Daily Archives: February 7, 2017

Trump vows ‘strong support’ for Nato ahead of showdown in Brussels – The Independent

Posted: February 7, 2017 at 10:00 pm

Donald Trump has declared his strong support for Natoin his most forceful backing yet for an organisation he once branded obsolete.

It comes as the US President is set for a showdown in Brussels in the spring when he meets other Nato leaders, many of whom he has lambasted for not spending enough on defence.

Speaking during his first visit to the headquarters of US Central Command in Tampa, Florida, Mr Trump said he now strongly supported the bloc.

The US President, who once dismissed the trans-Atlantic alliance as irrelevant and out of date, said he would decide whether to protect Nato countries against Russian aggression based on whether those countries "have fulfilled their obligations to us".

But in an apparent U-turn, Mr Trump gave his full backing for the bloc. It followed a claim by Theresa May during her visit to Washington in January that Mr Trump had pledged his 100 per cent backing for the alliance.

Earlier, it emerged that the former reality TV host would be attending a Nato summit in Brussels in May.

NatoSecretary General Jens Stoltenberg spoke with Mr Trump by phone to confirm the visit the second conversation between the two men since the 20 January inauguration.

A statement said: Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg had a phone conversation with US President Donald J Trump on Sunday evening, where they reconfirmed the importance of the alliance in troubled times.

They reviewed progress on the fight against terrorism and on Nato defence spending, and stressed the need for continued efforts to ensure fair burden-sharing among all Nato Allies.

They also discussed the uptick in violence in eastern Ukraine, and prospects for a peaceful settlement.The Secretary General recalled Nato's consistent policy of strong defence and dialogue with Russia."

The issue of defence spending among Nato allies has taken on a renewed importance since the election of Mr Trump.

He has railed against Nato allies who fail to spend two per cent of their GDP on defence.

Theresa May used a recent EU summit to press Nato members to meet the target, presumably in a bid to maintain US support for the alliance.

Five countries spend at least two per cent: the US, the UK, Greece, Poland and Estonia.

James Mattis says Putin's threat to Nato is biggest threat since WWII

Mr Trump said as recently as January that Nato was obsolete.

"I said a long time ago that NATO had problems," he said. "Number one, it was obsolete, because it was designed many, many years ago.

"Number two, the countries weren't paying what they're supposed to be paying.

That approach put him on a collision course with his defence secretary pick, James Mattis, who is a vocal supporter of Nato.

Follow this link:
Trump vows 'strong support' for Nato ahead of showdown in Brussels - The Independent

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on Trump vows ‘strong support’ for Nato ahead of showdown in Brussels – The Independent

Flynn to recommend Trump back NATO membership for Montenegro – Politico

Posted: at 10:00 pm

Michael Flynn "is expected to recommend Montenegro's accession into NATO to Trump in the coming days," a senior administration said. | Getty

White House national security adviser Michael Flynn will recommend that President Donald Trump support allowing the small Balkan nation of Montenegro to join NATO, POLITICO has learned despite strong opposition from Russia.

The move will be a major test of the new administration's policy toward Moscow, which considers any further eastward expansion of the Western military alliance a provocation.

Story Continued Below

Other NATO countries and the U.S. Senate widely support granting membership to the nation of 650,000 people, which once was part of the former Yugoslavia. Montenegro's leaders have accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of fomenting instability inside the country to erode support for joining the alliance including alleged plots by pro-Russian movements last year to attack the parliament and assassinate the prime minister.

But Flynn, one of Trump's key advisers, "is expected to recommend Montenegro's accession into NATO to Trump in the coming days," a senior administration official said Monday in response to questions.

Trump, who criticized NATO as outdated during the campaign, has praised Putin and vowed to improve relations between Washington and Moscow. Now Montenegro will have an outsize role in revealing how much he is willing to back up the Cold War-era alliance at the expense of his budding relationship with the Russian leader.

What Russia has done against Montenegro is a unique case, said Jorge Benitez, a senior fellow and NATO expert at the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank that supports the expansion. "No NATO candidate country has ever faced such a dire attack or threat in the process of finishing its membership into the alliance.

Trump could block the bid under NATO's rules, which require unanimous support from all members. Some supporters of Montenegro's application fear he will oppose extending NATO's defense guarantee to yet another small European country.

We've defended other nations' borders, while refusing to defend our own, Trump said in his inauguration speech. From this day forward, it's going to be only America first.

But in recent days his administration has taken steps that seem to demonstrate that advisers who push a stronger commitment to NATO and a tougher line against Moscow are having an influence.

Nikki Haley, Trump's ambassador to the United Nations, announced last week that the United States would not lift sanctions against Russia over its 2014 invasion of Ukraine. On Thursday, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko called for a referendum on NATO membership, if Russia refuses to pull its forces out of the Crimea peninsula.

Montenegro, which broke away from a state union with Serbia to become independent in 2006, would become the third NATO member in the Western Balkans, behind Croatia and Albania, which both joined in 2009.

Twenty-three of 28 governments in the alliance have voted in favor of its bid and only the United States, Canada, Spain, Germany and the Netherlands have yet to weigh in. If all NATO members approve Montenegro's membership it will be up to Montenegro's own parliament to ratify the accord.

NATO accession is a highly controversial issue in Montenegro. An opinion poll conducted in December 2016 has only 39.5 percent of Montenegrins in favor of NATO membership and 39.7 against. Other opinion polls have suggested similar margins.

Russia has long seen the region as a sphere of influence and has sought to prevent it from falling under the sway of Western powers. Russia has been accused of bankrolling anti-NATO and anti-European Union political voices throughout the region, including Montenegros Democratic Front, a stridently anti-NATO party that won 20 percent of the vote in parliamentary elections last fall.

The party accuses the Montenegrin government of using the NATO issue in order to distract from systemic governmental corruption.

In turn, Montenegrin Foreign Minister Srdjan Darmanovi has accused the Democratic Front of being a Russian proxy. A flood of Kremlin cash went not only to DF and its campaign, but also to media outlets and NGOs that ardently opposed NATO membership, Darmanovi wrote in an article for the Journal of Democracy last month.

In October, Montenegros special prosecutor announced that 20 members of a Russian nationalist terrorist cell had been arrested on charges of trying to destabilize the country. Exactly what happened is not yet clear, but the apprehended suspects told Montenegrin authorities about an alleged plot to seize the country's parliament building and assassinate Prime Minister Milo ukanovi.

Neboja Kaluerovi, Montenegro's ambassador to the United States, is adamant that the nation's preparations over the last seven years for NATO eligibility have transformed the country into a strong Western ally.

It helped bring about our institutions. It helped bring about our democracy. It helps bring stability and security to the whole region, he said in an interview.

Wide majorities of both parties in the U.S. Senate whose treaty authority would require its assent agree.

Senators on both sides of the aisle see Montenegro's bid as a test of resolve against the increasingly belligerent behavior by Russia, which U.S. intelligence agencies have also accused of trying to influence U.S. presidential election by hacking and leaking the emails of Democratic officials and supporters of Hillary Clinton.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted in favor of the treaty with Montenegro on Jan. 11. The panel's chairman, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), predicts at least 98 senators will vote in favor.

Were trying to figure out how to make it happen," Corker told POLITICO. "It will pass 98-2 or 99-1, but getting it on the floor right now is difficult.

Russia hawks like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) worry a great deal that Russia will try to destabilize Montenegro before it becomes a full NATO member and has become one of the loudest voices pushing for a full Senate vote as soon as possible.

"Were doing everything we can to get that up, I promise you. he said.

I want to send a clear signal to our friends in Montenegro and to the Russians about how we feel, so I hope we can vote quickly, added Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The sooner the better.

Because adding a nation to NATO is a treaty measure, support from two-thirds of senators is required to secure passage. But the Constitution delegates the power to negotiate treaties to the president and Trump could refuse to relay the ratification to NATO, indefinitely stalling the process.

Advocates for delay include Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has raised concerns about the United States committing to defend another country in which Russia has a strong interest. He blocked a Senate attempt to vote on the treaty in December.

I think that many are referring to this as a provocation to Russia, and also, I think NATO is too big already," Paul told POLITICO. "I think we should think long and hard if whether or not we are willing to go to war if Montenegro has a skirmish with somebody that surrounds them. Ultimately, joining NATO is not necessarily a benign thing.

I think there needs to be a debate about how big NATO needs to be, he added. We pay for basically the defense of the world. If we let Montenegro in, are they going to provide for their defense or are we going to provide for their defense?

Kaluerovi insists the government's desire to join the Western alliance should not be interpreted as a sign of aggression against Russia, but rather a desire to be part of the Western world.

The two pillars of our foreign policy since the day of regaining our independence have been NATO integration and EU integration processes, he said. Simply, we belong to this part of the world.

We are doing that not against anybody, but because we think it is in our favor, he added.

The rest is here:
Flynn to recommend Trump back NATO membership for Montenegro - Politico

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on Flynn to recommend Trump back NATO membership for Montenegro – Politico

Prosecutors to seek indictment against former NSA contractor as early as this week – Washington Post

Posted: at 9:59 pm

Federal prosecutors in Baltimore are expected to seek an indictment as early as this week against a former National Security Agency contractor who is accused of carrying out the biggest theft of classified information in U.S. history.

The indictment against Harold T. Martin III is expected to contain charges of violating the Espionage Act by willfully retaining information that relates to the national defense, including classified data such as NSA hacking tools and operational plans against a known enemy of the United States, according to individuals familiar with the case.

Martin, 52, was arrested Aug. 29 at his home in Glen Burnie, Md., and he has been held in a detention facility since. A U.S. District Judge last fall declined Martins request to be released from jail pending an eventual trial or resolution of the case, ruling that he was a flight risk.

In a complaint unsealed in October, the government charged Martin with felony theft of government property and the unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials, a misdemeanor. The prosecutors said then that they expected that the indictment would also include charges of violations of the Espionage Act, offenses that carry a prison term of up to 10 years for each count.

Such charges, prosecutors said, if run consecutively, could amount to a sentence as high as 30 years to life in prison.

The Justice Department declined to comment Monday.

In court hearings and filings, prosecutors have characterized Martins actions as highly damaging to national security. Over the course of 20 years working with various federal agencies, Martin took irreplaceable classified material on a breathtaking scale, said Zachary A. Myers, an assistant U.S. attorney with the District of Maryland, at a detention hearing in October.

Myers said Martin took many thousands of pages of classified material as well as 50terabytes of digital data, much of which has special handling caveats.

Martin previously worked in the Navy, leaving active duty in 1992 and then held a variety of tech jobs with government contractors. He worked at the NSA from 2012 to 2015, where he was an employee of the intelligence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton.

For some portion of that time, Martin was in the NSAs elite hacker unit, Tailored Access Operations, which makes and deploys software used to penetrate foreign targets computer networks for foreign espionage purposes.

Some U.S. officials said that Martin allegedly made off with more than 75percent of TAOs library of hacking tools an allegation which, if true, would be a stunning breach of security.

James Wyda, one of Martins defense attorneys, declined to comment.

His attorneys have previously portrayed him as a patriot who took material home to become better in his job, not to pass them to a foreign spy agency and betray his country. The desire to improve became a compulsion, Wyda argued at the detention hearing.

This is the behavior of a compulsive hoarder who could not stop gathering and possessing the documents he treasured, Wyda said.

Martins theft was discovered more than a year after another breach at TAO, in which a longtime employee was discovered to have taken without authorization significant quantities of the units hacking tools. The breach was not thought to be as serious as Martins, but it caused concern within the intelligence community.

Follow this link:
Prosecutors to seek indictment against former NSA contractor as early as this week - Washington Post

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on Prosecutors to seek indictment against former NSA contractor as early as this week – Washington Post

NSA rejections hint at lingering secrets surrounding Cold War codebreakers – MuckRock

Posted: at 9:59 pm

February 7, 2017

Agency insists encrypted VENONA transmissions - some of which could be over 70 years old - are classified TOP SECRET

VENONA, a Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and decryption program run by the NSA and its predecessor, the U.S. Armys Signal Intelligence Service, intercepted and ultimately decrypted thousands of Soviet messages, most infamously helping to finger the Rosenbergs. These decrypted messages have been a useful resource to historians, and the NSA boasts that over the course of five more releases, all of the approximately 3,000 VENONA translations were made public and put on their website.

However, there are still a few lingering questions about the VENONA program. For a long time, the popular account was that the program was greatly aided by the recovery of a partially burned codebook. However, the NSAs own version of the story contradicts this, and provides a different context to the recovered materials in both their public histories and a now declassified history that was originally TOP SECRET UMBRA. For what its worth, the NSAs version seems internally consistent and logical - while the Soviets accidental reuse of One-Time Pads and recovered codebooks did aid in the NSAs decryption of the messages, the codes for the VENONA intercepts seem to have only been discovered through the hard work and brute force analysis of dedicated cryptologists.

Seeing an opportunity to allow the cryptographically minded to look at the original encrypted versions of the intercepts, I filed a FOIA request for both the unencrypted and untranslated copies of messages which were examined by the February 1943 project later codenamed VENONA, specifically including any messages which were not successfully or fully decrypted or translated. While there was a good chance that the Agency would decide to withhold any messages that werent decrypted, the release of their encrypted formats could be quite interesting. The collective ingenuity of the internet would get to challenge the NSAs, with any victory over the NSA enriching both their and the publics understanding of history.

Instead, the Agency refused to provide anything new. It was all still classified as TOP SECRET.

This was unexpected, but not entirely surprising. I assumed that the Agency simply hadnt bothered to declassify the documents and that the form letter exaggerated, in typical bureaucratic form letter fashion, how current the classification really was. After all, I had requested both the decrypted and untranslated copies of the messages. The untranslated copies would have the same information as the translated copies, but in Russian. They could be redacted just as easily as the translated English version, and the NSAs process of translating Russian to English couldnt possibly be classified - the Agency even publicly posts some of its translation training resources.

The response to lingering over-classification is fairly simple. One simply files a Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) request, which I did. I pointed out that the decrypted and translated records have been released and posted to the NSAs website, and neither the decryption method (a One Time Pad was repeatedly used, allowing the code to be broken) nor the Russian-to-English translation process remains classified. It took the NSA eight months, but they eventually responded - the declassification was denied and the information remained TOP SECRET.

The NSA added that the information was also withheld because it might reveal NSA/CSS functions and activities and was therefore exempt from automatic declassification. While I disagreed under the circumstances, I could understand the argument that the raw intercepts should remain TOP SECRET. Revealing them could, theoretically, disclose information about the NSAs process for decryption. However, the story had already been told and was described as an iterative analytical process that was aided by the reuse of One-Time Pads and some recovered materials. Since the devils in the details, this seemed somewhat fair. But the idea that the decrypted, but still in Russian intercepts needed to remain TOP SECRET, while English versions were posted on the NSAs website? That was truly surprising.

Is this a case of the NSA being stubborn in unnecessarily keeping something classified? Its certainly not without precedent, especially from the Agency that spent its early years being so secretive and unacknowledged that the joke was that NSA stood for No Such Agency. Or is the NSA actually hiding something? A more refined MDR with follow up appeals might yield something, but for now the NSA remains tantalizingly coy about its secrets.

The NSAs declassified history of VENONA is embedded below:

Like Mike Bests work? Support him on Patreon.

Image by via Flickr and is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Originally posted here:
NSA rejections hint at lingering secrets surrounding Cold War codebreakers - MuckRock

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on NSA rejections hint at lingering secrets surrounding Cold War codebreakers – MuckRock

Will Your Old Emails Finally Get Fourth Amendment Protections? – Reason (blog)

Posted: at 9:59 pm

Balefire9 | Dreamstime.comOnce again, legislation that would give American citizens better privacy protections for their emails has passed the House of Representatives, but we're going to have to see what happens in the Senate.

The Email Privacy Act aims to correct a flaw in federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. Passed in the relatively early days of home computer use, it established a policy that private electronic communications held by third parties that were more than 180 days old could be accessed by law enforcement and government investigators without the need for a warrant. A subpoena delivered to the communication provider was enough. A law this old obviously preceded the arrival and dominance of private email communications, and tech privacy activists and tech companies have been pushing for reform. The way the system stands now can result in people having their old private communications searched and read by authorities without the citizen's knowledge.

The Email Privacy Act fixes some of these problems, though it doesn't fully resolve the controversy Under the act, officials will need to get actual warrants to access emails and online communications, which provides at least a little more judicial oversight. But the warrants are to the providers, not to the actual people who wrote and sent the communications. It will be up to companies to decide whether to pass along the news of the warrant to customers. Neema Singh Guliani, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, says that this is a flaw with the legislation. The original version of the bill required that government provide notice. Without that rule, the third-party provider can resist the warrant if they choose to, but the actual customer probably might not even know.

"If you don't have notice, you really can't effectively [challenge the warrant]," Singh Guliani said. The bill does permit third-party providers to let customers know about the administration of warrants, but also allows for the government to delay this information for 180 days under a handful of exceptionsif the target is a flight risk or may destroy evidence or otherwise compromise the investigation. And while some major tech and communication companies have fought back against orders to pass along data or to keep searches secret, Singh Guliani says we shouldn't have to be "reliant on the business practices of providers that can change over time to make sure people get the full protection of the Fourth Amendment."

Still, the compromise bill is better than the current rules. No representative voted against it last session of Congress, and it passed again yesterday by a voice vote. But while the bill enjoys popular bipartisan support in the House, the last attempt to get it passed hit disaster in the Senate. Senators attempted to meddle with the wording of the bill to weaken it or add other unrelated regulations. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) attempted to add an amendment to expand the surveillance reach of secretive National Security Letters. Sponsoring senators ended up yanking the legislation from consideration.

The Senate sponsors last session were Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont). A representative from Sen. Lee's office said that he intends to co-sponsor the Senate version of the bill again this year, but it has not yet been introduced. This could be the first legislative test of whether increased privacy protections can make its way to and through a presidential administration openly hostile to limits on any sort of investigative or law enforcement authority (as we saw earlier today). President Donald Trump is hardly alone and he's not responsible for its previous problems, but it's nevertheless legislation that should not be struggling at all.

And a little bit of self-promotion: I'll be leading a panel discussion on the Fourth Amendment, tech privacy, and Congressional lawmaking in this March's South by Southwest (SXSW) conference. Singh Guliani will be one of our panelists. Check out the details here if you find yourself in Austin on March 10. Efforts like the Email Privacy Act will be part of the discussion.

View original post here:
Will Your Old Emails Finally Get Fourth Amendment Protections? - Reason (blog)

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on Will Your Old Emails Finally Get Fourth Amendment Protections? – Reason (blog)

Inconsistent Florida Firearm Laws Pose Potential New Threat to Second Amendment Rights – Bearing Arms

Posted: at 9:58 pm

Florida state law 790.33 articulates, in short, that only the Florida State Legislature can and will regulate statewide laws encompassing anything firearms and ammunition related. This law is in place to ensure the state of Florida in its entirety remains consistent withgoverning gun laws. This safeguardslaw-abiding citizens from beingprosecuted for crossing a county or municipality line and accidentally violatinga local firearm law. Add to that the fact that misinformation or accidental ignorance can become an issue, when these laws can become extraneous and too numerous for the well-intended citizen to keep track of.

While Florida state law renders alllocal firearms laws moot, unfortunately, somelocal laws are still alive in certain municipalities and have remained in place because of an effort to exert some level of local autonomy. These municipalities are aware that these ordinances are illegal in the big picture, but refuse to erase them from their books.

The Florida state legislature further regulatespenalties on anyone who chooses to obstruct the state laws by imposing their illegal ordinances.

Tallahassee Mayor, Andrew Gillum, found himself named as a defendant in a lawsuit brought against him by Florida Carry and the Second Amendment Foundation with support of the NRA. The Mayor defends his position, and refuses to remove a law still on the books. This law states that no guns shall be fired in parks located within the city limits of Tallahassee.

The judge in this case recently ruled in favor of the Mayor and all city officials named, finding there has been no wrong-doing on their part. The ruling is currently under appeal, based upon the constitutionality of this law.

Gillum feels he is within his right, as an elected official to enforce and uphold laws that are in his constituents best interests. He feels the state oversight is in direct opposition to what he was elected to do.The flip side to that is that picking and choosing what to uphold is counter-intuitive, andone of the fundamental elements tothis appeal.

What the Mayor is seemingly overlooking with State Law 790.33 is the bigger picture and how it affects all law-abiding gun owners and concealed carriers who reside within his governance and are some of the individuals who elected him into office.

With the appeal of the decision of the district court, its going to be up to Court of Appeals to consider the final outcome.

All law-abiding gun ownersof Florida should pay close attention the outcome of this case could have huge implications for them moving forward.

Author's Bio: Pamela Jablonski

Read the rest here:
Inconsistent Florida Firearm Laws Pose Potential New Threat to Second Amendment Rights - Bearing Arms

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Inconsistent Florida Firearm Laws Pose Potential New Threat to Second Amendment Rights – Bearing Arms

Mark L. Hopkins: The Second Amendment and Shays’ Rebellion – Wicked Local Stoughton

Posted: at 9:58 pm

Mark L. Hopkins More Content Now

This is the second in a series of columns that relate to the purpose of the Second Amendment and the gun rights issue that continues to fester in our society. The first column pointed out the strong desire on the part of the leadership of the country to have a strong federal government. The focus here is in the feeling of necessity in the leadership to have a means to enforce federal law and to protect the government from citizen rebellions. The Second Amendment became the law of the land in 1791. Prior to that Daniel Shays, a former captain in the Continental Army, became the leader of a citizens rebellion in Massachusetts in response to what Shays and other farmers believed were high taxes and a government that was unresponsive to their grievances. In January 1787, they raided the arsenal in Springfield, Massachusetts and continued their anti-government rebellions through the winter of that year. This was two years before the writing of the U.S. Bill of Rights with its all-important Second Amendment. Retired General George Washington was so upset by Shays Rebellion that he wrote three letters commenting on it. Excerpts from these letters follow: But for Gods sake tell me what is the cause of all these commotions. Do they proceed from licentiousness, British influence disseminated by Tories, or real grievances which admit of redress? In a second letter he worried that, Commotion of this sort, like snowballs, gather strength as they roll, if there is no opposition in the way to divide and crumble them. I am mortified beyond expression that in the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and render ourselves ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe. Later he wrote, If three years ago any person had told me that at this day I should see such a formidable rebellion against the laws and constitutions or our own making as now appears, I should have thought him a bedlamite, a fit subject for a mad house. Shays Rebellion was eventually put down when a group of wealthy merchants in Boston pooled their resources and created their own militia to quell the uprising. In the early 1790s, a second major rebellion began in Western Pennsylvania. It was called the Whiskey Rebellion and, again, was a revolt against taxes. Thus, the Second Amendment was written and signed into law in the shadow of these two major citizens rebellions. The U.S. Congress reacted to this second major rebellion by passing The Militia Act which gave teeth to the Second Amendment by requiring all military-age free adults to stand for service to enforce the laws of the Union, thereby insuring domestic tranquility. President Washington himself gave orders to form a militia of 13,000 men to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. His words later were ..this is how a well-regulated Militia should be used to serve the government in maintaining a strong security in each state, as the Second Amendment of The Bill of Rights intended. From the letters written by George Washington and the actions of Congress it is obvious that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to strengthen the Federal Government against rebellion and insurrection. It was not, as some contend, to equip the citizens to make war on the government. In fact, it was just the opposite. My first of the three gun rights columns focused on the desire of the U.S. leadership to have a strong central government and the means to protect that government from rebellion. In this column the focus has been on the like-minded efforts of both President George Washington and Congress to put teeth in the Second Amendment so security and an orderly society could be fostered. My third and final column on this subject will come next week.

Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers. He is past president of colleges and universities in four states and currently serves as executive director of a higher-education consulting service. You will find Hopkins latest book, Journey to Gettysburg, on Amazon.com. Contact him at presnet@presnet.net.

Link:
Mark L. Hopkins: The Second Amendment and Shays' Rebellion - Wicked Local Stoughton

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Mark L. Hopkins: The Second Amendment and Shays’ Rebellion – Wicked Local Stoughton

What is Trump’s 2nd Amendment Coalition? (VIDEO) – Guns.com

Posted: at 9:58 pm

On Nov. 3, Donald Trump announced a group of grassroots and mainstream groups as well as public figures called theSecond Amendment Coalitionwith the sole purpose of protecting Second Amendment liberties.

While many of the groups and individuals already service the mission, it was unclear whatthey would do as a conglomerate.Guns.com caught up with two of its members, gun maker Jesse James and six-time Olympic medal winner Kim Rhode, at SHOT Show in Las Vegas in January 2017 to discuss more about it.

The coalition is really about bringing a lot of industry and experience to the table to help, advise and give him the best advice opportunities to help the industry that we can, saidRhode.

At the top of the list for James is universal concealed-carry reciprocity. If youre fingerprinted and youre double background checked and youre firearm trained to have a concealed carry license in your state, that should transfer to every other state. And it doesnt now, he said. There is currently a bill in Congress that hopes to achieve this.

Visit link:
What is Trump's 2nd Amendment Coalition? (VIDEO) - Guns.com

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on What is Trump’s 2nd Amendment Coalition? (VIDEO) – Guns.com

First Amendment Support Climbing Among High School Students – New York Times

Posted: at 9:58 pm


New York Times
First Amendment Support Climbing Among High School Students
New York Times
High school students protesting outside the Supreme Court building in Washington. Credit Susan Walsh/Associated Press. Support among American high school students for the First Amendment is stronger today than it has been in the last 12 years, ...
Teens who follow the news on social media are more likely to support the First AmendmentMashable
High School Student Support for First Amendment at Highest Level in a DecadeThe Tiger Media Network

all 3 news articles »

Read this article:
First Amendment Support Climbing Among High School Students - New York Times

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on First Amendment Support Climbing Among High School Students – New York Times

First Amendment Under Siege as Another Journalist Arrested at Standing Rock – EcoWatch

Posted: at 9:58 pm

By Mark Trahant

Jenni Monet, a Native American journalist, was arrested last week while covering Standing Rock. You'd think that would trigger a lot of support from the national and regional news media.

There is an idea in law enforcement called the "thin blue line." It basically means that police work together. A call goes out from Morton County and, right or wrong, law enforcement from around the country provides back up.

Jenni Monet was arrested while covering the Standing Rock movement last week. But most of the press has been silent about the charges she facesand the implications for the First Amendment.Aboriginal People's Television Network

You would think journalism would be like that, too.

When one journalist is threatened, we all are threatened. We cannot do our jobs when we worry about being injured or worse. And when a journalist is arrested? Well, everyone who claims the First Amendment as a framework should object loudly.

Last Wednesday, Monet was arrested near Cannon Ball, North Dakota. She was interviewing water protectors who were setting up a new camp near the Dakota Access Pipeline route on treaty lands of the Great Sioux Nation. Law enforcement from Morton County surrounded the camp and captured everyone within the circle. A press release from the sheriff's Department puts it this way: "Approximately 76 members of a rogue group of protestors were arrested." Most were charged with criminal trespassing and inciting a riot.

As was Monet. She now faces serious charges and the judicial process will go forward. The truth must come out.

But this story is about the failure of journalism institutions.

The Native press and the institutions that carry her work had Monet's back. That includes Indian Country Media Network, YES! Magazine and the Center for Investigative Reporting's Reveal. In Canada the Aboriginal People's Television Network reported on the story during its evening news. And, the Los Angeles Times has now weighed as well in with its own story written by Sandy Tolan who's done some great reporting from Standing Rock.

The Native American Journalists Association released a statement immediately:

"Yesterday's unlawful arrest of Native journalist Jenni Monet by Morton County officers is patently illegal and a blatant betrayal of our closely held American values of free speech and a free press," NAJA President Bryan Pollard said, "Jenni is an accomplished journalist and consummate professional who was covering a story on behalf of Indian Country Today. Unfortunately, this arrest is not unprecedented, and Morton County officials must review their officer training and department policies to ensure that officers are able and empowered to distinguish between protesters and journalists who are in pursuit of truthful reporting."

Yet in North Dakota you would not know this arrest happened. The press is silent.

I have heard from many, many individual journalists. That's fantastic. But what about the institutions of journalism? There should news stories in print, digital and broadcast. There should be editorials calling out North Dakota for this egregious act. If the institutions let this moment pass, every journalist covering a protest across the country will be at risk of arrest.

After her release from jail, Monet wrote for Indian Country Media Network:

"When Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman was charged with the same allegations I now facecriminal trespassing and riotingher message to the world embraced the First Amendment. 'There's a reason why journalism is explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution,' she said before a crowd gathered in front of the Morton County courthouse. "Because we're supposed to be the check and balance on power."

The funny thing is that journalism institutions were not quick to embrace Goodman either. I have talked to many journalists who see her as an "other" because she practices a different kind of journalism than they do.

Monet's brand of journalism is rooted in facts and good reporting. She talks to everyone on all sides of the story, including the Morton County Sheriff and North Dakota's new governor. She also has street cred and knows how to tell a story. Just listen to her podcast and you will know that to be true.

So if we ever need journalism institutions to rally, it's now. It's not Jenni Monet who will be on trial. It's the First Amendment. Journalism is not a crime.

Mark Trahant is the Charles R. Johnson Endowed Professor of Journalism at the University of North Dakota and a member of The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. He writes a regular column at YES!, where he is a contributing editor. Reposted with permission from our media associate YES! Magazine.

Read more:
First Amendment Under Siege as Another Journalist Arrested at Standing Rock - EcoWatch

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on First Amendment Under Siege as Another Journalist Arrested at Standing Rock – EcoWatch