CFE) do t doby, ne vechny stty NATO podepou adaptovan text smlouvy.[58] Americk ministr zahrani na to odpovdl, e se Rusko nem eho obvat, protoe nkolik protiraketovch stel by rusk jadern arzenl zastavit nedokzalo.[58]

Vlistopadu 2007 byl odstup od smlouvy CFE odhlasovn ruskm parlamentem.[48] Dohoda oumstn 10protiraketovch stel a systmu MIM-104 Patriot do Polska ze 14.srpna 2008 vedla kjadernm hrozbm Polsku ze strany Ruska. 20.srpna 2008 navc Rusko oznmilo Norsku, e zru vechnu vojenskou spoluprci sNATO.[59]

17.z 2009 americk prezident Barack Obama oznmil, e opout od plnu na protiraketov stely dlouhho doletu a msto toho bude Evropa chrnna proti stelm stednho a krtkho doletu lomi vyuvajc systm Aegis.[60] Oznmen se setkalo skritikou vamerickm Kongresu[61] ahlavn vPolsku.[62]. Rusko naopak rozhodnut uvtalo aoznmilo, e opaten pijat vreakci na americk projekt, mimo jin rozmstn raket typu 9K720 Iskander vKaliningradsk oblasti, zru. Nov zvolen generln tajemnk NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen navrhl Rusku spoluprci tkajc se konkrtn protiraketov obrany.[63]

Severoatlantickou smlouvu podepsalo vdubnu 1949 dvanct stt: Spojen stty americk, Kanada, Spojen krlovstv, Francie, Portugalsko, Belgie, Lucembursko, Nizozemsko, Dnsko, Norsko, Itlie a Island. Vroce 1952 se pipojilo ecko a Turecko. Vroce 1955 po zskn pln suverenity vstoupilo Zpadn Nmecko. Vroce 1982 se pipojilo panlsko. 12.bezna 1999 pedali ministi zahrani eska, Maarska a Polska sv americk kolegyni Madeleine Albrightov pslun ratifikan listiny, a jejich zem se tak tak staly leny NATO. Vroce 2004 se vnejvt vln roziovn NATO pipojilo 7stt: Litva, Lotysko, Estonsko, Rumunsko, Bulharsko, Slovinsko a Slovensko. 1.dubna 2009 pistoupily Chorvatsko a Albnie.

esk republika spolu s Polskem a Maarskem jako prvn zem bvalho Vchodnho bloku vstoupila 12. bezna 1999 do NATO. Ministr zahrani Jan Kavan pedal v americkm Independence v Missouri ratifikan listinu americk ministryni Madeleine Albrightov.[64]

Na summitu vBukureti vroce 2008 bylo budouc pizvn do Aliance pislbeno tem sttm: Gruzii, Ukrajin a Makedonii.[52] Kvli sporu onzev Makedonie mezi Makedoni a eckem nebyla Makedonie jet pijata a jej pijet bylo odloeno na neurito (resp.do vyeen sporu).[52] Vstupu Kypru do Aliance brn Turecko.[65] Ukrajinsk parlament vervnu 2010 odhlasoval, e se Ukrajina ovstup do NATO uchzet nebude.[66]

Dalmi potencilnmi kandidty jsou ern Hora a Bosna a Hercegovina, kter jsou vsouasnosti vAknm plnu lenstv (MAP), co je pedstupe ke vstupu do NATO, jeho clem je pipravit budouc lensk zem na povinnosti a zvazky, kter lenstv pin.[67] Rusko se sna roziovn NATO zabrnit. Vroce 2011 Vladimir Putin navtvil Srbsko a prohlsil, e nechce, aby se tento stt stal lenem Aliance a jej roziovn je proti zjmm Ruska.[68]

Vrmci operace Deny Flight (Odepen let) od 12.dubna 1993 do 20.prosince 1995 NATO zajiovalo bezletovou znu nad Bosnou a Hercegovinou bhem vlky vBosn.[69] Mezi ervnem 1993 a ervnem (oficiln jnem) 1996 probhala operace Sharp Guard (Bdl str) neboli nmon blokda bval Jugoslvie.[70]

28.nora 1994 sestelily americk letouny F-16 tyi vojensk letadla Republiky srbsk toc proti pozemnmu cli; byl to prvn vojensk zsah NATO vhistorii.[69]Operace Rozhodn sla (Deliberate Force) probhala od 30.srpna do 20.z 1995 a spovala vbombardovn pozic Vojska Republiky srbsk ohroujcch tzv.bezpen zny Sarajevo a Gorade.[71] Zsah NATO dopomohl kpodepsn Daytonsk dohody vprosinci 1995. Jako soust tto dohody nasadilo NATO vrmci operace Joint Endeavour (Spolen sil) mrov jednotky IFOR a pozdji SFOR, kter psobily od prosince 1996 do prosince 2004.[72] NATO zaalo za ast na tchto operacch udlovat medaile NATO.

24.bezna 1999 NATO zahjilo jedenctitdenn leteckou operaci Spojeneck sla (Allied Force) proti Svazov republice Jugoslvie sclem zastavit nsiln jednn vi albnskmu obyvatelstvu Kosova ze strany Srb, kte se snaili potlait vojenskou silou ozbrojen povstn kosovskoalbnskch separatist.[73] NATO poadovalo souhlas Rady bezpenosti OSN svojenskou intervenc, ten vak nebyl poskytnut kvli vetu Ruska any. Tyto dva stty pozdji podaly nvrh na ukonen intervence, kter podpoila ale jen Namibie anebyl tak schvlen.[74] Konflikt skonil 11.ervna 1999, kdy jugoslvsk vdce Slobodan Miloevi vyhovl poadavkm NATO pijmutm rezoluce Rady bezpenosti OSN . 1244. 12.ervence 1999 vstoupili do Kosova na zklad rezoluce .1244 vojci KFOR za elem dosaen trvalho mru a stability voblasti postien vlkou.[75] Mise se astn tak Armda esk republiky.[76] Mezi srpnem a zm 2001 rovn probhala Alianc zen operace Essential Harvest (Nezbytn sklize), kter mla za cl shromdit zbran a munici odevzdanou dobrovoln albnskmi povstalci vMakedonii.[77]

Spojen stty, Spojen krlovstv a tm vechny dal lensk stty NATO odporovaly snahm ozaveden pravidla souhlasu Rady bezpenosti OSN svojenskmi operacemi Aliance, mezi kter patila nap.operace vSrbsku vroce 1999. Nutnost souhlasu OSN poadovala Francie, Rusko a na. Prvn strana tvrdila, e by to podlomilo autoritu Aliance, a poznamenala, e Rusko a na by tok na Jugoslvii vetovaly a stejn tak by mohly dlat ivbudoucnosti, m by zmaily vechen potencil a el Aliance.[78]

Teroristick toky z11.z 2001 pimly NATO poprv vhistorii uplatnit lnek5 Severoatlantick smlouvy.[5] Podle nj je tok na jakhokoli lena Aliance povaovn za tok proti vem. 2.jna 2001 NATO potvrdilo, e zmnn teroristick toky pod tento lnek spadaj.[79] Mezi osm oficilnch operac provedench NATO pat operace Eagle Assist (Pomoc orla; hldn americkho vzdunho prostoru) a operace Active Endeavour (Aktivn snaha), nmon operace majc za cl zabrnit pohybu terorist a zbran hromadnho nien a obecn zvit bezpenost nmon dopravy, kter probh od 4.jna 2001.

Vsrpnu 2003 NATO zapoalo svou prvn operaci mimo Evropu, kdy pevzala kontrolu nad Mezinrodnmi bezpenostnmi podprnmi slami (ISAF) vAfghnistnu.[80] ISAF mly pvodn za kol zajistit Kbul a okol proti Tlibnu a Al-Kid, aby mohla fungovat vlda Hmida Karzaje. 13.jna 2003 Rada bezpenosti OSN jednohlasn schvlila rozen psobnosti ISAF na zbytku zem Afghnistnu.[81] K beznu 2012 v Afghnistnu psobilo tm 130000vojk pod vedenm NATO. Ukonen bojovch operac v zemi probhlo na konci roku 2014.[82] V roce 2015 byla zahjena nov koalin operace snzvem Rozhodn podpora, kter m za kol svyuitm 12500zahraninch vojk provdt v tto zemi vcvik, poradenstv a podporu afghnskch ozbrojench sil.[83]

Vroce 2004 NATO zapoala na dost irck vldy vcvikovou misi vIrku (NATO Training Mission Iraq, NTM-I), kter se starala ovcvik nov irck armdy.[84] Clem bylo poskytnout demokraticky veden a schopn obrann sektor.[85] Spolupracovala nejdve sKoalic mnohonrodnch sil (Multi-National Force Iraq, MNF-I),[86] po jejm zniku v roce 2010 pak s nov vzniklou slokou United States Forces Iraq. Pvodn se mise soustedila hlavn na vcvik vysoce postavench dstojnk. Vz 2005 NATO otevelo na kraji Bagddu vojenskou akademii,[87] ve kter do konce nora 2009 psobili tyi et vojci.[88] Vjnu 2007 se operace rozila na vcvik federln policie avprosinci 2008 na dal sloky jako nap. lostvo a letectvo.[84]

K 31. prosinci 2011 mise skonila, kdy vyprela platnost dohody o jej existenci. Operace se zastnilo 23 lenskch stt NATO, kter pisply celkov stkou tm 250milion dolar.[85]

17.srpna 2009 zahjilo NATO operaci Ocean Shield (Ocensk tt), kter spov vochran nmon dopravy vAdenskm zlivu a Indickm ocenu (okol Africkho rohu) proti somlskm pirtm. Navazuje tak na pedchoz operace Allied Provider (jenprosinec 2008) a Allied Protector (bezen-srpen 2009), kter probhaly tak vAdenskm zlivu. Hlavnm clem operace Allied Provider bylo zabezpeen civilnch lod Svtovho potravinovho programu, kter do Afriky dovely potraviny, aoperace Allied Protector rozila psobnost ina komern plavidla. Operace Ocean Shield krom samotn kontroly vod poskytuje okolnm zemm vcvik vlastnch protipirtskch jednotek.[89]

Bhem obansk vlky vLibyi vroce 2011 vyeskalovalo nsil mezi protestanty a libyjskou vldou vele sMuammarem Kaddfm natolik, e Rada bezpenosti OSN 17.bezna 2011 schvlila rezoluci .1973, kter poadovala pm a schvlila vojensk zsah za elem obrany civilnho obyvatelstva. Koalice, ve kter bylo inkolik len NATO, zdila nedlouho pot nad Liby bezletovou znu. 20.bezna 2011 schvlilo NATO embargo na dovoz zbran libyjskmu reimu, kter prosazovala skrze operaci Unified Protector (Sjednocen ochrnce). Ta mla za kol kontrolovat, nahlsit a vppad poteby zastavit lod podezvan zneleglnho pevozu zbran.[90] 24. bezna NATO souhlasilo spevzetm moci nad bezletovou znou od pvodn koalice. Moc nad pozemnmi jednotkami zstala vrukou koalice.[91]

Ne vechny lensk zem se vak bojovch operac zastnily. Do ervna2011 jich bylo jen 8 zcelkovch 28,[92] co vystilo vkonflikt mezi americkm ministrem obrany Robertem Gatesem a stty jako Polsko, panlsko, Nizozemsko, Turecko a Nmecko. Gates po tchto zemch chtl, aby se na operaci podlely vce.[93] Ve svm proslovu vBruselu 10.ervna Gates dle kritizoval neinn zem spoznmkou, e jejich jednn by mohlo zpsobit rozpad NATO.[94]

Operace vLibyi byla prodlouena do z.[95] Tden na to Norsko oznmilo, e postupn utlum svou ast na operaci, kterou kompletn ukon k1.srpnu.[96] Staen norskch sthacch letoun nakonec probhlo 4.srpna.[97] Velitel Royal Navy prohlsil, e britsk ast je kvli krtm vrozpotu neudriteln.[98] Operace nakonec probhaly a do jna; 20. jna zemel Muammar Kaddf a 31. jna byla oficiln ukonena intervence NATO.[99]

NATO zdilo Euroatlantickou radu partnerstv a Partnerstv pro mr, kter slou ke spoluprci 28stt NATO a 22 partnerskch zem.

Vlistopadu 2002 byly na praskm summitu zahjeny Individuln akn plny partnerstv (IPAP) a je oteven zemm, kter maj politickou vli a schopnosti prohloubit sv vztahy sNATO.[104]

Vsouasnosti se IPAP astn nsledujc stty:[105]

Od devadestch let zaala Aliance spolupracovat se stty, se ktermi nem uzaven dn zve uvedench oficilnch partnerstv. Nap.Argentina a Chile spolupracovaly sNATO ve vlce vBosn a Hercegovin. Vroce 1998 Aliance vytvoila obecn smrnice tkajc se vztah sostatnmi zemmi. Stty ochotn sNATO spolupracovat se nazvaj kontaktn zem nebo dal globln partnei.[106]

Hlavn velitelstv NATO se nachz vHarenu vBruselu.[107] Pracuj vnm delegace lenskch stt, styn dstojnci nebo diplomat partnerskch zem, mezinrodn civiln zamstnanci a mezinrodn vojent zamstnanci. Celkov poet stlch zamstnanc je zhruba 4000.[107]

Hlavn politickou strukturu NATO tvo Severoatlantick rada, Vbor pro obrann plnovn a Skupina pro jadern plnovn.[108] Tmto orgnm jsou podzeny Hlavn vbory, kter e specifick koly vpolitick, vojensk a ekonomick oblasti.[109]

Severoatlantick rada je nejvy rozhodovac a konzultan orgn Aliance. Delegace kad z28lenskch zem je vn zastoupena jednm delegtem (stlm zstupcem).[110] Rada se schz alespo jednou tdn, zasedn na rovni ministr zahrani, pedsed vld nebo ministr obrany probhaj jednou za pl roku.[108] Rad pedsed generln tajemnk NATO a rozhodnut mus bt pijata jednomysln.[4]

Nejvym vojenskm orgnem NATO je Vojensk vbor, kter pedkld nvrhy a doporuen Severoatlantick rad, Vboru pro obrann plnovn a Skupin pro jadern plnovn. Stejn jako vSeveroatlantick rad je kad zlenskch zem zastoupena jednm (vojenskm) zstupcem a vbor se schz alespo jednou tdn.[108] Pedseda Vojenskho vboru je volen nelnky generlnch tb lenskch zem na tlet obdob. Od roku 2015 je jm armdn generl Petr Pavel.

Vboru podlhaj dv vojensk velitelstv: Velitelstv spojeneckch sil pro operace (ACO) a Velitelstv spojeneckch sil pro transformaci (ACT).[108] ACO sdl ve Vrchnm velitelstv spojeneckch sil vEvrop (SHAPE) a vel mu vrchn velitel sil NATO vEvrop (SACEUR). Tm je od roku 2009 admirl James Stavridis.[113] Velitelem ACT (SACT) je od roku generl Stphane Abrial.[114]

Parlamentn shromdn sestv zposlanc parlament vech lenskch stt a 14 pidruench stt.[115] Nem vkonnou moc, m pouze konzultativn charakter. Delegti pracuj vpti vborech: ekonomickm, politickm, bezpenostnm a vdecko-technickm a ve zvltn skupin pro stedomosk dialog.[116] Poet poslanc zem je odvozen od potu obyvatel; vshromdn jich zased celkem pes 300, ztoho zeska 7.[117][118]

Rada NATO-Rusko byla zaloena vroce 2002[119], kdy nahradila Stlou spolenou radu Rusko-NATO (Permanent Join Council). Rusko na jedn stran a NATO na druh vn jednaj jako rovnocenn partnei. Slou ke konzultaci obezpenostnch a vojenskch otzkch. V roce 2009 rusk prezident Dmitrij Medvedv kritizoval roziovn NATO na vchod, kter podle nho poruilo sliby dan zpadnmi politiky po sjednocen Nmecka.[120] V roce 2014 NATO peruilo s Ruskem vekerou spoluprci.

V beznu 2015, po uzaven pm v Minsku mezi proruskmi separatisty v Donbasu a ukrajinskou vldou, nmet pedstavitel z okruhu kanclky Merkelov kritizovali vrchnho velitele sil NATO v Evrop americkho generla Philipa Breedlova za "nepravdiv tvrzen a pehnan soudy" o ptomnosti ruskch vojsk na Ukrajin, kter zbyten vyhrocuj ukrajinskou krizi a ohrouj dvryhodnost NATO. Podle nmeckho magaznu Der Spiegel generl Breedlove v poslednch mscch opakovan veejn varoval ped hrozc ruskou invaz nebo ped ptomnost vysokho potu ruskch vojk na Ukrajin, a pokad se podle nmeck rozvdky jeho informace ukzaly jako pehnan nebo nepravdiv. Znepokojen nad vroky generla Breedlova vyjdili i nkte velvyslanci lenskch stt pi NATO.[121]

V tomto lnku byl pouit peklad textu z lnku NATO na anglick Wikipedii.

Read more from the original source:
Severoatlantick aliance Wikipedie

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on Severoatlantick aliance Wikipedie

NATO – Member Countries and Overview

Posted: at 9:50 am

Erik Simonsen/ Photographer's Choice/ Getty Images

By Matt Rosenberg

Updated December 16, 2014.

On April 1, 2009, two countries were newly admitted into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Thus, there are now 28 member states. The U.S.-led military alliance was created in 1949 as a result of the Soviet blockade of Berlin.

The original twelve members of NATO in 1949 were the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg.

In 1952, Greece and Turkey joined. West Germany was admitted in 1955 and in 1982 Spain became the sixteenth member.

On March 12, 1999, three new countries - the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland - brought the total number of NATO members to 19.

On April 2, 2004, seven new countries joined the alliance. These countries are Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

The two newest countries that joined as NATO members on April 1, 2009 are Albania and Croatia.

To retaliate against the formation of NATO, in 1955 the Communist countries banded together to form the now-defunct Warsaw Pact, which originally consisted of the Soviet Union, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, Poland, and Romania.

The Warsaw Pact ended in 1991, with the fall of Communism and the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Most notably, Russia remains a non-member of NATO. Interestingly enough, in the military structure of NATO, a U.S. military officer is always commander-in-chief of NATO forces so that U.S. troops never come under control of a foreign power.

View original post here:
NATO - Member Countries and Overview

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on NATO – Member Countries and Overview

NATO Chicago Summit | NATO – United States Mission

Posted: at 9:50 am

The President: Well, good morning, everyone. And for those who are joining us for the first time, welcome to Chicago. I was just hearing from a few folks who are not NATO members that they had fun on the town last night. Hopefully, no stories in the press. (Laughter.)

At the 2010 NATO Summit in Lisbon, NATO Heads of State and Government agreed to an enduring partnership between NATO and Afghanistan that would last beyond the transition of full security responsibility for Afghanistan from ISAF to Afghan forces by the end of 2014.

At the 2010 NATO Summit in Lisbon, the United States, our NATO Allies, ISAF partners, and the Government of Afghanistan agreed to transfer responsibility for securing Afghanistan from ISAF to the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) in a transition process that would begin in 2011 and be completed by the end of 2014.

Supporting Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) that are sufficient to the task of securing Afghanistan and financially sustainable by the Afghan government and the international community is the foundation of NATOs transition strategy.

We, the nations contributing to ISAF, and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, met today in Chicago to renew our firm commitment to a sovereign, secure and democratic Afghanistan.

Read the original:
NATO Chicago Summit | NATO - United States Mission

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on NATO Chicago Summit | NATO – United States Mission

NATO Vikipdija

Posted: at 9:50 am

Ziemeatlantijas Lguma organizcija (latviski biek lietots ts anglisk nosaukuma akronms NATO, angu: North Atlantic Treaty Organization; oficili ar OTAN, franu: Organisation du trait de l'Atlantique Nord) ir militra savienba jeb alianse, kas apvieno vairkas Eiropas un Ziemeamerikas valstis ar mri "saglabt un attstt savas aizsardzbas spjas gan individuli, gan kopjiem spkiem, nodroinot kopgas aizsardzbas plnoanas pamatu".[1]

NATO dibinta pc 2. pasaules kara, 1949.gada 4.aprl, k pretspars PSRS. Organizciju izveidoja 10 Eiropas valstis, ASV un Kanda, lai aukst kara apstkos aizsargtu Eiropu no komunistiskajm valstm, bet msdiens NATO ir iesaistjusies visas pasaules drobas sistms. Organizcija ir bzta Brisel, kur atrodas NATO mtne. NATO nav savas armijas, bet ir kopgs tbs, kas plno dalbvalstu aizsardzbas politiku. Latvija pievienojs NATO 2004.gada 29.mart. Ziemeatlantijas lguma galveno jgu izsaka t 5. panta pirmais teikums:

NATO kandidtvalstis (Membership Action Plan) ir

aj programm notika sarunas par uzemanu ar [4] ar Ukrainu, bet 2010. gad Ukrainas valdba pazioja, ka prtrauc sarunas par uzemanu NATO. 2014. gada janvr Gruzijas premjerministrs Iraklijs Garibavili pazioja, ka via valsts cer saemt Rcbas plnu dalbai NATO alianses samit 2014. gad.[5]

2015. gada 2. decembr NATO enerlsekretrs Jenss Stoltenbergs pazioja, ka NATO rlietu ministru sanksm pieemts lmums oficili uzaicint Melnkalni pievienoties NATO, kas ks par alianses 29. dalbvalsti.[6]

"Partnerattiecbas mieram" (Partnership for Peace) dalbnieces ir Armnija, Austrija, Azerbaidna, Baltkrievija, Bosnija un Hercegovina, Gruzija, rija, Kazahstna, Kirgizstna, Krievija, Malta, Maedonija, Melnkalne, Moldova, Serbija, Somija, veice, Tadikistna, Turkmenistna, Uzbekistna, Ukraina un Zviedrija.

Vidusjras dialoga (Mediterranean Dialogue) partneres ir Alrija, ipte, Izrala, Jordnija, Maroka, Mauritnija un Tunisija.

Link:
NATO Vikipdija

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on NATO Vikipdija

Transhuman Policy Center Guidelines

Posted: at 9:48 am

The following is the finalized version 1 of the TPC (Transhuman Policy Center) guidelines, the TPC is currently looking at paper submissions as well as policy strategy and road map planning. Let us know if you want to help admin@transhumanity.net :

The mission of the Transhumanist Policy Center (TPC) is to provide nonpartisan guidance to the public, policy makers and electoral candidates on issues that affect legislation. TPC aims to safeguard the efficacy of scientific fact, empirical research, and critical thinking regarding documented material and shared information within the political sphere.

The Guidelines for the TPC are:

To better illustrate how these guidelines should work here is an example.

The TPC has a submission email on the web site. Essays or papers are submitted via email. Submitted essays are sent to the Associate Board to review. If the submission is rejected by the Associate Board, that is the end of it. If accepted by the Associate Board then the submissions are posted to the site as upcoming votes and are open to comment in the form of online comments. Associate Board members are able to submit comments on a given post at this time. After one week, an email is sent to the Review Board and they vote yes or no on the essay, article or white paper. The Review Board members may attach comments or dissenting opinions to the post. If the paper is rejected, that is the end of it. If the paper is accepted by 2/3s or better of the Review Board then it is approved, published on the site as an accepted paper, the author is notified and emails are sent out to the notification list. A public relations office may be selected to-do other communication activities with the essay or paper. If the vote was 100% then the work is considered certified and otherwise follows the same chain of activities.

David has an exceptional record of accomplishment as a recognized technologist with deep experience as a cross discipline team leader in the computer science engineering arena. Daves specialty is to bring compelling new technologies to market in dynamic, evolving environments with a particular emphasis on the mobile space. David is a futurist who has a unique ability to discern emergent trends in technology and identify meaningful use cases that not only deliver commercial benefit but improve the total User Experience. David was one of the very first to recognize the potentiality of Cloud Services and how Augmented Reality would significantly improve how people experience cutting edge technology. Through his tech insight and deft design skill David has worked directly with industry leaders including Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and Ray Ozzie to bring the most decisive technologies from ideation to market. He is thrilled to bring more than twenty years Microsoft experience to everything he does.

August 24, 2015

blog, news, policy

education, ethics, futurism, legal, longevity, policy, research, Sustainability, tp, tpc, transhuman, transhumanism, transhumanist, transhumanity

Read more:
Transhuman Policy Center Guidelines

Posted in Transhuman News | Comments Off on Transhuman Policy Center Guidelines

SCOTUS has two weeks of arguments starting Monday, one a …

Posted: February 19, 2016 at 9:43 pm

ABA Journal's Blawg 100 (2015)

by John Wesley Hall Criminal Defense Lawyer and Search and seizure law consultant Little Rock, Arkansas Contact / The Book http://www.johnwesleyhall.com

2003-16, online since Feb. 24, 2003 real non-robot URL hits since 2010; approx. 18k posts since 2003

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fourth Amendment cases, citations, and links

Latest Slip Opinions: U.S. Supreme Court (Home) Federal Appellate Courts Opinions First Circuit Second Circuit Third Circuit Fourth Circuit Fifth Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Eighth Circuit Ninth Circuit Tenth Circuit Eleventh Circuit D.C. Circuit Federal Circuit Foreign Intell.Surv.Ct. FDsys, many district courts, other federal courts, other Military Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG State courts (and some USDC opinions)

Google Scholar Advanced Google Scholar Google search tips LexisWeb LII State Appellate Courts LexisONE free caselaw Findlaw Free Opinions To search Search and Seizure on Lexis.com $

Research Links: Supreme Court: SCOTUSBlog S. Ct. Docket Solicitor General's site SCOTUSreport Briefs online (but no amicus briefs) Curiae (Yale Law) Oyez Project (NWU) "On the Docket"Medill S.Ct. Monitor: Law.com S.Ct. Com't'ry: Law.com

General (many free): LexisWeb Google Scholar | Google LexisOne Legal Website Directory Crimelynx Lexis.com $ Lexis.com (criminal law/ 4th Amd) $ Findlaw.com Findlaw.com (4th Amd) Westlaw.com $ F.R.Crim.P. 41 http://www.fd.org FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (2008) (pdf) DEA Agents Manual (2002) (download) DOJ Computer Search Manual (2009) (pdf) Stringrays (ACLU No. Cal.) (pdf)

Congressional Research Service: --Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) --Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) --Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) --Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) --Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012) ACLU on privacy Privacy Foundation Electronic Frontier Foundation NACDLs Domestic Drone Information Center Electronic Privacy Information Center Criminal Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.) Section 1983 Blog

"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." Me

I still learn something new every day. Pete Townshend, The Who 50th Anniversary Tour, "The Who Live at Hyde Park" (Showtime 2015)

"I can't talk about my singing. I'm inside it. How can you describe something you're inside of?" Janis Joplin

"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government." Shemaya, in the Thalmud

"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced." Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).

"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).

Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment. Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).

"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).

"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property." Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)

"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment." United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)

"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has notto put it mildlyrun smooth." Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable." Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)

"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)

Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Governments purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)

Libertythe freedom from unwarranted intrusion by governmentis as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark. United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)

"You can't always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need." Mick Jagger & Keith Richards

"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for meand by that time there was nobody left to speak up." Martin Niemller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]

You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men! ---Pep Le Pew

Read this article:
SCOTUS has two weeks of arguments starting Monday, one a ...

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on SCOTUS has two weeks of arguments starting Monday, one a …

NSA ARC Business Registration

Posted: at 3:44 am

Welcome to the National Security Agency's (NSA's) Business Registry, sponsored by the Acquisition Resource Center (ARC). We have established this service so that vendors can register for possible future business opportunities with NSA and other Intelligence Community Agencies (IC). We encourage you to tell us about your organization and its capabilities so we can contact you for any future acquisition that would suit your products and services. Please do not submit any information that you consider proprietary, as the government currently will not protect information so provided. By registering in this database, you will receive notification of specific NSA/IC acquisition efforts, Broad Area Announcements (BAA) and Requests for Information (RFI). This Web-based tool is the front door for business opportunities with NSA and the IC. We look forward to learning more about your business.

The information contained in the ARC Business Registry is intended solely to advise the government, cleared vendors, and prospective vendors of the possible sources of supplies and services to be acquired by NSA/IC and to establish a single database for the dissemination to vendors of certain current and future NSA/IC acquisition information. Any government generated e-mails or internet announcements may simply advise a vendor to visit the ARC located in Hanover, Maryland or to contact the Agency concerning a particular unclassified acquisition. The messages will all have a return address of nsaarc@nsaarc.net, where more details related to the announcement will be available.

Click here to visit ARCnet with a valid PKI certificate.

Click here to visit ARCnet without a PKI certificate.

Original post:
NSA ARC Business Registration

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on NSA ARC Business Registration

What Libertarianism Is | Mises Daily

Posted: at 3:41 am

Property, Rights, and Liberty

Libertarians tend to agree on a wide array of policies and principles. Nonetheless, it is not easy to find consensus on what libertarianism's defining characteristic is, or on what distinguishes it from other political theories and systems.

Various formulations abound. It is said that libertarianism is about individual rights, property rights, the free market, capitalism, justice, or the nonaggression principle. Not just any of these will do, however. Capitalism and the free market describe the catallactic conditions that arise or are permitted in a libertarian society, but do not encompass other aspects of libertarianism. And individual rights, justice, and aggression collapse into property rights. As Murray Rothbard explained, individual rights are property rights. And justice is just giving someone his due, which depends on what his rights are.

The nonaggression principle is also dependent on property rights, since what aggression is depends on what our (property) rights are. If you hit me, it is aggression because I have a property right in my body. If I take from you the apple you possess, this is trespass aggression only because you own the apple. One cannot identify an act of aggression without implicitly assigning a corresponding property right to the victim.

So capitalism and the free market are too narrow, and justice, individual rights, and aggression all boil down to, or are defined in terms of, property rights. What of property rights, then? Is this what differentiates libertarianism from other political philosophies that we favor property rights, and all others do not? Surely such a claim is untenable.

After all, a property right is simply the exclusive right to control a scarce resource. Property rights specify which persons own that is, have the right to control various scarce resources in a given region or jurisdiction. Yet everyone and every political theory advance some theory of property. None of the various forms of socialism deny property rights; each version will specify an owner for every scarce resource. If the state nationalizes an industry, it is asserting ownership of these means of production. If the state taxes you, it is implicitly asserting ownership of the funds taken. If my land is transferred to a private developer by eminent domain statutes, the developer is now the owner. If the law allows a recipient of racial discrimination to sue his employer for a sum of money, he is the owner of the money.

Protection of and respect for property rights is thus not unique to libertarianism. What is distinctive about libertarianism is its particular property assignment rules: its view concerning who is the owner of each contestable resource, and how to determine this.

A system of property rights assigns a particular owner to every scarce resource. These resources obviously include natural resources such as land, fruits of trees, and so on. Objects found in nature are not the only scarce resources, however. Each human actor has, controls, and is identified and associated with a unique human body, which is also a scarce resource. Both human bodies and nonhuman, scarce resources are desired for use as means by actors in the pursuit of various goals.

Accordingly, any political theory or system must assign ownership rights in human bodies as well as in external things. Let us consider first the libertarian property assignment rules with respect to human bodies, and the corresponding notion of aggression as it pertains to bodies. Libertarians often vigorously assert the "nonaggression principle." As Ayn Rand said, "So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate do you hear me? No man may start the use of physical force against others." Or, as Rothbard put it:

The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom." "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.

In other words, libertarians maintain that the only way to violate rights is by initiating force that is, by committing aggression. (Libertarianism also holds that, while the initiation of force against another person's body is impermissible, force used in response to aggression such as defensive, restitutive, or retaliatory/punitive force is justified.)

Now in the case of the body, it is clear what aggression is: invading the borders of someone's body, commonly called battery, or, more generally, using the body of another without his or her consent. The very notion of interpersonal aggression presupposes property rights in bodies more particularly, that each person is, at least prima facie, the owner of his own body.

Nonlibertarian political philosophies have a different view. Each person has some limited rights in his own body, but not complete or exclusive rights. Society or the state, purporting to be society's agent has certain rights in each citizen's body, too. This partial slavery is implicit in state actions and laws such as taxation, conscription, and drug prohibitions.

The libertarian says that each person is the full owner of his body: he has the right to control his body, to decide whether or not he ingests narcotics, joins an army, and so on. Those various nonlibertarians who endorse any such state prohibitions, however, necessarily maintain that the state, or society, is at least a partial owner of the body of those subject to such laws or even a complete owner in the case of conscriptees or nonaggressor "criminals" incarcerated for life. Libertarians believe in self-ownership. Nonlibertarians statists of all stripes advocate some form of slavery.

Without property rights, there is always the possibility of conflict over contestable (scarce) resources. By assigning an owner to each resource, legal systems make possible conflict-free use of resources, by establishing visible boundaries that nonowners can avoid. Libertarianism does not endorse just any property assignment rule, however. It favors self-ownership over other-ownership (slavery).

The libertarian seeks property assignment rules because he values or accepts various grundnorms such as justice, peace, prosperity, cooperation, conflict-avoidance, and civilization. The libertarian view is that self-ownership is the only property assignment rule compatible with these grundorms; it is implied by them.

As Professor Hoppe has shown, the assignment of ownership to a given resource must not be random, arbitrary, particularistic, or biased, if it is actually to be a property norm that can serve the function of conflict-avoidance. Property title has to be assigned to one of competing claimants based on "the existence of an objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link between owner and the" resource claimed. In the case of one's own body, it is the unique relationship between a person and his body his direct and immediate control over his body, and the fact that, at least in some sense, a body is a given person and vice versa that constitutes the objective link sufficient to give that person a claim to his body superior to typical third party claimants.

Moreover, any outsider who claims another's body cannot deny this objective link and its special status, since the outsider also necessarily presupposes this in his own case. This is so because, in seeking dominion over the other and in asserting ownership over the other's body, he has to presuppose his own ownership of his body. In so doing, the outsider demonstrates that he does place a certain significance on this link, even as (at the same time) he disregards the significance of the other's link to his own body.

Libertarianism recognizes that only the self-ownership rule is universalizable and compatible with the goals of peace, cooperation, and conflict-avoidance. We recognize that each person is prima facie the owner of his own body because, by virtue of his unique link to and connection with his own body his direct and immediate control over it he has a better claim to it than anyone else.

Libertarians apply similar reasoning in the case of other scarce resources namely, external objects in the world that, unlike bodies, were at one point unowned. In the case of bodies, the idea of aggression being impermissible immediately implies self-ownership. In the case of external objects, however, we must identify who the owner is before we can determine what constitutes aggression.

As in the case with bodies, humans need to be able to use external objects as means to achieve various ends. Because these things are scarce, there is also the potential for conflict. And, as in the case with bodies, libertarians favor assigning property rights so as to permit the peaceful, conflict-free, productive use of such resources. Thus, as in the case with bodies, property is assigned to the person with the best claim or link to a given scarce resource with the "best claim" standard based on the goals of permitting peaceful, conflict-free human interaction and use of resources.

Unlike human bodies, however, external objects are not parts of one's identity, are not directly controlled by one's will, and significantly they are initially unowned. Here, the libertarian realizes that the relevant objective link is appropriation the transformation or embordering of a previously unowned resource, Lockean homesteading, the first use or possession of the thing. Under this approach, the first (prior) user of a previously unowned thing has a prima facie better claim than a second (later) claimant, solely by virtue of his being earlier.

Why is appropriation the relevant link for determination of ownership? First, keep in mind that the question with respect to such scarce resources is: who is the resource's owner? Recall that ownership is the right to control, use, or possess, while possession is actual control "the factual authority that a person exercises over a corporeal thing." The question is not who has physical possession; it is who has ownership.

Thus, asking who is the owner of a resource presupposes a distinction between ownership and possession between the right to control, and actual control. And the answer has to take into account the nature of previously unowned things namely, that they must at some point become owned by a first owner.

The answer must also take into account the presupposed goals of those seeking this answer: rules that permit conflict-free use of resources. For this reason, the answer cannot be whoever has the resource or whoever is able to take it is its owner. To hold such a view is to adopt a might-makes-right system, where ownership collapses into possession for want of a distinction. Such a system, far from avoiding conflict, makes conflict inevitable.

Instead of a might-makes-right approach, from the insights noted above it is obvious that ownership presupposes the prior-later distinction: whoever any given system specifies as the owner of a resource, he has a better claim than latecomers. If he does not, then he is not an owner, but merely the current user or possessor. If he is supposed an owner on the might-makes-right principle, in which there is no such thing as ownership, it contradicts the presuppositions of the inquiry itself. If the first owner does not have a better claim than latecomers, then he is not an owner, but merely a possessor, and there is no such thing as ownership.

More generally, latecomers' claims are inferior to those of prior possessors or claimants, who either homesteaded the resource or who can trace their title back to the homesteader or earlier owner. The crucial importance of the prior-later distinction to libertarian theory is why Professor Hoppe repeatedly emphasizes it in his writing.

Thus, the libertarian position on property rights is that, in order to permit conflict-free, productive use of scarce resources, property titles to particular resources are assigned to particular owners. As noted above, however, the title assignment must not be random, arbitrary, or particularistic; instead, it has to be assigned based on "the existence of an objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link between owner" and the resource claimed. As can be seen from the considerations presented above, the link is the physical transformation or embordering of the original homesteader, or a chain of title traceable by contract back to him.

Not only libertarians are civilized. Most people give some weight to some of the above considerations. In their eyes, a person is the owner of his own body usually. A homesteader owns the resource he appropriates unless the state takes it from him "by operation of law." This is the principal distinction between libertarians and nonlibertarians: Libertarians are consistently opposed to aggression, defined in terms of invasion of property borders, where property rights are understood to be assigned on the basis of self-ownership in the case of bodies. And in the case of other things, rights are understood on the basis of prior possession or homesteading and contractual transfer of title.

This framework for rights is motivated by the libertarian's consistent and principled valuing of peaceful interaction and cooperation in short, of civilized behavior. A parallel to the Misesian view of human action may be illuminating here. According to Mises, human action is aimed at alleviating some felt uneasiness. Thus, means are employed, according to the actor's understanding of causal laws, to achieve various ends ultimately, the removal of uneasiness.

Civilized man feels uneasy at the prospect of violent struggles with others. On the one hand, he wants, for some practical reason, to control a given scarce resource and to use violence against another person, if necessary, to achieve this control. On the other hand, he also wants to avoid a wrongful use of force. Civilized man, for some reason, feels reluctance, uneasiness, at the prospect of violent interaction with his fellow man. Perhaps he has reluctance to violently clash with others over certain objects because he has empathy with them. Perhaps the instinct to cooperate is a result of social evolution. As Mises noted,

There are people whose only aim is to improve the condition of their own ego. There are other people with whom awareness of the troubles of their fellow men causes as much uneasiness as or even more uneasiness than their own wants.

Whatever the reason, because of this uneasiness, when there is the potential for violent conflict, the civilized man seeks justification for the forceful control of a scarce resource that he desires but which some other person opposes. Empathy or whatever spurs man to adopt the libertarian grundnorms gives rise to a certain form of uneasiness, which gives rise to ethical action.

Civilized man may be defined as he who seeks justification for the use of interpersonal violence. When the inevitable need to engage in violence arises for defense of life or property civilized man seeks justification. Naturally, since this justification-seeking is done by people who are inclined to reason and peace (justification is after all a peaceful activity that necessarily takes place during discourse), what they seek are rules that are fair, potentially acceptable to all, grounded in the nature of things, and universalizable, and which permit conflict-free use of resources.

Libertarian property rights principles emerge as the only candidate that satisfies these criteria. Thus, if civilized man is he who seeks justification for the use of violence, the libertarian is he who is serious about this endeavor. He has a deep, principled, innate opposition to violence, and an equally deep commitment to peace and cooperation.

For the foregoing reasons, libertarianism may be said to be the political philosophy that consistently favors social rules aimed at promoting peace, prosperity, and cooperation. It recognizes that the only rules that satisfy the civilized grundnorms are the self-ownership principle and the Lockean homesteading principle, applied as consistently as possible.

And as I have argued elsewhere, because the state necessarily commits aggression, the consistent libertarian, in opposing aggression, is also an anarchist.

This article is adapted from a "What Libertarianism Is," in Jrg Guido Hlsmann & Stephan Kinsella, eds., Property, Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Mises Institute, 2009). An abbreviated version of this article was incorporated into the author's speech "Intellectual Property and Libertarianism," presented at Mises University 2009 (July 30, 2009; audio).

Go here to see the original:
What Libertarianism Is | Mises Daily

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on What Libertarianism Is | Mises Daily