1. nprshopped:

    Brooke Gladstone, On The Media; Glynn Washington, Snap Judgment; Ira Glass, This American Life; Jad Abumrad, Radiolab; Terry Gross, Fresh Air (Galaxy Far Far Away, Long Time Ago)

    my head just exploded

     
  2. icontherecord:

    Statement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the U.S. Department of Justice on the Declassification of Documents Related to the Protect America Act Litigation

    September 11, 2014 

    On January 15, 2009, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISC-R) published an unclassified version of its opinion in In Re: Directives Pursuant to Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 551 F.3d 1004 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. Rev. 2008).  The classified version of the opinion was issued on August 22, 2008, following a challenge by Yahoo! Inc. (Yahoo!) to directives issued under the Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA).  Today, following a renewed declassification review, the Executive Branch is publicly releasing various documents from this litigation, including legal briefs and additional sections of the 2008 FISC-R opinion, with appropriate redactions to protect national security information.  These documents are available at the website of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), and ODNI’s public website dedicated to fostering greater public visibility into the intelligence activities of the U.S. Government, icontherecord.tumblr.com.  A summary of the underlying litigation follows.

    FISC Proceedings

    In Re: Directives Pursuant to Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act involved a challenge by Yahoo! to directives issued by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Attorney General under the PAA.  The PAA was the predecessor to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008 (FISA Amendments Act of 2008 or FAA).  The directives issued to Yahoo! under the PAA required it to assist the U.S. Government in acquiring foreign intelligence information through the surveillance of targets reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.  Yahoo! refused to comply with the directives, and the U.S. Government initiated proceedings in the FISC to compel compliance.

    Yahoo! opposed the U.S. Government’s motion to compel compliance with the directives primarily on the ground that the directives violated the Fourth Amendment rights of its customers.  On April 25, 2008, following extensive briefing by the parties, the FISC held that the directives were lawful and ordered Yahoo! to comply.

    • The FISC held that there is a foreign intelligence exception to the warrant requirement, and that the exception applied to surveillance conducted pursuant to the directives, including surveillance targeting U.S. persons located outside the United States. 

    • The FISC held that the U.S. Government has sufficient procedures in place “to ensure that the Fourth Amendment rights of targeted U.S. persons are adequately protected and that the acquisition of foreign intelligence to be obtained through the directives issued to Yahoo!, as to these individuals, is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”  It further held, based on prior case law and noting the applicable minimization procedures, that “any incidental acquisition of the communications of non-targeted persons located in the United States and of non-targeted U.S. persons, wherever they may be located, is also reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” 

    Yahoo! then appealed to the FISC-R. 

    FISC-R Proceedings

    On August 22, 2008, following briefings and oral argument, the FISC-R issued a classified opinion, affirming the FISC’s decision that the directives were lawful.  In its decision, the FISC-R first held that Yahoo! had standing to challenge the directives based on the Fourth Amendment interests of its customers that Yahoo! was alleging.  Turning to the merits of the case, the FISC-R rejected Yahoo!’s Fourth Amendment challenge to the directives. 

    • First, the FISC-R held that a traditional warrant was not required.  Basing its opinion on a line of U.S. Supreme Court cases recognizing “special needs” exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, the FISC-R held that the U.S. Government’s collection of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the directives addressed a special need that justified an exception to the warrant requirement. 
    • Second, the FISC-R held that the surveillance at issue met the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment, in light of the national security interests at issue and the “matrix of safeguards” required by the PAA and implemented by multiple branches of the Government.  Those safeguards included: 
    • Targeting procedures reviewed by the FISC and designed to ensure that the U.S. Government targets someone only if the Government has a valid foreign intelligence purpose and reasonably believes that person is located outside of the United States. 
    • Minimization procedures designed to limit the retention and dissemination of information about U.S. persons. 
    • Procedures that require the Attorney General to find, before the U.S. Government conducts surveillance of any U.S. person located outside the United States, that the targeted U.S. person is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.  These procedures were not required by the PAA.  Rather, the U.S. Government included them as a requirement in the certifications for the surveillance of U.S. persons located outside the United States, consistent with its practice since 1981 under Section 2.5 of Executive Order 12333. 

    No rehearing or further review in the U.S. Supreme Court was sought.

    The FISA Amendments Act

    The PAA expired in February 2008 and was ultimately replaced with the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, codified as Title VII of FISA.  The FISA Amendments Act incorporates many of the provisions and procedures that the FISC-R found important to its holding that the U.S. Government’s surveillance was constitutional.  The FISA Amendments Act also builds in additional safeguards that did not exist in the PAA.  For example:

    • The FISA Amendments Act goes beyond the PAA and imposed, for the first time, the requirement for a judicial finding that a U.S. person located outside the United States targeted for surveillance or search is a foreign power, agent of a foreign power, or officer or employee of a foreign power.  This finding is made by the FISC under the FISA Amendments Act; as noted above, under the PAA and prior to the PAA this finding was made exclusively by the Attorney General. 
    • The FISA Amendments Act requires FISC approval of the targeting and minimization procedures.   Under the PAA, the FISC reviewed only the targeting procedures.

    The FISA Amendments Act, by requiring those and other safeguards, is even more protective of the Fourth Amendment rights of U.S. persons than the statute upheld by the FISC-R as constitutional.

    Document List

    Read More

    The following links seem to be broken: 

    Yahoo Reply Brief (June 9, 2008)

    FBI Standard Minimization Procedures for Electronic Surveillance of a United States Person Agent of a Foreign Power (September 17, 1997)  

    Whom can I call about this? Mr. Clapper?

     

  3. "Now “tribal trends” are totally “in.” You can walk into any store in the mall and see “Native” imagery everywhere. As a Native person, when I look at them, I can’t help but remember the not-so-distant past when my people weren’t allowed, by law, to wear these things. It’s such a constant reminder of the colonial power structures still in place. Back in the day, white people had the power to take away our culture, and now they have the power to wear it however they see fit. These are our images, our cultural symbols, yet we are completely powerless to have control over them."
     

  4. "The “Asian accent” tells the story of Chinese-American assimilation in a nutshell. Our parents have the accent that white Americans perceive as the most foreign out of all the possible alternatives, so our choice is to have no accent at all. The accent of our parents is the accent of the grimy streets of Chinatown with its mahjong parlors and fried food stalls and counterfeit jewelry, so we work to wipe away all traces of that world from our speech so we can settle comfortably into our roles as respectable middle-class doctors, lawyers, engineers, hundreds of miles from Chinatown.

    No wonder we react so viscerally to the “ching-chong, ching-chong” schoolyard taunt. To attack our language, our ability to sound “normal,” is to attack our ability to be normal. It’s to attack everything we’ve worked for.

    And make no mistake about it — to sound like a “normal” American is to wield privilege."
     
  5.  
  6. nprshopped:

    Nina Totenberg, NPR Legal Affairs Correspondent (Sunset Boulevard, 2008)

    (via babesofnpr)

     

  7. pebblemagic said: so my school is a little obsessed with lucille clifton's works because she used to teach here, and they gave us a copy of "i am accused of tending to the past" and it really made me think of you/this blog/this mission poemhunter[.]com/best-poems/lucille-clifton/i-am-accused-of-tending-to-the-past/

    medievalpoc:

    Thanks! I’ve always enjoyed it.

    i am accused of tending to the past
    i am accused of tending to the past
    as if i made it,
    as if i sculpted it
    with my own hands. i did not.
    this past was waiting for me
    when i came,
    a monstrous unnamed baby,
    and i with my mother’s itch
    took it to breast
    and named it
    History.
    she is more human now,
    learning languages everyday,
    remembering faces, names and dates.
    when she is strong enough to travel
    on her own, beware, she will.

     

  8. "We tend to believe that accusations of privilege imply we have it easy, which we resent because life is hard for nearly everyone. Of course we resent these accusations. Look at white men when they are accused of having privilege. They tend to be immediately defensive (and, at times, understandably so). They say, “It’s not my fault I am a white man,” or “I’m [insert other condition that discounts their privilege],” instead of simply accepting that, in this regard, yes, they benefit from certain privileges others do not. To have privilege in one or more areas does not mean you are wholly privileged. Surrendering to the acceptance of privilege is difficult, but it is really all that is expected. What I remind myself, regularly, is this: the acknowledgment of my privilege is not a denial of the ways I have been and am marginalized, the ways I have suffered."
    — Roxane Gay, Bad Feminist (via brutereason)
     
  9. raychillster:

    i try to take self portraits that can one day be turned into classic paintings.

    (via horrorproportions)

     
  10. thesoftghetto:

    almondkitty-tantricdreaminglover:

    blacksagegod:

    atane:

    elidutton:

    owning-my-truth:

    atane:

    White “allies”

    yup.

    But if it was “white power” she’d be racist and probably beat. But you know, it’s whatever.

    Black power ≠ white power

    Black power = Resistance. A response to the abuse and subjugation of white supremacy. Recognizing the humanity of Blackness. Black people uplifting themselves from the margins. A rallying cry of self-love, self-actualization and autonomy. Black power does not mean the subjugation and abuse or torment of white people. It has never meant this and it never will. Show me the examples of “Black power” chants stripping whites of anything.

    white power = white supremacy, subjugation, abuse and torment of everyone not white. Anywhere chants of “white power” ring, hatred follows behind. Look no further than the people who scream “white power” and why they say it.

    This stuff is not hard to understand or figure out.

    The fact that a white woman is in that Ferguson crowd unharmed is proof positive that a chant of “Black power” is not about dehumanizing, abusing, torturing or subjugating white people. Black people are not even in the position to do that.

    On the other hand, ask yourself, what would happen to a lone Black person in a crowd of white supremacists chanting “white power”? Would that black person be safe?

    The ignorant think “Black power” means enacting to white people what “white power” has enacted to Black people.

    ^^^^^THAT GIF ALL THE WAY

    White people stay making shit about them.

    (via fullten)