The Most Dangerous Person in the U.S. Congress

That would be Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, a man who is now pissing on the grave of Internet activist Aaron Swartz.

Leahy, from his perch in the power seat of Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stifles any pro-human rights legislation that comes along while pretending to be in favor of it. As a committee chairman, he has the sole power to allow or deny committee votes on proposed laws that his committee has jurisdiction over. (By Senate rules legislation usually must pass a committee vote before the whole Senate can vote on it. And of course the House of Representatives has to vote for the proposed law, called a “bill,” also.)

Leahy generally manages to sabotage meaningful reform. After every “failure” or “defeat,” he shrugs and blames Republicans, or makes various other excuses. One way he likes to sabotage attempts to roll back some of the repressive police state powers of the U.S. is by parrying them with his own legislative proposals which are simulacrums of reform bills with misleading titles, designed to preempt and thus block real reform. [1]

Leahy has played the key role in preventing any easing of the horribly oppressive “USA PATRIOT Act,” for example, co-opting and neutralizing reform efforts with his own sham “reform” proposals.

And now Leahy is spitting on the memory of Aaron Swartz.

Leahy’s latest crime against human rights is typical of his sneaky modus operandi. Under the guise of “reforming” repressing U.S. computer “crime” law, Leahy is doubling the already vicious punishments for crossing the U.S. government or major institution using a digital device. Apparently he doesn’t feel that the law that Federal prosecutors used to drive political activist Aaron Swartz to suicide is sufficiently draconian. Leahy is fanatically dedicated to increasing U.S. repression. This is the fifth time in nine years he has attempted to make the already extremely punitive U.S. “computer crime” laws even more savage. And behind Leahy is the Number One culprit in the increase in U.S. repressiveness of the past decade, Barack Obama. [2]

Leahy gave his proposed legislation the nice and virtuous sounding name of “The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act.” Who could be against that? As with the “USA PATRIOT ACT,” a law with such a morally righteous title could not possibly be opposed by any Right-Thinking Person. (The names given these laws are not just intended to obfuscate their true effect, as the “Bank Secrecy Act” stripped away all bank secrecy from the government’s prying eyes, but also as political extortion, to force legislators to vote in favor of them.) But contrary to the benign title on his bill, Leahy is for NO privacy for us and insecurity for us, and for NSA-CIA-FBI-et al police state power, as he has amply demonstrated during the current NSA “scandal,” or “crisis” or “revelations” or whatever half-true characterization you choose- that is, the temporary inconvenience to the imperium of having Edward J. Snowden reveal some of the NSA’s crimes.

Leahy’s proposal is ostensibly aimed at countering breaches of the databases of large corporations. Taking advantage of recent headline news of the loss of personal data of customers by feckless and irresponsible corporations that are too lax in guarding their computers, Leahy slips in, as if it’s a mere afterthought, brutally oppressive legal language straight from the White House of Obama. This is from Leahy’s press release promoting his evil legislation:

“The [Leahy] bill also includes the Obama administration’s proposal to update* [sic] the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act [of 1986] so that attempted computer hacking and conspiracy to commit computer hacking offenses are subject to the same criminal penalties, as the underlying offenses.” Note the “also.” Like saying “Oh, by the way, we’re also giving ourselves the power to throw you in prison for decades if you talk about how it might be possible to hack.” And what is “hacking,” you ask? Pretty much whatever some prosecutor says it is. That’s what’s euphemistically called “broad legal language.” “Broad” means vague and all-encompassing. You’re at the mercy of the whim of whatever “interpretation” some prosecutor chooses to put on the law.

So if you try to do something or talk about doing something, it’s as good as doing it. Sort of like getting the death penalty for planning a murder. (They’ll probably pass a law doing just that too, one of these days.)

In his latest bid to “protect Americans” (his words), Leahy boasts about his copying the repressive Obama 2011 legislative proposal word for word. Leahy is apparently proud of his legislative mimicry, smuggling in the Obama regime’s proposal to “update” the “Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,” of 1986, the law used to crush Aaron Swartz’s spirit and drive him to suicide under threat of 35 years in prison, “so that attempted computer hacking and conspiracy to commit computer hacking offenses are subject to the same criminal penalties, as the underlying offenses.” That could be handy going after WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, since fabricating a “conspiracy” is as easy as getting an undercover agent, agent provocateur, or informer-on-an-FBI-leash to talk to a targeted victim about doing something that will be “interpreted” as a crime. So if an agent or mole/infiltrator pretends to be able to obtain government documents by violating rules of access in a computer system, that trap could be snapped shut. And I like how they use the word “update,” to imply they’re just getting the law up to speed with modern times. “Modernize” is another word they use, as if to say “we’re fixing this fusty old antique law to make it sleek and modern and shiny.” “Reform” is another word they abuse when they’re making something WORSE, not fixing or improving it. Well, I guess from their perspective, more repressive power for their state IS fixing and improving. [3]

Think it can’t apply to you, you who never “do anything wrong”? Here’s what TechDirt writer Mike Masnick had to say about the proposed “update” to the “Computer Fraud and Abuse Act:” “And, considering just how broad the CFAA is, think about how ridiculous that might become. Now if you talk with others about the possibility of violating a terms of service- say, talking to your 12 year old child about helping them sign up for Facebook even though the site requires you to be 13- you may have already committed a felony that can get you years in jail. That seems fair, right?”

That’s just one example. The possibilities are only limited by the imaginations of prosecutors and secret policemen.

After Swartz’s death, there was some pressure, successfully resisted by the awful U.S. Congress, to scale back the draconian punishments under the “Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.” Leahy’s law will go in the opposite direction, making it even more savage, for example doubling the sentence for a first time offense, from 10 years to 20 years. And the U.S. government always brings multiple “counts” against its victims. So the next Aaron Swartz will be effectively facing life in prison. Thus does Leahy debase the martyrdom of Swartz.

Of course, none of these laws ever apply to the government itself, such as to the world’s biggest hacker by far, the “National Security” Agency, which literally hacks millions of computers a day. [4] Nor does it apply to the private corporations that are run by “ex-” secret policemen such as Stratfor Corporation, which commits computer crimes against anti-corporate organizers and protesters. (We know this thanks to Jeremy Hammond, who got into Stratfor’s computers and discovered the evidence of Stratfor’s crimes. Predictably, ONLY Hammond was prosecuted, and sent to prison for ten years. Ten years because he had to plead guilty to avoid a life sentence.

The U.S. government, with tens of thousands of pages of laws at its disposal to use as weapons of repression, apparently still feels too limited in its power to crush people. [5]

So the U.S. becomes an increasingly totalitarian state, with immense power for the corporate state to do whatever it likes, and criminalization and harsh repression of any resistance by the subjects of the corporate oligarchy.

Leahy poses as a “liberal,” the better to dupe the people of Vermont, who should know better, into repeatedly electing him to the U.S. Senate.

A snake in the grass like Leahy is more dangerous than overt reactionaries. As a repressive wolf in civil liberties sheep clothes, Leahy is like a mole, an enemy infiltrator. He disarms and neutralizes opponents of greater repression and subverts and undermines their efforts. He is a poison pill.

Leahy is a former prosecutor with the remorseless, persecutorial mindset of the typical American prosecutor. Most American prosecutors are indifferent to truth and justice, and see imprisoning people as a sport. They typically want to “win” at any cost, by any means necessary, including suppressing exculpatory evidence, fabricating incriminating evidence, coaching witnesses to commit perjury, fake “scientific” forensic “evidence” produced by “crime labs” (that’s actually a good name for them if we understand them as criminal labs) and other means. These are routine and daily practices in U.S. courtrooms at all levels: Federal, state, and local. With some regularity, the tip of the iceberg of massive U.S. illegality and injustice breaks the surface and a case gets exposed. The media generally acts as if it has collective amnesia and usually treats each instance as if no such thing ever happened before and is highly unusual. The establishment media obfuscates the patterns of state criminality by focusing on individual cases. [6]

Now Federal prosecutors may soon have an even heavier sledgehammer to use to crush enemies of the corporate oligarchic state, thanks to the notorious Patrick Leahy.

*The Obama police state legislation is just an “update” of the law, like updating an outdated computer program, or updating your address and phone number with the bank when you move. Just routine maintenance. Nothing to see here, move along.

The Many Faces of Patrick Leahy

BOY I'm slick! Got you fooled
into thinking I'm a Liberal!
Conned you REAL good!

I know what YOU need!

You’re BAD and you need to

be punished!

1] Showing his repressive instincts in another area, Leahy tried to pass a bill that would have imposed ten year prison sentences on food processors for “mislabeling” their products. It was aimed at “health” food manufacturers accused of making inflated health claims for their products. Seems like a civil fine and cease and desist order would be more appropriate for such infractions. (“Why Patrick Leahy’s Food Safety Accountability Act of 2010 Must Be Stopped.”)

The other U.S. Senator from Vermont is Bernard Sanders, who brands himself these days as vaguely socialist. He was a busy-friendly Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, earlier in his political career. The Democrats always need one national politician to talk like a leftist, in order to keep duping people who want change for the better in America to invest their hopes- and votes- for reform in the Democratic Party, which is a party of corporate oligarchy and imperialism. Representative Dennis Kucinich filled that role for a number of years, until the Republican state legislature in Ohio, Kucinich’s state, gerrymandered him out of his Congressional district. Now Sanders is the leading Democratic spouter of populist rhetoric.

2] Swartz was being prosecuted by the U.S. government, which charged him with multiple felonies under the “Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,” (CFAA) for downloading numerous technical papers that reported research funded by American taxpayers, from the site of a corporation that was selling the papers. Swartz felt, justifiably in my view, that morally this was the property of the public. He used the computer network of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a place largely funded by the Pentagon, to do this, since M.I.T. was a paid subscriber of the corporation selling the research articles. The U.S. was menacing Swartz with a 35 year prison sentence for this, even though the company selling the papers declined to press charges and subsequently offered the articles for free. For the tragic, atrocious fate of Aaron Swartz, who dared to subvert the power of the establishment by resisting its control mechanisms, see “Obama Regime Creates Another Martyr,” and “Brace Yourselves For Unintended Ironies in Aaron Swartz Affair.”

The attack dogs of the corporate oligarchy were sicced on Swartz as revenge for his leading role in quashing another repressive law, the “Stop Online Piracy Act,” devised by big media corporations. It would have empowered the Federal government to take websites off the Internet based merely on complaints by these corporations that their copyrights were being violated. No due process. Instead of a corporation having to bring a civil suit alleging infringement, the U.S. Government would immediately wipe out “offending” websites. This is part of a trend of criminalizing anything that big corporations feel hurt their commercial interests.

3] “Senator sneaks strict new sentences for hackers into Personal Data Privacy Act,” RT, January 8^th, 2014, and “Computer law used against Swartz could become even harsher, RT, March 26, 2013, which said in part: “If the proposed revisions to the CFAA are approved in Congress, not only will penalties be more severe but simply discussing alleged computer crimes could be grounds for a felony conviction. The proposal involves extending maximum sentences for CFAA violations, grouping some forms of hacking with racketeering and even criminalizing the “conspiracy and attempt” of computer crimes that never come to fruition.”

4] Apropos of the double standard the rulers apply to us vs. what they themselves do, putting themselves above all law while crushing us under increasingly repressive “laws” and police state surveillance and persecution, computer security expert Jacob Appelbaum had this to say about the CFAA in December, 2013: “It’s so draconian for regular people, and the NSA gets to do something like intercepting 7 billion people all day long with no problems. And the rest of us are not even allowed to experiment with improving the security of own our lives without being put in prison or under threat of serious indictment.” Appelbaum pointed out that if someone attempted to code the NSA’s spying programs used to surveil and break into systems, the U.S. would imprison them for life. Appelbaum, an American who has worked with WikiLeaks and the Tor Project, has been forced into exile in Germany by U.S. government harassment and persecution, including seizure of his electronics. In Germany his apartment has been repeatedly burglarized by government agents. See “Snowden ally Appelbaum says his Berlin apartment subject to raids,” RT, December 21, 2013, and “Appelbaum: ‘Scary’ NSA will spy on you – every which way they can,” RT, December 30, 2013. Appelbaum’s presentations on how thoroughly the NSA has destroyed digital security are available on youtube.com.

5] The U.S., with a mere 4% of the world’s population, has 25% of the global prison population. With less than one-fourth the population of China, it manages to imprison more people than China. The U.S.is the only nation on earth that sentences juveniles to life in prison- and without parole too. Yet brainwashed robots insist on parroting that “America is the freest nation on earth.” Not by objective measures, it isn’t. (Amazingly, Noam Chomsky is one of the people who regularly makes that absurd statement, exactly as I put in quotes.)

It would take a massive tome to catalog all the savagely repressive laws in the U.S., Federal and of the 50 states. Here are just a few of many, many examples.

In California, under that state’s “three strikes” law, people can get life in prison for a third conviction. People have been sentenced to life there for the following: shoplifting a pair of socks; shoplifting a sweatshirt; stealing a slice of pizza. The most common “crime” for which people have gotten life under the law is marijuana possession. Think about what kind of prosecutor it takes to do that to people. Perhaps you are less skeptical now about my characterization of American prosecutors.

Recently there was a slight easing of the California three-strikes law, but mainly due to the lavish amount of money heavily-indebted California spends to imprison people- more than it spends on its state university system, which it has subjected to large cuts in funding. Other states have similar laws.

Ohio passed a law carrying a 75 year prison sentence for anyone recording the police. Apparently they realize their brutally thuggish enforcers have a lot to hide.

Some states have criminalized the videoing or photographing of animal cruelty on farms and in slaughtering plants. They’ve even criminalized obtaining employment at them under “false pretenses,” to criminalize infiltration by animal rights activists to discover sadistic treatment of animals. There are “ag gag” laws that define criticism of agricultural products as libel. Oprah Winfrey was a defendant in a civil libel suit in Texas for saying “anti-beef” things on television. She won, because she’s rich enough to successfully defend herself, and is known to and popular with the general public, and thus jurors. Hard to demonize. These laws directly conflict with the First Amendment “guarantee” of free speech in the U.S. Constitution, forbidding discussing negative health effects of beef, contamination of beef products, or saying you won’t “eat hamburgers,” Winfrey’s offense. She spent a few million dollars moving her show to Texas for the trial and hiring lawyers. She can afford it. You and I can’t.

6] Coincidentally, as I’m writing this the current issue of the haute bourgeois magazine The New Yorker has an article about just such a case, an innocent man framed up for murder by Chicago torture cops. Their ignoring of the obvious true culprit allowed the murderer to kill two more people subsequently, for a total of four victims. (“Crime Fiction: Did the Chicago police coerce witnesses into pinpointing the wrong man for murder?” New Yorker, August 4^th, 2014.)

And the New York Times ran a series about a Brooklyn detective who specialized in framing up innocent people, including for murder, with the help of the corrupt District Attorney’s office in that New York City borough. (The long-time, corrupt D.A. there, Charles Hynes, recently lost reelection.)

Go to nytimes.com and search “Scarcella.” The search function is at the top of the homepage.

There are numerous other examples in even the establishment media, plus the “alternative” media, of frame-ups in the U.S. No doubt the cases that get reported are the tiniest tip of an iceberg of state venality.