Skip to content

Pro-Patriot Act Congresswoman plays victim over wiretapping

February 2, 2012
Brasscheck TV

I’m not quite sure how to prefice this one.

I’d like to laugh out loud (LOL) at this woman’s hypocrisy and how it is now coming back to bite her on the behind, but really, it is not at all funny that this is happening.

Former Rep. Jane Harman was reportedly wiretapped and recorded by the NSA, in 2005, telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Bush administration to reduce the charges against two Israeli spies in exchange for efforts in favor of her political appointment to Chair the House Intelligence Committee.

Of course, after having voted for the Patriot Act and extensions to the Patriot act, which authorized warrantless wiretaps, she now wants to cry foul and mumble something about the Constitution.

Screw it! I’m rolling on the floor laughing (ROFL)…

2 Comments leave one →
  1. February 3, 2012 10:15 am

    My how “the worm has turned” ;-)

  2. Rwolf permalink
    February 2, 2012 9:25 am

    Don’t Cry For Rep. Jane Harmon.

    It is ironic Rep. Jane Harmon is complaining about being wiretapped by laws—she helped Bush II impose on Americans.

    Neither Congress nor the courts—determined if Bush II blanket NSA electronic spying, perhaps illegal—could be used by police or introduced into court by government to prosecute Americans criminally, civilly or administratively. Now the Obama’ Justice Department seeks (No-Warrant) surveillance of all domestic electronic communications: if approved by Congress, it is problematic federal, state and local law enforcement and private government contractors will want access to Bush II NSA and other government electronic spying—opening the door for Government / Police to take out of context any innocent—hastily written email, fax or phone call to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause an American’s arrest, fines and or civil asset forfeiture of their property. There are more than 350 laws and violations that can subject property to government asset forfeiture. Government civil asset forfeiture requires only a mere civil preponderance of evidence for police to forfeit property, little more than hearsay. The Obama Government wants the power without getting a warrant, to introduce as evidence against U.S. Citizens in criminal prosecutions and government civil trials, any electronic communication record—phone calls, fax, email or Internet activity.

    The “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” (effectively eliminated) the “five year statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture: the new statute now runs five years (from the date) law enforcement alleges they “learned” an asset became subject to civil asst forfeiture. It is foreseeable if Congress approves (No-Warrant) government electronic surveillance, police will relentlessly sift through Citizen and businesses’ (government retained electronic data), Internet activity; emails and phone communications to discover possible crimes or violations. A corrupt U.S. Government too easily may use No-Warrant (seized emails, faxes, Internet Activity phone call and information) to blackmail Americans, corporations and others in similar manner Hitler utilized Germany’s passed police state laws to extort support for the Nazi fascist government; including strong-arming parliament to pass Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees and Enabling Act that suspended the Constitutional Freedoms of German Citizens. A Nazi Government threat of “Asset Forfeiture” of an individual or corporation’s property was generally sufficient to ensure Nazi support.

    Under U.S. civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Most U.S. Citizens; business and property owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture claim an “innocent owner defense.” This defense can become a “Catch 22” a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt made to government when questioned about committing a crime “even when you did not do the crime” may (involuntarily waive) a defendant’s right to assert in their defense—the “Criminal Statute of Limitations” past for criminal prosecution; any (fresh denial of guilt) even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during a Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeding to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason many innocent Americans, property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture.

    Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579. U.S. See paragraph (6) at:

    In “2007 Rep. Jane Harmon introduced the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act” HR 1955 that called for disrupting political and other groups without evidence of wrongdoing. Had Harman’s bill passed, U.S. Government would have the power to spy on and intimidate Americans from exercising their Constitutional Right to Free Speech and Association. Millions of Americans would fear supporting or attending any political and other “planned meeting” out of concern they might be labeled a terrorist or supporter of Home Grown Terrorism or Violent Radicalization.
    Under Rep. Harman’s “2007 Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act” Government would only have to allege a group member “Thought about committing violence or damaging property” to label an individual or group “prone” to committing “Violent Radicalization or Terrorism. Activists who set up web sites promoting a “Planned Activity”; wrote, emailed or handed out “flyers” promoting a “Planned” event or demonstration could be alleged to have inspired Violent Radicalization or Homegrown Terrorism—even if no violence occurred. Demonstrators alleged by police to have blocked a roadway, intimidated drivers, shoppers, employees; or anyone from entering or leaving a place could be accused of coercing government or its people.
    Under the Harmon legislation “Information flyers” NOT intended by the author to be distributed by a particular group or at a planned event—but somehow got distributed, could potentially open the door for government to charge the author promoted “Violent Radicalization or Homegrown Terrorism. Such concerns might have crushed written dissent.

    The “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act” mentioned, “any planned meeting or bodily act in America” against a U.S. foreign alley; no violence was required. For example: American labor unions, human rights and environmental organizations could potentially have been at risk under The “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act” if they (planned or had meetings in America) to lawfully protest a foreign U.S. alley or networked with or supported foreign activists that intended or protested a U.S. foreign alley. The Harmon bill appeared to criminalize constitutionally protected 1st amendment activities.

    Had the Harmon bill passed, U.S. Government, federal and state police would have had little difficulty terminating American activists and organizations exercising their Constitutional Right to Free Speech, Free Association and Expression. Police and Agent Provocateurs could easily destroy e.g. any anti-war group or organization by covertly joining a protest demonstration and instigating violence; informants or police would need only covertly contact participants before, at or after a “planned” meeting or demonstration… then lie, testify a group member committed or intended to commit violence, opening the door for government to allege a group was ideologically based toward violence; supported “Violent Radicalization or Homegrown Terrorism.

    Although The 2007 “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act” Failed To Pass, subsequently in 2012, Congress destroyed and diminished many of Americans’ Constitutional Rights passing The National Defense Authorization ACT of 2012 (NDAA). Under NDAA, U.S. Government does not need probable cause or corroborating evidence to Indefinitely Detain Americans without charges on U.S. Soil if suspected of being involved in terrorism or posing a threat to National Security: Indefinitely Detained Americans may have no right to legal counsel, a trial or Habeas Corpus.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: