Combining FBI Terrorist suspicious activity guidelines with NDAA

Pressforactivism.com
April 22, 2012

What do you get when you combine the FBI Terrorist Screening Center’s suspicious activity reporting guidelines with the NDAA? This report looks into the ways our government can now deem virtually anyone a terrorist for almost any reason and how detrimental much of the new legislation in this area is to American citizens and our Constitution. It would appear the real threat to our freedom is not terrorism, but the war our government is waging on it   Could You Be a Terrorist?

The above excerpt was posted on targetfreedom.com.

Hello ACTA, SOPA, PIPA and NDAA; Anonymous and Occupy are coming for you

FreakOutNation
February 28, 2012

In a stunning move Occupy and Anonymous have joined forces in what’s called, “OUR POLLS” – A new joint effort  to hold politicians accountable to We the People. The blatant disregard of our politicians from both sides of the aisle is mind boggling — so now, they’re being called out for giving into deep-pocketed lobbyists and passing laws to boost corporate profits, all at the expense of our individual liberty.

This is not the first time Anonymous has targeted officials over their support for the NDAA. The ubiquitous group of activists dumped a massive amount of information on each elected official supporting the invasive Act.

Their statement reads:

Our Senators and Representatives showed how little they cared about personal freedoms when they voted overwhelmingly to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA allows for the indefinite detention of individuals based merely on a suspicion or allegation of sympathizing with questionable groups or causes. This act is a prominent threat to the inalienable due process rights of every US citizen as laid out in the Constitution. It allows the military to engage in civilian law enforcement, and to suspend due process, habeas corpus or other constitutional guarantees when desired. Our congressmen passed one of the greatest threats to civil liberties in the history of the United States. Will we hold them accountable on election day?

Will we hold our elected officials accountable for supporting rigid Internet censorship laws such as SOPA, PIPA, HR 1981 and the ACTA treaty? The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) aimed to crack down on copyright infringement by restricting user access to websites that hosted or helped facilitate pirated content. SOPA and PIPA’s ambiguous, broad wording would have cast a wide censorship net around most of the Internet, thus creating questions of due process, burden of proof, and privacy violations. The proposed laws were lobbied and paid for by Hollywood, RIAA, MPAA and other massive media companies and would safeguard entertainment industry profits at the expense of essential freedoms, the Internet and constitutional civil liberties . Even if the goal was to merely regulate pirated content, the ambiguous wording demonstrates that the authors and supporters of SOPA and PIPA have little-to-no understanding of the Internet’s architecture or the frightening implications of the legislation.

What can you do? You are one person. You have one vote. Use that vote on November 6 to hold your elected official accountable for supporting bills such as NDAA, SOPA and PIPA.

We are calling on voters, activists and keyboard warriors under all banners to unite as a single force to unseat the elected representatives who threaten our essential freedoms and who were so quick to minimize our individual constitutional rights for a quick corporate profit.

Follow @OurPolls and @AnonPAC for updates, news, leaks, and calls to action.

Below we have a couple lists for you to consider:
(1) All US Senators up for reelection in 2012 who voted to support the NDAA and who still support PIPA

(2) All US Representatives up for reelection in 2012 who voted to support the NDAA and who still support SOPA

** Note: ALL 435 seats in the US House of Representatives are up for reelection in November 2012

(1) US Senators Up For Reelection Who Supported NDAA and/or PIPA

Sen. Daniel Akaka [D, HI] ^

Sen. John Barrasso [R, WY] ^

Sen. Jeff Bingaman [D, NM] ^ *

Sen. Scott Brown [R, MA] ^

Sen. Sherrod Brown [D, OH] ^

Sen. Maria Cantwell [D, WA] ^

Sen. Thomas Carper [D, DE] ^

Sen. Robert Casey [D, PA] ^ *

Sen. Kent Conrad [D, ND] ^

Sen. Bob Corker [R, TX] ^ *

Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D, CA] ^ *

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY] ^

Sen. Orrin Hatch [R, UT] ^

Sen. Dean Heller [R, NV] ^

Sen. Kay Hutchison [R, TX] ^

Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D, MN] ^ *

Sen. Herbert Kohl [D, WI] ^ *

Sen. Jon Kyl [R, AZ] ^ *

Sen. Richard Lugar [R, IN] ^

Sen. John Manchin [D, WV] ^

Sen. Claire McCaskill [D, MO] ^

Sen. Robert Menedez [D, NJ] ^

Sen. Ben Nelson [D, NE] ^

Sen. Bill Nelson [D, FL] *

Sen. Olympia Snowe [R, ME] ^

Sen. Debbie Ann Stabenow [D, MI] ^

Sen. John Tester [D, MT] ^

Sen. Jim Webb [D, VA] ^

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D, RI] ^ *

Sen. Roger Wicker [R, MS] ^

^ = Supported/voted for NDAA

* = Still support PIPA and similar law

(2) US Representatives Up For Reelection Who Supported NDAA and/or SOPA

Rep. Gary Ackerman (NY-5) ^

Rep. Sandy Adams (FL-24) ^

Rep. Robert Aderholt (AL-4) ^

Rep. Todd Akin (MO-2) ^ †

Rep. Rodney Alexander (LA-5) ^

Rep. Jason Altmire (PA-4) ^

Rep. Mark Amodei (NV-2) *

Rep. Robert E. Andrews (NJ-1) ^

Rep. Steve Austria (OH-7) ^ †

Rep. Joe Baca (CA-43) ^ *

Rep. Spencer Bachus (AL-6) ^

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (WI-2) ^ †

Rep. John Barrow (GA-12) ^ *

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett ^

Rep. Joe Barton (TX-6) ^

Rep. Charles Bass (NH-2) ^ *

Rep. Dan Benishek (MI-1) ^

Rep. Rick Berg (ND, at-large) ^ †

Rep. Shelley Berkley (NV-1) ^ †

Rep. Howard Berman (CA-28) ^ *

Rep. Judy Biggert (IL-13) ^

Rep. Brian Bilbray (CA-50) ^

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (FL-9) ^

Rep. Sanford Bishop Jr. (GA-2) ^

Rep. Rob Bishop (UT-1) ^

Rep. Timothy Bishop (NY-1) ^

Rep. Diane Black (TN-6) ^

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN-7) ^

Rep. Jo Bonner (AL-1) ^

Rep. Mary Bono Mack (CA-45) ^ *

Rep. Dan Boren (OK-2) ^ †

Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA-3) ^

Special Thanks to the following in coordinating this on-going action:

@OccupyKC

@Occupy_DC

@OccupytheNation

@OccupyProv

@OccupyPdx

@OccupyBaltimore

@Ghostpickles

@AnonyOps

@AnonymousIRC

@Anonops

@Tw1tt3rart

@AnonyOps_

@GardenSlayer

@OperationLeakS

@YourAnonNews

Well done. Vote ‘em out. Did our elected officials believe they would not be held accountable?

Anonymous will act against National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA

The National Turk
January 11, 2012

Anonymous wages attack on National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, re-signed by Obama into law, giving the military extraordinary sweeping powers to detain US citizens indefinitely without trial.

Time magazine called the protester the person of the year for 2011, but if the US government and Obama Administration continue with its campaign against American freedom, defying corruption with demonstration as such will be outlawed in only a matter of time in the USA.

Concerned over how very real the collapse of the US Constitution is because of Congress’ passing of the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, global activists with the online collective Anonymous have proposed a national day of action against the controversial legislation to occur within next month.

Hacktivists had initially proposed a massive campaign against the act for January, but have now moved the protest to launch on February 3.

NDAA lays foundation for targeting political dissenters, activism

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA, was recently signed off by US President Barack Obama. Under the legislation, the Department of Defense is guaranteed spending appropriations for a 12-month span. Certain provisions snuck in, however, the US government is granted the powers to indefinitely detain and torture American citizens without charge, essentially creating Guantanamo Prison-style detention possibilities for anyone deemed a threat by American authorities.

US President Barack Obama insists that he will not abide by such provisions, although the laws are still written and approved under his own name. Although he could abide by his word and remove himself from endorsing any of the provisions, the fact that the legislation does still for such enforcement does not negate its existence.

 

Read Article