Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

GEORGE TOWN, Cayman Islands (AP) A judge in the Cayman Islands has sworn in a seven-member jury as the government prepares for a corruption trial against a former premier who has been the islands' longest serving politician.

See original here:
Cayman Islands prepares for trial of ex-premier

The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.

Whether a particular type of search is considered reasonable in the eyes of the law, is determined by balancing two important interests. On one side of the scale is the intrusion on an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. On the other side of the scale are legitimate government interests, such as public safety.

The extent to which an individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment depends, in part, on the location of the search or seizure. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998).

Home

However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:

A Person

Schools

Cars

Original post:
What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? – United States Courts

Treasurer Joe Hockey. Photo: Reuters

Labor has accused the government of procrastinating on a key measure to stop multinational companies shifting profits offshore.

It comes as the government prepares to chair the G20 finance ministers meeting in Cairns next week.

The information-sharing deal, part of the global push to tackle tax avoidance, has been signed by 40 countries, including Britain, the US and tax havens such as the Cayman Islands.

The Abbott government has delayed signing the deal to consult with business.

Advertisement

Companies such as Apple, Google, Ikea, and Glencore Xstratahave been accused of deliberately reducing their tax bills in Australia by relocating profits overseas.

Treasurer Joe Hockey warned last week that government would not stand “idly by” while multinationals avoided tax.

But Labor’s assistant treasurer spokesman Andrew Leighsaid the government was talking tough on tax dodging while avoiding action.

“Joe Hockey has huffed and puffed in the Parliament about tackling multinational tax avoidance but continued to stall on a key initiative that would actually achieve this,” he said.

Visit link:
Heat on Joe Hockey over tax deal

The former chief technology officer of Liberty Reserve SA, described by the U.S. as a black-market bank that masked more than $6 billion in criminal proceeds, became the third person to plead guilty to helping run an illegal money remitting business.

Mark Marmilev, 35, of Brooklyn, New York, who helped design and maintain the operations technological infrastructure, faces a maximum five-year prison term when hes sentenced by U.S. District JudgeDenise Cote in Manhattan on Jan. 20.

Marmilev told Cote that he provided technical support to the site, helping to protect it from hackers and identity thieves, and acknowledged that he suspected that most of the funds coming into Liberty Reserve were the proceeds of a Ponzi scheme.

I believed a substantial amount of the funds from the U.S. moving through Liberty Reserve came from high-yield investment programs that I believe had a high probability of being fraudulent but I consciously avoided obtaining confirmation, Marmilev said.

Liberty Reserve, incorporated in Costa Rica, was one of the worlds most widely used digital currency services, according to the U.S. The company was created and structured as a criminal business venture, one designed to help criminals conduct illegal transactions, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said. Federal prosecutors in New York shut down the company last year.

Marmilev, one of seven people charged last year by Bhararas office, had also been accused of one count of conspiring to launder money, which carries a maximum 20-year prison term and with operating an unlicensed money remitting business, which carries a maximum five-year term.

Azzeddine El Amine, a principal deputy to the companys founders, pleaded guilty in August to a conspiracy count and Cote said he is cooperating with the U.S.

Marmilevs lawyer, Seth Ginsberg, said after court that his client is an Israeli citizen and faces deportation after he completes his term. Ginsberg withdrew a request to have Marmilev released on bond.

I think that the plea is in the best interests of Mr. Marmilev, Ginsberg said.

Another defendant, Arthur Budovsky, is in Spain where his extradition is pending, prosecutors have said. Marmilev had been scheduled to go to trial in April with Maxim Chuckharev, who was Liberty Reserves designer, according to the government.

See the rest here:
Liberty Reserve Employee Pleads Guilty in Black-Market Bank Case

The recent controversies around Reverend Bruce Shipmans remarks and the William F. Buckley, Jr. Programs upcoming invitation of Ayaan Hirsi Ali highlight an important hypocrisy in the state of free speech on campus. Rich Lizardo, president of the Buckley Program, wrote yesterday in defense of Hirsi Alis visit to campus, saying, Her work does not qualify as libel and slander, as was suggested by the open letter, and it cannot be reduced to purported hate speech, a slur used simply to silence speech with which one disagrees.

Yet anyone with a comparative eye would see the resemblance to the assaults fired at Rev. Shipman for his short letter in the New York Times weeks ago.

While the circumstances are not the same in these two, heres a comparison to consider: Rev. Shipman made a connection between Israels policies and growing anti-Semitism in Europe, writing, As hope for a two-state solution fades and Palestinian casualties continue to mount, the best antidote to anti-Semitism would be for Israels patrons abroad to press the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for final-status resolution to the Palestinian question.

However, opponents, such as Chabad at Yale, quickly labeled his comments as justification of anti-Semitism. Pressure piled on Rev. Shipman to resign, many coming from friends of the Jewish community on campus and in the country. A few days later, he did.

On the other hand, in an interview with David Cohen of the London Evening Standard in 2007, Hirsi Ali said, Violence is inherent in Islam its a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder. The police may foil plots and freeze bank accounts in the short term, but the battle against terrorism will ultimately be lost unless we realise that its not just with extremist elements within Islam, but the ideology of Islam itself Islam is the new fascism.

The Reverends comment about Israel and growing anti-Semitism in Europe pales in generality and in ferocity in the face of Hirsi Alis comment about Islam. Yet the right has responded in a very different manner: calling for sanction in the former, defending free expression in the latter. If we are to entertain that Hirsi Alis comments are made out of legitimate concern over the treatment of women, then we must equally consider the Rev. Shipmans concern for those under carnage in Gaza. Free speech either cuts both ways or it is not: This is the hypocrisy of free speech of which we must be aware.

One cannot disregard the blatant double standard at work in these two cases. I doubt that Hirsi Alis comments would have passed the censors had she replaced Islam with Judaism as her subject of criticism; likewise, Rev. Shipmans comments would hardly have been construed as hate speech if he swapped Israel for Russia and Gaza for Ukraine. This double standard reaffirms a certain worldview protecting America and its allies interests by censoring opposing opinions in the name of hate speech.

We are reminded of repeated instances in American academia where anti-Zionist comments are censored in the name of anti-Semitism, as we have seen in the recent firing of Professor Steven Salaita at University of Illinois. Not only is this the type of hate speech that Lizardo believes silences speech, but it is deeply harmful to any discourse fighting anti-Semitism at large. While few would disagree that mounting anti-Semitism in Europe and abroad is a virulent problem that needs to be confronted, it serves no ones interests to water it down by calling anti-Zionist comments anti-Semitic just to shut them out of the public sphere.

The standards of academic freedom and freedom of speech should not be kicked around as ideological ammunition: There probably ought to be limits to those standards, and that deserves a much longer discussion. But the selective justification as Ive seen lately on campus and in the media is not conducive to a constructive discourse.

Adrian Lo is a senior in SaybrookCollege. Contact him atadrian.lo@yale.edu.

See the original post here:
LO: The hypocrisy of free speech

Editor’s note: Michael Sean Winters is on vacation this week. Filling in for him are various writers from Millennial, a journal featuring the writing of millennial Catholics. Winters will be back next week.

It seems our ongoing religious consideration of the merits of libertarianism has come at precisely the right time. With The New York Times wondering if the “libertarian moment” has come — and substantially lesser venues hoping that it has — now is the time for a definitive Christian ethical case to be taken up with regard to libertarianism. Such a case is being mounted with increasing vigor. Yet while Vatican officials disown libertarianism and all Pope Francis’ statements on politics militate firmly against it, a loud portion of American Catholics in the political realm seem doggedly committed to it. Why?

One source of libertarian sentiment among Catholics is likely, as argued by Meghan Clark, the popularity of a certain mistaken anthropology. By this, Clark means a story about what type of creature man is and what his purpose is that has been fundamentally divorced from the biblical narrative and tradition by vested political interests. Clark points out that the chief feature of this warped anthropology is its naked individualism and its inability, therefore, to grasp the necessity of solidarity in producing whole and morally upright people. For the radically individualistic libertarian, solidarity is a burden, not a boon. If it is a boon, it is only so insofar as it produces certain desired outcomes for the individual — but this utilitarian understanding of solidarity is, as Clark demonstrates, a far cry from the real thing.

Clark is right to note the failed anthropology at the heart of libertarianism. But yet another thematic failure animates libertarian philosophy as well: a vital misapprehension of the nature and purpose of property.

One thing to note about libertarianism is that it is first and foremost liberal, in the sense of classical Enlightenment liberals like John Locke. Liberalism arose as a political philosophy at a time when hostility to the Catholic church was well received, and many assumptions that contradict truths held obvious and foundational by the Catholic church remain tied up in liberal, and therefore libertarian, reasoning. Chief among them is the philosophical preference for the primacy of private property rights over all other institutions or conditions, including the common good. Consider Murray Rothbard, arguing that all rights disputes are little more than disputes of private property:

There are other vexed problems which would be quickly cleared up in a libertarian society where all property is private and clearly owned. In the current society for example, there is continuing conflict between the “right” of taxpayers to have access to government-owned streets, as against the desire of residents of a neighborhood to be free of people whom they consider “undesirable” gathering in the streets. … They are, in brief, complaining about the “human right” of certain people to walk at will on the government streets. But as taxpayers and citizens, these “undesirables” surely have the “right” to walk on the streets, and of course they could gather on the spot, if they so desired, without the attraction of McDonald’s. In the libertarian society, however, where the streets would all be privately owned, the entire conflict could be resolved without violating anyone’s property rights: for then the owners of the streets would have the right to decide who shall have access to those streets, and they could then keep out “undesirables” if they so wished.

It is a foregone conclusion in Rothbard’s ethics that owners of property have the absolute right to exclude people from what they own, be it land or material objects, even in the case of individuals who have nowhere else to go — as “undesirables” here surely refers to homeless people who congregate in or near fast food restaurants for warmth and shelter. Rothbard flatly does not see the need to argue for such a right on behalf of owners, but smoothly progresses from the problem of “undesirables” to the “cure” of private property ownership: If only land held in common were held privately, he laments, you would presumably never have to see another “undesirable” for any longer than it took you to banish them. That your ownership claim supersedes their right to shelter, warmth, perhaps even food — is simply assumed.

Libertarian luminary Hans Hermann Hoppe makes this claim explicit, writing:

It becomes apparent that nothing could be further from the truth as soon as one explicitly formulates the norm that would be needed to arrive at the conclusion that the state has to assist in the provision of public goods. The norm required to reach the above conclusion is this: whenever one can somehow prove that the production of a particular good or service has a positive effect on someone else but would not be produced at all or would not be produced in a definite quantity or quality unless certain people participated in its financing, then the use of aggressive violence against these persons is allowed, either directly or indirectly with the help of the state, and these persons may be forced to share in the necessary financial burden.

Read more:
Catholicism and libertarianism clash over property and the common good

EPA recommends shark drum lines are not to be implemented along WA beaches. Photo: Aleisha Orr

Drum lines will not be deployed off West Australian beaches this summer.

Premier Colin Barnett said the government did not plan to appeal the Environmental Protection Authority’s decision rejecting the state government’s shark kill zones proposal.

He said while the State Government would not be appealing the EPA decision, the application for drum lines was still before Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt.

Advertisement

“We are accepting the EPA decision here so we are not going to appeal it. That means it will not be possible to have drum lines over this summer. If we were to do so there would clearly be court challenges and you would never get there, the Premier said.

Mr Barnett said it appeared there were different rules for the eastern states, where drum lines are allowed, and Western Australia. The government would now focus on how to deal with rogue sharks that threatened public safety, he said.

“I dont think that drum lines will apply in Western Australia for this summer and probably maybe not again. I would want to have the capacity to deal with an imminent threat and deal with it immediately. A process of conversations going backwards and forwards to Canberra has proven to be totally ineffective.”

“I cannot simply walk away and say that’s the EPA decision. They only look at the environment. I have to look at environment plus public safety. I don’t like drum lines more than anyone else but I had to respond to a situation of seven fatalities in three years.”

He said the government would look at putting swimming enclosures at beaches where there were calm waters, for example at Dunsborough.

Link:
Beaches unprotected as shark drum lines pulled

Editor’s note: Michael Sean Winters is on vacation this week. Filling in for him are various writers from Millennial, a journal featuring the writing of millennial Catholics. Winters will be back next week.

What does it mean to be a human person? The debate between Catholicism and libertarianism, which took center stage in Catholic circles over the summer, is not primarily about economics or politics. It is about anthropology. Catholicism and libertarianism have incompatible views of the human person. Perhaps the most important divergence between these two worldviews is in this very basic theological claim: I do not create myself, I do not call myself into existence, and I always exist in relationship to other people and to God.

Human freedom is crucial, but it is not reducible to negative liberty. In “Charity in Truth,” Pope Benedict XVI explained that true freedom “is not an intoxication with total autonomy, but a response to the call of being, beginning with our own personal being.” Freedom to love, freedom for human flourishing, freedom for community, and freedom for God all shape the Catholic understanding of freedom. Far from reducing the importance of freedom, this deeper and broader approach elevates freedom and, with it, our responsibility before God.

This understanding of freedom begins with the recognition that human persons are fundamentally and inescapably relational. On some level, nearly everyone agrees that human beings are social and that we need other people to survive. However, Catholicism doesn’t see community and the government as merely necessary for survival or necessary evils to mitigate conflict. Human society is a good that should be valued. Human persons are created in the image of God, and God is Trinity. What does it mean to say that to be made imago dei must be to be made imago trinitatis? It means that we can only live fully human lives together and that we are called to live more fully as the image of God in the world. Thus, we end up where libertarianism cannot: Our humanity, as in the image of God, is not only a matter of creation but also places a claim on us.

For libertarian philosophy, the starting point is that human beings are autonomous individuals who are most human when they are making choices. The only legitimate constraint is the requirement to respect the liberty of others. Autonomy and negative liberty — the absence of external impediments — dominate their understanding of freedom. In many ways, their anthropology begins with the idealization of a Robinson Crusoe-like figure and posits a humanity that only enters into relationships, commitments and responsibilities of one’s own choosing (completely forgetting that Robinson Crusoe was a fully grown, educated English gentleman when he was stranded). From this anthropology, economic libertarians develop the concept of the rational economic man, which defines rationality based upon self-interested choice. Am I really irrational every time I consider someone else in making a decision? Is selfishness really a virtue, as Ayn Rand argues?

This anthropology lays the foundation for their view of politics. Thus we see libertarians and figures like Ayn Rand argue for the complete separation of state and the market. She genuinely believed (and Alan Greenspan with her) that a community of autonomous individuals pursuing their own self-interests would self-regulate and be harmonious. Friedrich Hayek perceived any attempts at social justice and substantive equality of opportunity as moving toward totalitarianism or fascism. The irreconcilable divergence between libertarianism and Catholicism, which we see in their views of government and social justice, is really a disagreement about what it means to be human.

In a speech at Georgetown, U2 frontman Bono challenged students that “when you truly accept that those in some far off place in the global village have the same value as you in God’s eyes or even just in your own eyes, then your life is forever changed, you see something that you cannot unsee.” The image of God places a claim upon us that goes well beyond simply not harming or impeding others. We are morally required to promote the flourishing of others. Pope Paul VI explained, “There can be no progress towards the complete development of the human person without the simultaneous development of all humanity in the spirit of solidarity.”

To understand what Pope Francis says on poverty, inequality and exclusion, you have to first understand this deep unity of the one human family, of our belonging to each other and our standing together before God. This is the foundation of Pope Francis’ key insights. The threat of libertarianism is not primarily political; it is theological. Libertarianism creates a barrier to seeing the other as neighbor, as brother or sister.

St. John XXIII’s “Peace on Earth” offers a comprehensive account of what is demanded in terms of upholding human dignity and the flourishing community. It is a basic list of human rights. The concerns are always both personal and structural, as Catholic social thought recognizes that “human freedom is often crippled when a man falls into extreme poverty.” Human freedom is crippled by extreme poverty whether arbitrary obstacles exist or not. Freedom is not just about removing obstacles but providing the positive conditions for human flourishing within which true freedom can be exercised.

Read more from the original source:
Solidarity is our word: My humanity is bound up in yours

Denver, Colorado (PRWEB) September 09, 2014

Attorney for the IRP6, Gwendolyn Solomon, is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider reviewing the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the IRP6 case. U.S. Supreme Court records show that a petition for writ of certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on August 23, 2014 and placed on the docket on August 27, 2014. (U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 14-229, 8/27/14, RE: David A. Banks, Kendrick Barnes, Demetrius Harper, Clinton A. Stewart, Gary L. Walker, David A. Zirpolo vs. United States).

The IRP6 case concerns a Colorado-based company (IRP Solutions Corporation) that developed the Case Investigative Life Cycle (CILC) criminal investigations software for federal, state, and local law enforcement. The IRP6 (Kendrick Barnes, Gary L Walker, Demetrius K. Harper, Clinton A Stewart, David A Zirpolo and David A Banks) were convicted in 2011 after being accused of mail and wire fraud. (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA).

Court documents show that the IRP6 case was previously submitted to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals based on Fifth Amendment Prohibition of Compulsory Testimony, Sixth Amendment Right to Present a Defense and Speedy Trial Act Violation. That appeal was denied in August 2014. (IRP 6 Case – Appellate Case: 11-1492, Document: 01019289332, 8/4/14). Records also show that A Just Cause previously filed a lawsuit against Court Reporter Darlene Martinez for a missing transcript related to the Fifth Amendment violation argument. Court records show that the IRP6 made repeated requests for the transcript from court proceedings of October 11, 2011, arguing that a sidebar discussion was missing. (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA).

We put together a solid argument for appeal, but I am troubled at what I have observed throughout these proceedings at how there can be evidence of innocence, yet men sit in jail, says Attorney Gwendolyn Solomon, Appellant Attorney for the IRP6. The next obvious step was the U.S. Supreme Court, adds Solomon.

Regardless of decisions by lower courts, filing the petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on behalf of the IRP6 is a great opportunity, says Solomon. I was truly amazed when I got the letter showing that it had been filed and that it passed the first step of getting on the docket, exclaims Solomon. It is my ultimate goal that this case is reviewed by the Justices and the IRP6 can get back to their families, Solomon concludes. (U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 14-229, 8/27/14, RE: David A. Banks, Kendrick Barnes, Demetrius Harper, Clinton A. Stewart, Gary L. Walker, David A. Zirpolo vs. United States)

While working on this case there are so many things that I have observed and argued in lower court filings to include judicial abuse of authority and power. Im now petitioning the highest court to review arguments showing how the lower court was not impartial, but exhibited judicial bias in favor of the government, argues Solomon. Court filings show that appellants have argued that exculpatory evidence was disallowed, not only documents but expert witnesses to allow the defendants to properly defend their case. Court transcripts show that the Judge didnt assist in enforcement of subpoenas, but reprimanded the defendants for being unable to get service on their witnesses, added Solomon (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA) . As for the Fifth Amendment violation argument, I have serious questions on what the court records show regarding how a court reporter can withhold court records of legal proceedings and the court not enforce a persons fundamental right to those court records. This is the type of action that warrants a review by the Supreme Court because of the potential conflict it poses with federal law, asserts Solomon.

A Just Cause is very pleased at the ongoing interest that Attorney Solomon has shown in the IRP6 case, says Sam Thurman, A Just Cause. Ms. Solomon has been working this case pro bono for over two years, and you have to respect that type of dedication. She was on board already when Mark Geragos joined the team and continued to do most of the research and legwork afterwards. The defendants and AJC have since parted ways with Mr. Geragos, adds Thurman. That situation is one in which we have recently filed a complaint on behalf of AJC and the families with the California Bar Association under Rule 3-500 Communication and 3-110 – Failing to Act Competently (California Bar Association Complaint Ref #14-25162). The complaint shows that the families paid Mr. Geragos over $100,000 in retainer fees, but they do not feel that the case was adequately represented, adds Thurman. The fact that Solomon has continued to progress with this case in light of the recent complaint that we had to file is a testament to her willingness to see this case through to the end, says Thurman.

At first I was very excited to work with Mark Geragos, says Solomon. He is a veteran with over 30 years experience and I graduated from law school only 7 years ago. It was my desire to advance my skills and knowledge of the legal system, adds Solomon. I became concerned as certain events occurred that ultimately led to Mr. Geragos dismissal and subsequent complaint. I acknowledge that there was a riff between he and I at one point but that doesnt concern me as much as how he treated the IRP6 and their families. I support the families and A Just Cause in their complaint against Mr. Geragos, which cites that he didnt exercise professional courtesy in this relationship. I was lead counsel, but as the complaint states, he didnt communicate well with the client or me. On several occasions he refused to follow my suggestions and wouldnt return calls or timely emails. Lack of communication and disrespect for me as a professional attorney are key to the California Bar complaint, and I believe that the dismissal of the IRP6 civil case for the transcript can be attributed to Geragos that lack of communication and failing to act competently; as the complaint cites, Solomon asserts (California Bar Association Complaint Ref #14-25162). You dont yell at your clients during a conference call and hang up on them; I was shocked, explains Solomon.

Referring to the filing of the complaint with the California Bar Association, David Banks comments, Mr. Geragos comment to us that You can chase your constitutional rights, but you are going to spend your time in jail was uncalled for and showed lack of professional consideration for us as his clients. In our opinion the complaint with the California Bar is the right thing to do and we are glad that Attorney Solomon didnt let his actions deter her from filing the petition with the Supreme Court, added Banks.

See the original post here:
Attorney Gwendolyn Solomon Petitions United States Supreme Court to Review Tenth Circuits Decision in Case of the IRP6

NEW YORK, N.Y. – Lawyers for a San Francisco man charged with operating an online marketplace for illegal drugs are asking a judge to toss out most of the evidence against him, saying the Fourth Amendment protects their client from “indiscriminate rummaging” through his entire online history.

The lawyers, Joshua Dratel and Lindsay Lewis, said in court papers that the government violated the ban on illegal search and seizure when it scoured the computers, servers and websites 30-year-old Ross Ulbricht used.

They said applications for search warrants described an investigation that began in early 2013 with a server hosting the Silk Road website in a foreign country.

“The wholesale collection and study of Mr. Ulbricht’s entire digital history without limitation expressly sought in the warrants and granted represent the very type of indiscriminate rummaging that caused the American colonists so much consternation,” according to the papers filed late Friday in federal court in Manhattan.

Ulbricht has pleaded not guilty to charges of narcotics trafficking, computer hacking, running a continuing criminal enterprise and money laundering. His trial is scheduled to begin Nov. 3.

Prosecutors say Ulbricht went by the online handle the Dread Pirate Roberts, an apparent reference to a character in the movie “The Princess Bride,” and turned the underground site into a place where anonymous users could buy or sell contraband and illegal services.

Authorities say Silk Road, which had nearly 1 million registered users by July 2013, generated more than $1 billion in illicit business from January 2011 through September. Federal investigators say Silk Road users anonymously browsed through nearly 13,000 listings under such categories as cannabis, psychedelics and stimulants.

The website used Bitcoin, the tough-to-track digital currency, before it was shut down.

Ulbricht was arrested last year at a public library in San Francisco, where he lived. Authorities said he was chatting online at the time with a co-operating witness. He remains incarcerated without bail.

A prosecutor’s spokeswoman declined to comment Monday.

See the original post:
Defence asks judge in NYC to toss out bulk of evidence in Silk Road case as illegally obtained

JERLUN, Sept 5 (Bernama) — The government will not retract the freedom of speech in the social media but wants the freedom to be exercised with accountability, said Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

The Prime Minister said the government practised an open attitude but it was the responsibility of the people, especially the young generation or ‘Gen Y’ to understand that there was a limit to freedom.

“I want to issue a warning that the existing law will be imposed on anyone attempting to jeopardise peace. This is certainly in force,” he said in his speech when opening the Jerlun Umno divisional delegates meeting at the Sekolah Menengah Sains Kubang Pasu, here today.

He said that the Sedition Act would be abolished and would be replaced by the proposed National Harmony Act, but matters pertaining to religion and race would not be neglected.

Najib said the government would not allow freedom that did not adhere to the principles of accountability especially regarding Islamic religion, the other faiths as well as the special privileges of the Malays and the Malay Rulers.

“We must defend…(we are) not saying there is a new legislation and the rest will be put aside…but we will add in more appropriate provisions,” he said.

He said although there would be freedom and openness, he hoped these would not result in extreme cases cropping up because there must be maturity in thinking in whatever action taken.

“There must be a limit…(because of) this principle of accountability, we must look for a formula where we provide space for the freedom of speech including comments on the leaders but, at the same time, there must be a limit so as not to destroy peace and national harmony,” he said.

Also present at the function were Kedah Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mukhriz Tun Dr Mahathir, who is also the Jerlun Umno division head, Perlis Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Azlan Man, Deputy Minister of Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Datuk Seri Ahmad Bashah Md Hanipah and Deputy Minister of Energy, Green Technology and Water Datuk Seri Mahdzir Khalid.

Najib said that in implementing anything new, including legislation and action which were open in nature, he took into consideration the views of many groups before implementing it.

View post:
Govt won't retract freedom of speech in social media – Najib

The Falkland Islands are set in a unique and dramatically beautiful environment In the South Atlantic Ocean. The Falkland Islands Government is seeking a Director of Education who will be responsible for the strategic and operational management of all departments within the Education Directorate, including the Islands Training Centre.

We are looking for a pragmatic leader and decision maker who will drive forward the implementation of effective strategic and practical measures to help shape the future direction and effective delivery of all education and skills development across the Islands at a key time in its history.

The appointment will be fixed term for either two or three years in the first instance with the possibility of extension of this term if mutually agreeable. The salary package is inclusive of a (taxable) 2 5 % gratuity element upon satisfactory completion of contract. Additional benefits include a lower tax regime than in the UK, a relocation grant and a yearly return flight package to the country of recruitment for the successful applicant and any dependants who accompany them to post.

For an application form, further information and a job description please contact: Falkland Islands Government Office, Falklands House, 14 Broadway, London SW1H OBH Tel: 020 7222 2542, E-mail: recruitment@falklands.gov.lk

Further information about the Falkland Islands can be found by visiting our website at http://www.falklands.gov.fk

Apply for this role

Read more:
Director of Education, Falkland Islands



LIVE: NATO Summit Wales 2014 (Day 1)
“NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, are welcoming Heads of State and Government to the NATO summit. After it, a meeting on Afghanistan will…

By: RuptlyTV

More:
LIVE: NATO Summit Wales 2014 (Day 1) – Video



It's Always Sunny in Government? | Learn Liberty
Hang out with us at Learn Liberty! http://www.learnliberty.org With great power comes great responsibility. But what happens when the people in power are not responsible enough to wield…

By: Learn Liberty

Excerpt from:
It’s Always Sunny in Government? | Learn Liberty – Video



The Rundown Live #326 Forest Thomer (Free Speech, Police, Government, Dinosaurs)
The Rundown Live #326 Forest Thomer (Free Speech, Police, Government, Dinosaurs) (9/1/14) On this Monday edition of The Rundown Live, Kristan and I go over the sponsors, and the site before…

By: bigpzone

View original post here:
The Rundown Live #326 Forest Thomer (Free Speech, Police, Government, Dinosaurs) – Video

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:
Fifth Amendment (United States Constitution …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View original post here:
NSA Scoops Up Data On American Public, Shares With Other US Agencies

Sep 022014

Thats the trouble with freedom. It gives freedom to those who want to abuse freedom. To defend our freedom we need to restrict their freedom. The problem is, we dont have complete freedom to restrict their freedom; our freedom restricts us from restricting it. Protecting our precious freedom would be so much easier, the Prime Minister must sometimes reflect, if it werent for our blasted freedom.

Still, hes spent some time puzzling over what he is free to do, and this afternoon he made a statement to the Commons. The police, he said, would be given powers to confiscate a terror suspects passport at the border. In addition, the Government planned to introduce discretionary powers to prevent suspects returning to Britain.

The Mayor of London, incidentally, was born in New York. It is not thought that his British passport is in danger of being confiscated at this stage, although this may be subject to change, depending on the severity of his threat to the Prime Minister.

Mr Cameron also promised a strengthening of our Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures. However strong these measures are, its a pity the Government keeps referring to them as Tpims, a word unlikely to strike fear into the breast of the bloodthirsty jihadist. Try saying it aloud. Tpims. It sounds like something Mr Cameron might take on the lawn with the lovely Samantha after a hard afternoons croquet.

MPs were largely supportive of the Prime Ministers proposals, although there was dissent from Dominic Grieve (Con, Beaconsfield). Blocking the return to the UK of British terror suspects, he complained, would offend basic principles of our common law. Mr Grieve would no doubt have made this protest in private rather than in public, if only Mr Cameron hadnt sacked him as Attorney General two months ago.

The Prime Minister also received a word of warning from Sir Peter Tapsell, the venerable Father of the House, who has been serving as an MP since before Mr Cameron was born. Regardless of how many British jihadists were fighting in Arabia as Sir Peter called it we must avoid intervening in religious civil war which has already lasted for 1,300 years.

Sir Peter is a noted expert on this ancient conflict, having first entered the Commons just before it broke out.

Link:
Sketch: Restricted by freedom



FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin




Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com