SoylentNews

takyon writes:

The new Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is Christopher A. Wray:

The Senate easily confirmed President Trump's pick to lead the FBI on Tuesday, following the abrupt firing of James Comey earlier this year.

Senators voted 92-5 on Christopher Wray's nomination to lead the bureau. Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Ed Markey (Mass.) voted against the confirmation.

EFF picked his record apart last month:

During his tenure as Assistant Attorney General in the Bush Administration, Wray vocally defended a range of controversial provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act—including Section 215, which would later provide the basis for the bulk collection of Americans' telephone metadata.

When Wray went before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003 to defend the PATRIOT Act, a Department of Justice document indicated that Section 215's business records provision had never been used. Wray insisted that was a sign of restraint: "We try to use these provisions sparingly, only in those instances where we feel that this is the only tool that we can use." In fact, as the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) made clear in its report on the bulk metadata program, Section 215 was sitting fallow because the Bush Administration was already collecting much of that data—without statutory authorization.

Granted, Wray didn't have all of the information about that secretive wiretapping program until 2004, which we'll get into below. Still, his insistence that Section 215 was just an effort to bring counterterrorism powers in line with ordinary criminal authorities reflected a concerning lack of skepticism about the risk of abuse. The same holds for his defense of a range of other PATRIOT Act provisions: "sneak and peek" warrants that allow law enforcement to search first and serve notice later; a reduced bar for obtaining a FISA warrant that one district court later found inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment; and a vaguely worded expansion of the kind of Internet data, some of it potentially very sensitive, that can be collected with a pen/trap order.

Original Submission

-- OriginalOwner_ writes:

Common Dreams reports

Joe Arpaio—the former sheriff from Maricopa County, Arizona, who famously ordained himself "America's toughest sheriff"—was found guilty of criminal contempt for violating a federal court order mandating that Arpaio and his deputies refrain from racially profiling Latinos with traffic stops and detentions, based on suspicions about their immigration status.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton said [July 31] that Arpaio demonstrated a "flagrant disregard" for the order, rejecting[¹] the former sheriff's defense that the order was unclear and the violations unintentional. Arpaio, who is 85, could face up to six months in jail, and is scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 5.

[...] Arpaio's attorney said [July 31] he plans to appeal Judge Bolton's ruling in hopes of receiving a trial by jury. The [former] sheriff was denied a jury trial in May because it was not legally required, due to the short length of his potential jail term.

[¹ Submitter claimed problems with this link and offered Google's cache. I could open original link using both Pale Moon and Lynx without issue. -Ed(s).]

Original Submission

takyon writes:

New Jersey Senator Cory Booker has introduced a bill (alt) that has been described by Marijuana Majority as the most far-reaching marijuana bill ever filed in either chamber of Congress. It would legalize cannabis federally by removing "marihuana" and tetrahydrocannabinols from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. But it would go much further by withholding money from states with racially or financially disparate arrest and incarceration rates for cannabis-related crimes (effectively all states where cannabis is illegal):

The bill would legalize marijuana at the federal level and withhold federal money for building jails and prisons, along with other funds, from states whose cannabis laws are shown to disproportionately incarcerate minorities.

Under the legislation, federal convictions for marijuana use and possession would be expunged and prisoners serving time for a marijuana offense would be entitled to a sentencing hearing.

Those "aggrieved" by a disproportionate arrest or imprisonment rate would be able to sue, according to the bill. And a Community Reinvestment Fund would be established to "reinvest in communities most affected by the war on drugs" for everything from re-entry programs to public libraries.

Booker says that he will work towards bipartisan support for the bill.

Serious legalization attempt or just advertising for a 2020 U.S. Presidential Campaign?

Original Submission

takyon writes:

Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has resigned following a court decision related to financial revelations from the Panama Papers leak:

Nawaz Sharif has resigned as prime minister of Pakistan following a decision by the country's Supreme Court to disqualify him from office. The ruling came after a probe into his family's wealth following the 2015 Panama Papers dump linking Mr Sharif's children to offshore companies.

Mr Sharif has consistently denied any wrongdoing in the case. The five judges reached a unanimous verdict in the Islamabad court, which was filled to capacity. "Following the verdict, Nawaz Sharif has resigned from his responsibilities as prime minister," a spokesman for Mr Sharif's office said in a statement.

There was heightened security in the capital, with tens of thousands of troops and police deployed.

Related: "Panama Papers" Leak Exposes Owners of Shell Companies
"Panama Papers" Compendium
Journalists Release Database of "Panama Papers" Names

Original Submission

An Anonymous Coward writes:

Facebook is helping to round up blasphemers, that is to say those who insult or deny islam, and deliver them to justice in Pakistan. By engaging in illegal speech on social media they leave a trail of evidence which the government is able to request and Facebook complies with. The anti-blasphemy laws are also useful in cracking down on dissent in general as the penalty for blasphemy in Pakistan is now death.

In recent months, Pakistan's interior minister, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, has increased pressure on Facebook and Twitter to identify individuals suspected of blasphemy. On 7 July, Facebook's vice-president of public policy, Joel Kaplan, met with Khan to discuss the government's demand that Facebook either remove blasphemous content or be blocked in the country.

On Monday, Facebook confirmed that it had rejected Pakistan's demand that new accounts be linked to a mobile phone number – a provision that would make it easier for the government to identify account holders. Currently, opening a Facebook account in Pakistan requires only an email address, while mobile phone users must provide fingerprints to a national database.

That social media would become the means for a government crackdown on free speech is a bitter twist for platforms that claim to want to increase openness and the free flow of ideas.

The advent of social media once heralded an opening for religious debate in Pakistan. Platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp and Viber allowed individuals in conservative, rural areas to engage in discussions that were once possible only for students and urban intellectuals, unconstrained by the conservative norms of their communities.

"Until recently, social media afforded a measure of privacy where you could discuss the hypocrisy of people whose behavior was loathsome but who wore the thick garb of piety," said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a prominent academic and activist.

"Now the state is saying that we will track you down wherever you are and however you might want to hide," Hoodbhoy added. "Pakistan is fast becoming a Saudi-style fascist religious state."

The problem with engaging in potentially illegal speech on social media, of course, is that online speech leaves evidence.

Original Submission

-- OriginalOwner_ writes:

Common Dreams reports

As President Donald Trump continues to behave bizarrely and erratically--attacking his own attorney general, launching into a political tirade during a speech to Boy Scouts, bringing his 11-year-old son into the burgeoning Russia controversy--a professional association of psychoanalysts is telling its members to drop the so-called Goldwater Rule and comment publicly on the president's state of mind if they find reason to do so.

The Goldwater Rule was formally included in the American Psychiatric Association's "Principles of Medical Ethics" following the 1964 presidential campaign, during which a magazine editor was sued for running an article in which mental health professionals gave their opinions on [Republican] presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's psychiatric state. The rule deems public comments by psychiatrists on the mental health of public officials without consent "unethical".

In a recent email to its 3,500 members, the American Psychoanalytic Association "told its members they should not feel bound by" the Goldwater Rule, which some have characterized as a "gag rule", STAT's Sharon Begley reports.

Original Submission

Legal Egal writes:

ACLU* national legal director David Cole warns that this new piece of legislation is a serious problem to free speech. He says that just discussing the boycott of Israel could land you in prison for 20 years and fined $1 million.

The right to boycott has a long history in the United States, from the American Revolution to Martin Luther King Jr.'s Montgomery bus boycott to the campaign for divestment from businesses serving apartheid South Africa. Nowadays we celebrate those efforts. But precisely because boycotts are such a powerful form of expression, governments have long sought to interfere with them — from King George III to the police in Alabama, and now to the U.S. Congress.

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act, legislation introduced in the Senate by Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) and in the House by Peter J. Roskam (R-Ill.), would make it a crime to support or even furnish information about a boycott directed at Israel or its businesses called by the United Nations, the European Union or any other "international governmental organization." Violations would be punishable by civil and criminal penalties of up to $1 million and 20 years in prison. The American Civil Liberties Union, where we both work, takes no position for or against campaigns to boycott Israel or any other foreign country. But since our organization's founding in 1920, the ACLU has defended the right to collective action. This bill threatens that right.

As a European myself I find it very strange that such a law can ever be officially proposed. And in the US of all countries where the freedom of speech in codified in the constitution.

What do you make of it?

*American Civil Liberties Union

Original Submission

MrPlow writes:

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

Amid relentless scrutiny over possible ties between his presidential campaign and Russia, an extraordinary suggestion has emerged - that Donald Trump could pardon himself or his family.

Source: BBC News

US President Donald Trump has insisted he has the "complete power" to pardon people, amid reports he is considering presidential pardons for family members, aides and even himself.

A Democratic Party spokesman has called the reports "extremely disturbing".

The US authorities are probing possible collusion between the Trump team and Russia. Intelligence agencies think Russia tried to help Mr Trump to power.

Russia denies this, and the president says there was no collusion.

The Washington Post reported on Thursday that Mr Trump and his team were looking at ways to pardon people close to him.

Source: BBC News

Original Submission #1  Original Submission #2 

takyon writes:

The ACLU of Tennessee has criticized a judge's sentence reduction deal for inmates. Judge Sam Benningfield signed an order permitting a 30-day sentence reduction for male inmates who agree to have vasectomy and female inmates who agree to get the birth control implant Nexplanon, which prevents pregnancy for four years.

The program is voluntary. However, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee has condemned the program, calling it "unconstitutional." [...] But Benningfield, who declined to speak to NBC News, told News Channel 5 that he is trying to encourage "personal responsibility" among inmates, who will not "be burdened with children" when they are released. "This gives them a chance to get on their feet and make something of themselves," Benningfield told the station.

Since the program began, 32 women have received the birth control implant and 38 men have agreed to have a vasectomy, News Channel 5 reported. It was not immediately clear how many men have undergone the surgery.

Inmates can get two days knocked off their sentences for attending a course about the risks of babies born addicted to opioids:

America's opioid crisis is expanding to a new class of victims—unborn children. Infants are being born with symptoms of withdrawal, also known as Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, or NAS. In the last decade, states like Tennessee have seen a ten-fold rise in the number of babies born with NAS.

Original Submission

An Anonymous Coward writes:

During a hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Tuesday, Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher managed to baffle and amaze when he asked about life on Mars.

[...] "You have indicated that Mars had a, was totally different thousands of years ago," the California congressman said, addressing a panel of space science experts.

"Is it possible that there was a civilization on Mars thousands of years ago?".

[...] Kenneth Farley — NASA Mars 2020 rover project scientist — had to start off his answer by correcting Rohrabacher's question.

"So, the evidence is that Mars was different billions of years ago, not thousands of years ago," Farley said.

[...] "Would you rule that out? That — see, there are some people — well, anyway," Rohrabacher said.

Farley answered: "I would say that is extremely unlikely."

Source: Mashable

Original Submission