<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Civil Liberties</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/civil_liberties/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 01:58:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Secrets of the NYPD</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/08/why_is_ray_kellys_schedule_more_secret_than_president_obamas/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/08/why_is_ray_kellys_schedule_more_secret_than_president_obamas/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 16:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ray Kelly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NYPD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York City]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[village voice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Police]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Police Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of Information Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NYCLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stop-and-frisk]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13292754</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here's how a massive, taxpayer-funded public agency routinely ignores transparency laws]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The New York Police Department has come under fire for the potentially unconstitutional execution of its stop-and-frisk policy, and surveillance of Muslims. But if you think that the taxpayer-funded agency should be accountable to the public and forthcoming about what it's doing, the story gets worse: It regularly flouts transparency laws, in an effort to make the records of how it perform its duties and the crimes it responds to next to impossible for the average citizen to obtain.</p><p>The NYPD’s roughly 34,500 officers serve a population of 8.2 million people, but multiple interviews with reporters who cover the police department, as well as organizations dedicated to transparency, reveal a police department stunning in its disregard for the information requests of citizens, advocacy groups and news organizations.</p><p>The city's Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, who is running for mayor, recently released a <a href="http://pubadvocate.nyc.gov/foil/report" target="_blank">report</a> asserting that a third of all Freedom of Information records requests to the police department were ignored. The numbers are no surprise to journalists who cover the department, such as Leonard Levitt, a veteran cops reporter who now writes at <a href="http://nypdconfidential.com/" target="_blank">NYPD Confidential</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/08/why_is_ray_kellys_schedule_more_secret_than_president_obamas/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/08/why_is_ray_kellys_schedule_more_secret_than_president_obamas/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Americans to government: Hands off our civil liberties</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/02/americans_to_government_hands_off_our_civil_liberties/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/02/americans_to_government_hands_off_our_civil_liberties/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boston Bombings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Surveillance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[surveillance cameras]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boston Explosions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polls]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13287675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a pleasant surprise, voters are more concerned about retaining basic rights in wake of the Boston bombing]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I admit I was a little bit surprised, but pleasantly: A new Time/CNN/ORC poll shows that Americans are actually more concerned about protecting civil liberties in the wake of the Boston bombing, not less. It turns out voters are smarter than many of their leaders, particularly (but not exclusively) on the Republican side of the aisle. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who vilifies his local NYCLU by comparing it to the NRA, might want to take note.</p><p><a href="http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/01/poll-americans-more-concerned-about-civil-liberties-in-wake-of-boston-bombing/#ixzz2S4kizocR">Time has the details</a>, but the top line is:</p><blockquote><p>When given a choice, 61 percent of Americans say they are more concerned about the government enacting new anti-terrorism policies that restrict civil liberties, compared to 31 percent who say they are more concerned about the government failing to enact strong new anti-terrorism policies.</p></blockquote><p>Only 32 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. government can prevent all major attacks, down from an average of 40 percent in 2011 and 41 percent in 2006. And by contrast with polls taken in the wake of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing, when only 23 percent of voters polled showed reluctance to give up civil liberties to protect terrorism, 49 percent said they were not willing to give up such rights, as opposed to 40 percent who were.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/02/americans_to_government_hands_off_our_civil_liberties/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/02/americans_to_government_hands_off_our_civil_liberties/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rise of the conservative revolutionaries</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/01/rise_of_the_conservative_revolutionaries/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/01/rise_of_the_conservative_revolutionaries/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 15:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gun Control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[revolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voting Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Filibuster]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obamacare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13286669</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Almost half of Republicans think an armed revolution may be needed soon. What does it mean for guns and democracy?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There's plenty of proof of an authoritarian streak and animus toward democratic ideals in today's conservative movement. There was the movement's use of its judicial power to halt a vote recount and instead <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/06/yes-bush-v-gore-did-steal-the-election.html">install</a> a president who had lost the popular vote. There is the ongoing GOP effort to make it <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830">more difficult for people to cast a vote in an election</a>. There is the GOP's <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html">record use of the Senate filibuster</a> to kill legislation that the vast majority of the country supports. There is a GOP leader's declaration that what the American people want from their government simply <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2627805#.UYEaob8Ts18">"doesn't matter."</a></p><p>Up until today, you might have been able to write all that anti-democratic pathology off as one infecting only the Republican Party's politicians and institutional leadership, but not its rank-and-file voters. But then this morning Fairleigh Dickinson University released this gun control-related pollshowing that authoritarianism runs throughout the the entire party.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/01/rise_of_the_conservative_revolutionaries/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/01/rise_of_the_conservative_revolutionaries/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>280</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In Boston, our bloated surveillance state didn&#8217;t work</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/22/in_boston_our_bloated_surveillance_state_didnt_work/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/22/in_boston_our_bloated_surveillance_state_didnt_work/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boston Explosions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Surveillance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Big Brother]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13277976</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Beefed-up expenditures and laws failed to stop the Boston bombing, and did little to help capture the suspects]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The subtext of the official state view and media coverage coming out of Boston over the last week carried a crucial message to the American public: It was a vindication of the Counter-Terrorism Surveillance State and its massive expenditures and the associated erosion of American constitutional liberties.</p><p>To that end, the several days since the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-captured_n_3118187.html" target="_blank">bombing</a> of the Boston Marathon showcased a mesmerizing display of reality television mediated by the unquestioning officiousness of the fourth estate. On vivid display was “proof through performance,” a validation that the laws passed and massive expenditures incurred over the last decade were essential to the state’s “<a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/boston-bombing-lockdown-suspect-search-90364.html" target="_blank">protection of the public</a>.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/22/in_boston_our_bloated_surveillance_state_didnt_work/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/22/in_boston_our_bloated_surveillance_state_didnt_work/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>84</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Boston: Where things stand</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/21/boston_where_things_stand/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/21/boston_where_things_stand/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boston Explosions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dzhokhar Tsarnaev]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tamerlan Tsarnaev]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marathon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boston Red Sox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boston]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FBI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miranda Rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13277758</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No motive is known as interrogation and criminal charges await Dzhokhar Tsarnaev]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two days after a manhunt froze Boston, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, is in Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in “<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/21/boston-bomb-suspect">serious but stable</a>” condition awaiting interrogation by an elite counter-terrorism team and <a href="http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/21/17848814-charges-likely-sunday-for-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect?lite">criminal charges</a>. His older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, who had spoken to the FBI in 2011 was killed in a firefight after a police chase Friday night. </p><p>The brothers are ethnic Chechens who immigrated to America with their family and lived in the Boston area. Dzhokhar became an American citizen on September 11, 2012. Tamerlan’s efforts to become a citizen had not yet been successful. In 2012 he spent an extended period in Chechnya and Dagestan in Russia’s northern Caucus region, according to the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/us/boston-marathon-bombings.html?hp&_r=0">New York Times</a>.</p><p>The Boston Globe <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/2013/04/20/fbi-was-warned-years-ago-alleged-bomber-radical-shift/mprN4HgqqUcYoxlgrWPcOP/story.html">reported</a> on how Tamerlan came to the FBI’s attention:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/21/boston_where_things_stand/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/21/boston_where_things_stand/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lindsey Graham presents the worst response to Boston so far, elected official edition</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/19/lindsey_graham_presents_the_worst_response_to_boston_so_far_elected_official_edition/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/19/lindsey_graham_presents_the_worst_response_to_boston_so_far_elected_official_edition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 23:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lindsey Graham]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[boston marathon bombings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dzhokhar Tsarnaev]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13276997</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Senator also wishes we had some drones on the case]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-The Worst) has some helpful suggestions for the Obama administration and, I guess, the thousands of FBI agents and police officers currently searching for Boston Marathon bomb suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, in case any of them follow him on Twitter: Don't read Tsarnaev his rights, if you catch him alive, because terror:</p><p>[embedtweet id="325348075197583361"]<br /> [embedtweet id="325346404644048897"]<br /> [embedtweet id="325347557389774848"]</p><p>Graham wasn't done, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/04/19/sen-lindsey-graham-boston-bombing-is-exhibit-a-of-why-the-homeland-is-the-battlefield/">telling the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin (sigh):</a> "This is Exhibit A of why the homeland is the battlefield.”</p><p>That is just the worst, dumbest, least helpful, wonderful (and totally predictable) response to a terror attack, Senator Graham. Making America "the battlefield" is <em>sort of the point of terrorism</em> (well, the point is also "killing Americans" and often "somehow causing America's foreign policy to change in a way that is actually the opposite of the way that terrorism always makes America's foreign policy change" but most terrorists aren't great strategic thinkers, that is why they fucking bomb civilians).</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/19/lindsey_graham_presents_the_worst_response_to_boston_so_far_elected_official_edition/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/19/lindsey_graham_presents_the_worst_response_to_boston_so_far_elected_official_edition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>183</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DHS had policy of daily spying on activists</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/dhs_had_policy_of_daily_spying_on_activists/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/dhs_had_policy_of_daily_spying_on_activists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 15:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dhs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partnership for Civil Justice Fund]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FBI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Activism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Protest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spying]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13259885</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[New FOIA-ed documents reveal that a division of the agency produced daily briefings on Occupy protests]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Department of Homeland Security documents obtained recently by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund reveal that the agency, founded for combating terrorism, has a policy of spying daily on peaceful activists and protesters in the United States.</p><p>The heavily <a href="http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/new-documents-reveal-dhs.html#documents">redacted 252 pages of documents</a> add to findings already made by the PCJF about <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/02/the_irony_of_joint_fbi_private_sector_ows_policing/">coordination and intelligence monitoring</a> by the DHS, the FBI, the NYPD and other law enforcement agencies and the private sector of Occupy and related protests.</p><p>"Taken together, the two sets of documents paint a disturbing picture of federal law enforcement agencies using their vast power in a systematic effort to surveil and disrupt peaceful demonstrations. The federal agencies’ actions were not because Occupy represented a 'terrorist threat' or a 'criminal threat' but rather because it posed a significant grassroots political challenge to the status quo,” stated Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the PCJF.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/dhs_had_policy_of_daily_spying_on_activists/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/dhs_had_policy_of_daily_spying_on_activists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Attorneys launch Whistleblower Defense League</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/attorneys_launch_whistleblower_defense_league/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/attorneys_launch_whistleblower_defense_league/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 15:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Whistleblowers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Activism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hacking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13258779</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well-known hacker, activist defenders join to form a legal "firewall" for whistleblowers]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hacktivist <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/21/jeremy_hammond_speaks_out_from_solitary_confinement/">Jeremy Hammond</a> currently awaits trial in a federal prison cell and could receive life in prison; Bradley Manning saw his 1,000 day pretrial military detention last month; <a href="https://www.salon.com/2013/03/18/hacker_weev_gets_3_years_for_accessing_att_data/">Andrew “Weev” Auernheimer </a>has been handed a 41-month prison stint after his found and exploited a security flaw in an AT&amp;T server; Aaron Swartz's federal trial over the downloading of millions of online academic articles would have begun this week, had the young technologist not hanged himself earlier this year. The legal challenges facing whistleblowers and free-data activists, crystallized in these high profile examples to name just a few, have risen to the fore in recent months.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/attorneys_launch_whistleblower_defense_league/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/attorneys_launch_whistleblower_defense_league/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rand Paul&#8217;s mixed civil liberties track record</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/07/rand_pauls_mixed_civil_liberties_track_record/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/07/rand_pauls_mixed_civil_liberties_track_record/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rand Paul]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Filibuster]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guantanamo Bay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[9/11]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13221833</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[His filibuster focused on drone strikes against U.S. citizens, but what other positions has Paul taken?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has been having a good day, getting heaps of praise for drawing attention to the Obama administration's drone policy with an almost 13-hour filibuster of John Brennan's nomination to the CIA. Republicans and conservatives (several of whom have been <a href="https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/309456242164785152" target="_blank">no friends</a> to civil liberties) <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/07/republicans_rally_around_rand/" target="_blank">rallied</a> around him during the filibuster. Michelle Malkin <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/michelle-malkin-did-rand-pauls-filibuster-refurbish-the-republican-partys-tarnished-brand/" target="_blank">said</a> he might have helped the Republican Party's "tarnished brand." Even liberals like Van Jones, <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/vp/51075704#51075704" target="_blank">Rachel Maddow</a> and <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stewart-applauds-rand-paul-for-using-filibuster-over-drones-issue-worth-kicking-up-a-fuss-for/" target="_blank">Jon Stewart</a> praised him, with the latter two devoting full show segments to it.</p><p>But his record on other civil rights and civil liberties issues has been mixed:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/07/rand_pauls_mixed_civil_liberties_track_record/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/07/rand_pauls_mixed_civil_liberties_track_record/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SCOTUS rejects challenge to surveillance law</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/26/scotus_rejects_challenge_to_surveillance_law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/26/scotus_rejects_challenge_to_surveillance_law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warrantless Wiretapping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clapper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fisa amendments act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amnesty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13212767</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Civil liberties advocates condemn the Supreme Court's rejection of claims by activists, journalists, attorneys]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court has rejected a legal challenge from civil liberties advocates and journalists over the government's sprawling surveillance dragnet codified in 2008 legislation. The case, Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, challenged the 2008 federal law that authorized the government's interception of international communications involving Americans.</p><p>The justices voted 5-4 that the plaintiffs, including journalist Chris Hedges and Amnesty International, lacked standing in the case -- arguing, essentially, that concerns about a legal framework that might allow for future surveillance were insufficient evidence of harm caused by the law. “They cannot manufacture standing by incurring costs in anticipation of non-imminent harms," wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the majority decision.</p><p>The plaintiffs had sought a First Amendment challenge against the FISA Amendments Act --  a law that retroactively legalized the government's warrantless wiretapping program, which had <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/fisa-reauthorization_n_2341951.html" target="_hplink">"begun in secret and without congressional authorization</a> under the Bush administration," as <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/clapper-v-amnesty-international-warrantless-wiretapping-supreme-court_n_2765931.html">HuffPo's Matt Sledge</a> noted.  The law permitted the National Security Agency and other agencies to read emails and listen in to calls without a warrant when they are targeting foreign nationals.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/26/scotus_rejects_challenge_to_surveillance_law/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/26/scotus_rejects_challenge_to_surveillance_law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are liberals being hypocrites about Obama&#8217;s wars?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/are_liberals_really_being_hypocrites_about_obamas_wars/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/are_liberals_really_being_hypocrites_about_obamas_wars/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13200473</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Maybe liberals don't criticize Obama's foreign policy because American liberalism has always been pro-intervention]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Atlantic's resident thoughtful apostate conservative Conor Friedersdorf <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/progressives-are-internalizing-hawkish-war-on-terror-claims/273102/">published a piece this morning</a> arguing that progressives who furiously fought against Bush's "war on terror" have internalized many of its central tenets, now that it's being waged by Barack Obama. Friedersdorf says liberals made various critiques of Bush's foreign misadventures -- that they caused "blowback," that they were an abuse of executive power, and that they implied a forever war without any possibility of an ending -- that they are now largely not making against Obama, even though all those arguments still apply.</p><p>The reason for this, according to Friedersdorf, is that everyone hated Bush and knew he was incompetent, but people like Obama because he's clearly smart and conscientious, which causes people to defend actions they would have criticized under his predecessor:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/are_liberals_really_being_hypocrites_about_obamas_wars/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/are_liberals_really_being_hypocrites_about_obamas_wars/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>107</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Would Lincoln use drones?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/11/would_lincoln_use_drones/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/11/would_lincoln_use_drones/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abraham Lincoln]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13197827</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lincoln probably would have loved drones, but may have held off using them to kill for strategic reasons]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With the nation deep in the throes of Hollywood-induced Lincoln-philia, Washington Examiner editor Mark Tapscott asked Friday what the revered president might do about one of the thorniest political questions of 2013: “<a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/mark-tapscott-would-lincoln-have-droned-robert-e.-lee/article/2520893">Would Lincoln have droned Robert E. Lee?</a>” His answer -- an imagined conversation between Lincoln and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton that has the 16th president remarking “OMG” and “sheesh” -- is dumb, but the question and answer are more interesting that Tapscott gives them credit.</p><p>Lincoln is rightly held up as the paragon of the American presidency, so it makes sense that people would ask how he would handle a tough moral question like the use of unmanned killer drones, which has compelling arguments both for and against. WWLD? We consulted experts and the historical record to find out. The answer may surprise you.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/11/would_lincoln_use_drones/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/11/would_lincoln_use_drones/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When liberals ignore injustice</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/when_liberals_ignore_injustice/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/when_liberals_ignore_injustice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 23:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Targeted killing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Attacks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anwar al-Awlaki]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13191874</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why isn't there more outrage about the president's unilateral targeted assassination program on the left?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/victory_lab/2012/06/racicalization_michael_tesler_s_theory_that_all_political_positions_come_down_to_racial_bias_.html">Last year Brown University’s Michael Tesler released a fascinating study</a> showing that Americans inclined to racially blinkered views wound up opposing policies they would otherwise support, once they learned those policies were endorsed by President Obama. Their prejudice extended to the breed of the president’s dog, Bo: They were much more likely to say they liked Portuguese water dogs when told Ted Kennedy owned one than when they learned Obama did.</p><p>But Tesler found that the Obama effect worked the opposite way, too: African-Americans and white liberals who supported Obama became more likely to support policies once they learned the president did.</p><p>More than once I’ve worried that might carry over to bad policies that Obama has flirted with embracing, that liberals have traditionally opposed: raising the age for Medicare and Social Security or cutting those programs’ benefits. Or hawkish national security policies that liberals shrieked about when carried out by President Bush, from rendition to warrantless spying. Or even worse, policies that Bush stopped short of, like targeted assassination of U.S. citizens loyal to al-Qaida (or “affiliates”) who were (broadly) deemed (likely) to threaten the U.S. with (possible) violence (some day).</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/when_liberals_ignore_injustice/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/when_liberals_ignore_injustice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>302</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No-fly lists: A new tactic of exile?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/no_fly_lists_a_new_tactic_of_exile/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/no_fly_lists_a_new_tactic_of_exile/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no-fly lists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Homeland Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13191722</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The counterterror list of individuals unable to fly to or from the U.S. is growing, but due process sorely lacks]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Writing on AlJazeera.com Tuesday, Toronto-based writer and analyst Murtaza Hussain <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/02/201324165957645514.html">argues</a> that under the Obama administration no-fly lists have become a tool for the authorities to de facto exile individuals from the United States.</p><p>The No-Fly List compiles more than 21,000 names (over 500 of American citizens) suspected of involvement with terrorist activity. If your name is on the list you can't fly into or out of the United States. As Hussain notes, echoing concerns expressed this week by the ACLU, "over the past decade there have been countless documented cases of individuals who have suddenly found themselves permanently stranded abroad after being banned from the United States despite holding legal residency and/or citizenship in the country." He writes:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/no_fly_lists_a_new_tactic_of_exile/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/no_fly_lists_a_new_tactic_of_exile/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Virginia city first in U.S. with anti-drone resolution</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/virginia_city_first_in_u_s_with_anti_drone_resolution/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/virginia_city_first_in_u_s_with_anti_drone_resolution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 19:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Domestic drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[charlottesville]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Surveillance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13191576</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The largely symbolic legislation aims to inspire further safeguarding of privacy as domestic drones proliferate]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Charlottesville, Va., has become the first city to <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/05/city-in-virginia-becomes-first-to-pass-anti-drone-legislation-">formally pass</a> an anti-drone resolution. Activist David Swanson brought the resolution, drafted largely by civil liberties organization the Rutherford Institute, before the city council, who approved the measure 3-2 this week. The legislation asserts the following:</p><blockquote><p>[T]he City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, endorses the proposal for a two year moratorium on drones in the state of Virginia; and calls on the United States Congress and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to adopt legislation prohibiting information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into a Federal or State court, and precluding the domestic use of drones equipped with anti-personnel devices, meaning any projectile, chemical, electrical, directed-energy (visible or invisible), or other device designed to harm, incapacitate, or otherwise negatively impact a human being; and pledges to abstain from similar uses with city-owned, leased, or borrowed drones.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/virginia_city_first_in_u_s_with_anti_drone_resolution/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/virginia_city_first_in_u_s_with_anti_drone_resolution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Human Rights Watch decries U.S. prison system</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/31/human_rights_watch_decries_u_s_prison_system/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/31/human_rights_watch_decries_u_s_prison_system/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prison Industrial Complex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human Rights Watch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Counterterrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NDAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hrw]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13186941</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The NGO's World Report criticizes mass incarceration and U.S. record of torture and extrajudicial killing]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Human Rights Watch Thursday published its <a href="http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013">annual World Report, </a>in which it lays out a pointed critique of the U.S. prison system. The enormous prison population  -- the largest in the world at 1.6million -- "partly reflects harsh sentencing practices contrary to international law," notes the report.</p><p>The 2013 World Report, a 665-page tome which assesses human rights progress in the past year in 90 countries, highlights particular issues undergirding the U.S.'s blighted carceral system. It notes that "practices contrary to human rights principles, such as the death penalty, juvenile life-without-parole sentences, and solitary confinement are common and often marked by racial disparities." Via HRW:</p><blockquote><p>Research in 2012 found that the massive over-incarceration includes a growing number of elderly people whom prisons are ill-equipped to handle, and an estimated 93,000 youth under age 18 in adult jails and another 2,200 in adult prisons. Hundreds of children are subjected to solitary confinement. Racial and ethnic minorities remain disproportionately represented in the prison population.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/31/human_rights_watch_decries_u_s_prison_system/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/31/human_rights_watch_decries_u_s_prison_system/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The campaign against John Brennan</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/10/the_campaign_against_john_brennan/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/10/the_campaign_against_john_brennan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Brennan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Torture]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13166892</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Liberal activists are finally mobilizing against the “assassination czar”]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It may have been slow in the making, but the campaign against John Brennan is starting in earnest today with two progressive groups coming out against President Obama’s choice to head the Central Intelligence Agency.</p><p>Advocates are concerned about Brennan's <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/the_actually_controversial_nominee/">distressing record on civil liberties</a> from his long career in intelligence under both the Bush and Obama administrations. <a href="http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/01/muslim-group-concerned-about-brennan-153679.html">CAIR</a>, the country’s most prominent Muslim civil society group, and the <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/the_actually_controversial_nominee/">ACLU</a>, the civil liberties organization, have both already expressed concern about Brennan’s nomination.</p><p>But today, two liberal groups are turning up the pressure by mobilizing their members against the nominee. Calling Brennan the “assassination czar” of the Obama administration, <a href="http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/assassination_czar/">CREDO</a>, the increasingly active grassroots mobilizing group fueled by its cell phone business, and <a href="http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/brennan_dp/">Demand Progress</a>, a million-plus member civil rights organization, will begin mobilizing their members later this morning to urge the Senate to reject Brennan's confirmation as CIA director.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/10/the_campaign_against_john_brennan/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/10/the_campaign_against_john_brennan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>John Brennan: The nominee who should be controversial</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/the_actually_controversial_nominee/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/the_actually_controversial_nominee/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 18:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Brennan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Torture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wire-tapping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chuck Hagel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CIA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13163724</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Chuck Hagel's getting flak but we should debate the CIA nominee, a veteran of Bush-era torture policies]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you want to see what’s wrong with our foreign policy debate, look no further than the two appointments President Obama <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/07/us-obama-nominations-idUSBRE9060CP20130107">will announce</a> later today. Specifically, look at the patently absurd controversy surrounding former Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel’s pending appointment as secretary of defense, and the complete lack of controversy surrounding John Brennan’s looming ascension to the head of the Central Intelligence Agency.</p><p>Hagel has come under withering criticism for allegedly being hostile to Israel or even an “<a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mr-hagel-and-jews_693993.html">anti-Semite</a>.” Much has already been written about this, but the evidence to support the attacks is <a href="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2012/12/20/the-absurd-chuck-hagel-anti-semitism-accusations">exceedingly thin</a> (he once used the phrase “Jewish Lobby” and has since apologized for it) and the charges are little more than <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/29/why_are_neocons_so_down_on_chuck_hagel/">a partisan smear job</a>. But the fact that Republican senators <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/the_fight_obama_is_picking/">have a real (if small) shot</a> at killing the nomination of a fellow Republican senator over Israel shows how difficult it is to have any kind of serious discussion about Middle East policy. Hawkish Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham yesterday <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/07/us-obama-nominations-idUSBRE9060CP20130107">called</a> Hagel “out of the mainstream” and “an in-your-face nomination of the president to all of us who are supportive of Israel.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/the_actually_controversial_nominee/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/the_actually_controversial_nominee/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama signs NDAA again, disappoints on Gitmo and civil liberties again</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/obama_signs_ndaa_again/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/obama_signs_ndaa_again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 20:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NDAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indefinite Detention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guantanamo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13161078</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For the second year in a row, the president signs into law a bill he purports to have major problems with]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This time last year, President Obama said that he had "serious reservations" about certain provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. But he signed it anyway. This year, the same provisions over which he was so reserved remain in the 2013 version of the bill, along with a number of brand-new problematic amendments. The president threatened a veto on the new bill's prohibitions on closing Guantánamo Bay detention center. But he didn't veto; he signed the bill again on Thursday.</p><p>Once again, Obama expressed his misgivings in a <a href="http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2013ndaa.stm_.rel_.pdf.pdf">signing statement</a>, but stressed that "the need to renew critical defense authorities and funding was too great" to reject the bill, which approved a $633 billion armed forces budget for the 2013 fiscal year. Also approved in the NDAA are controversial provisions that will likely make closing Guantánamo Bay detention center impossible in Obama's presidency, and provisions elsewhere in the act that allow for the indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/obama_signs_ndaa_again/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/obama_signs_ndaa_again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>26</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Government can keep legal justification for drone strikes secret</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/02/government_can_keep_legal_justification_for_drone_strikes_secret/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/02/government_can_keep_legal_justification_for_drone_strikes_secret/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 22:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anwar al-Awlaki]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kill Lists]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13160165</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal judge rejected the New York Times' bid to have the Obama administration provide legal justification ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Obama administration does not, under law, have to provide legal justification for its targeting killings to the public, a federal judge ruled today. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan said the government did not violate the law by refusing the New York Times' FOIA requests for such information.</p><p>As <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/02/us-newyorktimes-drone-lawsuit-idUSBRE9010OV20130102">Reuters noted</a>, however, "McMahon appeared reluctant to rule as she did, noting in her decision that disclosure could help the public understand the 'vast and seemingly ever-growing exercise in which we have been engaged for well over a decade, at great cost in lives, treasure, and (at least in the minds of some) personal liberty.'"</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/02/government_can_keep_legal_justification_for_drone_strikes_secret/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/02/government_can_keep_legal_justification_for_drone_strikes_secret/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
