White House bypasses Senate to ink agreement that could allow Chinese companies to demand ISPs remove web content in US with no legal oversight.

Months before the debate about Internet censorship raged as SOPA and PIPA dominated the concerns of web users, President Obama signed an international treaty that would allow companies in China or any other country in the world to demand ISPs remove web content in the US with no legal oversight whatsoever.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement was signed by Obama on October 1 2011, yet is currently the subject of a White House petition demanding Senators be forced to ratify the treaty. The White House has circumvented the necessity to have the treaty confirmed by lawmakers by presenting it an as “executive agreement,” although legal scholars have highlighted the dubious nature of this characterization.

The hacktivist group Anonymousattacked and took offline the Federal Trade Commission’s website yesterday in protest against the treaty, which was also the subject of demonstrations across major cities in Poland, a country set to sign the agreement today.

Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court order, all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply globally, rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than SOPA or PIPA.

A country known for its enforcement of harsh Internet censorship policies like China could demand under the treaty that an ISP in the United States remove content or terminate a website on its server altogether. As we have seen from the enforcement of similar copyright policies in the US, websites are sometimes targeted for no justifiable reason.

The groups pushing the treaty also want to empower copyright holders with the ability to demand that users who violate intellectual property rights (with no legal process) have their Internet connections terminated, a punishment that could only ever be properly enforced by the creation of an individual Internet ID card for every web user, a system that is already in the works.

“The same industry rightsholder groups that support the creation of ACTA have also called for mandatory network-level filtering by Internet Service Providers and for Internet Service Providers to terminate citizens’ Internet connection on repeat allegation of copyright infringement (the “Three Strikes” /Graduated Response) so there is reason to believe that ACTA will seek to increase intermediary liability and require these things of Internet Service Providers,” reports the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The treaty will also mandate that ISPs disclose personal user information to the copyright holder, while providing authorities across the globe with broader powers to search laptops and Internet-capable devices at border checkpoints.

In presenting ACTA as an “international agreement” rather than a treaty, the Obama administration managed to circumvent the legislative process and avoid having to get Senate approval, amethod questioned by Senator Wyden.

“That said, even if Obama has declared ACTA an executive agreement (while those in Europe insist that it’s a binding treaty), there is a very real Constitutional question here: can it actually be an executive agreement?” asks TechDirt. “The law is clear that the only things that can be covered by executive agreements are things that involve items that are solely under the President’s mandate. That is, you can’t sign an executive agreement that impacts the things Congress has control over. But here’s the thing: intellectual property, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is an issue given to Congress, not the President. Thus, there’s a pretty strong argument that the president legally cannot sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and, instead, must submit them to the Senate.”.

26 European Union member states along with the EU itself are set to sign the treaty at a ceremony today in Tokyo. Other countries wishing to sign the agreement have until May 2013 to do so.

Critics are urging those concerned about Obama’s decision to sign the document with no legislative oversight to demand the Senate be forced to ratify the treaty.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

Source: Prison Planet.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

Welcome to the moterfucking Terrordome kids! We have hit 2012 and the country as we know it is changing. In fact, there are over 40,000 new laws that take affect on January 1st. Yes, Forty-fucking-thousand! The nanny/police state is out of control and we’ve never been faced with so much legislative garbage and restraint. The fact that we can’t do anything without the government checking our assholes is pretty twisted. We are definitely stuck in the world that the Founding Fathers warned us about a few hundred years ago. They fought hard for true freedom and entrusted us with carrying the ball but we have all squandered our fortune and have devolved into a country that follows the same blueprint of all the countries we aspired to never be. We have gone from the greatest nation on Earth to one of the all-too-typical government controlled statist states in bloom. And that was just the beginning! On New Year’s Eve, while the citizens of the world were distracted staring into the bottoms of champagne glasses, President Barack Hussein Obama signed something into law that takes this whole thing to another level. Essentially, we’re all fucked.

While on his holiday vacation in Hawaii, Barack Obama signed the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) into law. Despite claiming that he had “serious reservations” about the bill, that didn’t stop him from wiping his ass with the Bill of Rights. Just like the 93 out of 100 senators that voted for this law, our president also championed in an endless era of police state tyranny. If you don’t know what this law is, you deserve to be sent up shit’s creek without a paddle. If you do know about this law, even though it has passed, it is damn time that you better stand up and get ready to fight this shit until it is overturned and wiped from the books. Otherwise you have no right to complain about it when the proverbial shit hits the proverbial fan.

To even begin to explain this law is really complicated. Just like every other monstrous law that is passed these days, this one is so massive and full of so much random crap that the full effect of it won’t be known for years. All I can really do is break down the basics of it, which are enough to piss off any true American. If you thought the PATRIOT Act was bad, this law just magnifies it and makes the whole police state we are living in much more powerful while making us, the people, more powerless to stop it.

In a nutshell, the NDAA allows the government to detain American citizens on American soil without due process. Essentially, if you are deemed a “threat” to national security, you can now be treated in the same manner as a terrorist. You can be detained indefinitely and sent to God knows where to be interrogated and locked up without any rights whatsoever. Who knows, maybe they’ll waterboard you for good measure. On the positive side, if you go to Gitmo, at least you’ll be treated to ice cream and a library full of Harry Potter and Twilight books.

Now you may be thinking, “Well heck, I’m not a terrorist!” and you may be right but that doesn’t matter. If you have ever read the criteria used by groups like the FBI, CIA and the Department of Homeland Security for what constitutes what is a potential threat, you’d understand that the description is so broad that it encompasses nearly every person in America. Read about the MIAC Report and how the criteria used in that report has gone on to essentially be the blueprint that all these agencies use to determine who might be a threat.

Also, when you have presidential candidates like Newt Gingrich freely throwing around the term “enemy combatant”, it makes you wonder how someone like that would use this new power if given the opportunity. Barack Obama who promised not to sign this into law but did said, “I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t.” Okay, well considering that he just killed an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, and his 16-year-old son because the father was a terror suspect, makes one have to question if this guy should be able to even make these sort of calls. Yes, al-Awlaki was an al-Qaeda dickbag but he was still an American citizen and our president killed him and his teenage American son. If you don’t see something incredibly wrong with this, you are lower than shit. If the president can assassinate an American without due process and without the law allowing him to do so, just imagine what he could do with the law now making such insane actions legal!

The NDAA eliminates our constitutional rights and gives the president the power of a dictator over his subjects. This fundamentally goes against everything the Founding Fathers wanted for us! Congress should be outraged, right? Nope, except for Rand Paul, Justin Amash and a few others, everyone almost unanimously voted for this thing! Hell, every single GOP candidate for president, except Ron Paul, supports this monstrous step towards tyranny. What the fuck kind of world do we live in when these assholes that claim to be pro-Constitution are so quick to shred the sacred document because of some hypothetical boogeyman?! Our leaders are nutless fucking pussies that should be wiggling around in the dirt because they don’t have spines! If your elected officials claim to be constitutional conservatives and they support this, guess what? They are fucking liars and you need to throw them on the fire and not just their feet!

I hope that Ron Paul starts bringing this issue up in debates because so far, this issue has gone pretty much unmentioned in the GOP debates. As with anything real, the mainstream media turns a blind fucking eye. You can best believe that if it was George W. Bush that signed this into law and not progressive pissant Barack Obama, the mainstream media would be outraged. However, since it was signed into law by their hero, the tyranny goes unchecked. Why doesn’t Fox News mention it then? Well, they are all in support of it too! Everyone is fucking insane!

If Ron Paul were to change the discussion and pound this issue into the debates, the GOP contenders would be forced to have to discuss it. Hell, this could be the tipping point that pushes Dr. Paul into the top spot, as it truly sets him apart from not only the rest of the GOP but with Barack Obama. Most people, once educated, would most likely be vehemently opposed to this tyranny. At least I hope so; I don’t think that the people are as far gone as our leaders.. not yet anyway.

The point is, this is the biggest move towards tyranny in a very long time. Hell, this is basically the nail in the coffin. If you don’t stand up and fight the NDAA, you have no right to fight for anything else. To not hold your elected officials accountable is to turn a blind eye to this. You are surrendering your freedom to these dictators who have proven once again, that they will not stop until we are all ruled over by an iron fist. Truth be told, if you vote for anyone else but Ron Paul, you are throwing it all away. This isn’t some bullshit scare tactic to garner votes for Paul, this insane power grab has already happened! Now start fighting back or get out of the way and shut the fuck up.

Welcome to 1984.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

While everyone is partying in the New Year and has their eye off of the ball (not TheSwash.com, we are always watching) President Obama has signed into law the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) despite his own personal “reservations”. Essentially what this does, is it allows Americans to be detained indefinitely, without their constitutional rights, if the government feels that they are potentially a terrorist or a threat. As has been covered many times here on TheSwash.com, the definition of what the government considers to be a potential threat is now so broad that it literally covers all bases and can be used against anyone, anywhere.

And while I watch Fox News’ Megyn Kelly and Bill Hemmer laugh like goofs while introducing crappy country bands to sing us out for the New Year, they have completely failed to mention any of this.

UPDATE: Here’s what the Associated Press wrote:

President Barack Obama signed a wide-ranging defense bill into law Saturday despite having “serious reservations” about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

The bill also applies penalties against Iran’s central bank in an effort to hamper Tehran’s ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration is looking to soften the impact of those penalties because of concerns that they could lead to a spike in global oil prices or cause economic hardship on U.S. allies that import petroleum from Iran.

In a statement accompanying his signature, the president chastised some lawmakers for what he contended was their attempts to use the bill to restrict the ability of counterterrorism officials to protect the country.

Administration officials said Obama was only signing the measure because Congress made minimally acceptable changes that no longer challenged the president’s terrorism-fighting ability.

“Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded,” Obama said in the signing statement.

Signing statements allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress’ intent. During his campaign for the White House, Obama criticized President George W. Bush’s use of signing statements and promised to make his application of the tool more transparent.

Obama’s signature caps months of wrangling over how to handle captured terrorist suspects without violating Americans’ constitutional rights. The White House initially threatened to veto the legislation but dropped the warning after Congress made last-minute changes.

Among the changes the administration secured was striking a provision that would have eliminated executive branch authority to use civilian courts for trying terrorism cases against foreign nationals.

The new law now requires military custody for any suspect who is a member of al-Qaida or “associated forces” and involved in planning or attempting to carry out an attack on the United States or its coalition partners. The president or a designated subordinate may waive the military custody requirement by certifying to Congress that such a move is in the interest of national security.

The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

“My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” Obama said in the signing statement. “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”

Despite the changes, officials cited serious concerns that the law will complicate and could harm the investigation of terrorism cases.

For example, FBI Director Robert Mueller has said the measure would inhibit his bureau’s ability to persuade suspected terrorists to cooperate immediately and provide critical intelligence. He told Congress it wasn’t clear how agents should operate if they arrest someone covered by the military custody requirement but the nearest military facility is hundreds of miles away.

Other officials have said agents and prosecutors should not have to spend their time worrying about citizenship status and whether get a waiver while trying to thwart a terror attack.

The administration also raised concerns about an amendment in the bill that goes after foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran’s central bank, barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.

Officials worry that the penalties could lead to higher oil prices, damaging the U.S. economic recovery and hurting allies in Europe and Asia that purchase petroleum from Iran.

The penalties do not go into effect for six months. The president can waive them for national security reasons or if the country with jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution has significantly reduced its purchases of Iran oil.

The State Department has said the U.S. was looking at how to put them in place in a way that maximized the pressure on Iran, but meant minimal disruption to the U.S. and its allies.

This week, Iran warned that it may disrupt traffic in the Strait of Hormuz – a vital Persian Gulf waterway. But on Saturday, Tehran seemed to back off that threat when a commander of its Revolutionary Guard said such discussion is a thing of the past and “belongs to five years ago.”

Iran also said Saturday that it had proposed a new round of talks on its nuclear program with the U.S. and other world powers. The invitation would come after the U.N. has imposed four rounds of sanctions. Separately, the U.S. and the European Union have imposed their own tough economic and financial penalties.

The $662 billion bill authorizes money for military personnel, weapons systems, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and national security programs in the Energy Department for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

The measure also freezes some $700 million in assistance until Pakistan comes up with a strategy to deal with improvised explosive devices.

Obama signed the bill in Hawaii, where he is vacationing with his family.

The Los Angeles Angels swooped in to win the Albert Pujols sweepstakes with a quarter-billion dollar offer the superstar slugger just could not refuse.

With his old team the St. Louis Cardinals and the Florida Marlins engaged in a bidding war for the first baseman’s services, the Angels appear to have blown everyone out of the water with a 10-year offer that may be as much as $260 million.

Pujols led his team to a World Series title this past season, but his longtime manager, Tony LaRussa, announced his retirement and Pujols previous contract expired. At the beginning of the season, the Cardinals exercised a $16 million option, which allowed them to keep their star at a below-market rate for the season. But Pujols rejected a multiyear extension and broke off talks during the season.

The Angels’ rookie general manager Jerry Dipoto pulled off the deal, but with Pujols set to turn 32 in January, the deal may last longer than his days as a productive player. He’s actually coming off the worst season in his illustrious 11-year career, having failed to bat .300 or drive in 100 runs for the first time.

A sure Hall of Famer, Pujols has a lifetime batting average of .328 with 445 home runs and 1,329 runs batted in. He’s been the National League’s Most Valuable Player three times.

CONTINUED at NBC Los Angeles.