That's an extreme claim I'm making, but then these are extreme times. People are right to fear Donald Trump as President. My only question is where were those people as President Obama took away our protections under the Constitution, one by one? When he declared war on American citizens at home and abroad? When he absolved Wall Street criminals of any major consequences for their crimes while actively subverting the first amendment and approving the use of excessive force by law enforcement against peaceful protestors during the Occupy Wall Street movement, at the behest of the Big Banks?

The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, in a groundbreaking scoop that should once more shame major US media outlets (why are nonprofits now some of the only entities in America left breaking major civil liberties news?), filed this request. The document – reproduced here in an easily searchable format – shows a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector activity so completely merged into one another that the monstrous whole is, in fact, one entity: in some cases, bearing a single name, the Domestic Security Alliance Council. And it reveals this merged entity to have one centrally planned, locally executed mission. The documents, in short, show the cops and DHS working for and with banks to target, arrest, and politically disable peaceful American citizens.

Now we are watching the same pattern of government violence being used to suppress the first and fourth amendment rights of the indigenous peoples of North Dakota and their allies, who have been told they must remove themselves from lands granted to them under treaty with the United States, or be evicted by the Federal Government.

And while the US Army Corps of Engineers has backed down from its original threat to forcibly remove the Lakota and Dakota water protectors and the thousands of their supporters from camps where they are protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline, they have issued a warning that all access to those camps will be closed to the public on December 5th and that anyone who remains at the camps does so "at their own risk," in effect assisting the State of North Dakota in creating a state of siege on to starve out the water protectors and their allies by denying them supplies.

North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple on Monday ordered thousands of Native American and environmental activists to leave the federal property on which they’ve been protesting construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline for months. The evacuation order came days after the federal government set a Dec. 5 deadline for the protesters to clear out, but neither state nor federal officials had said how, exactly, they planned to get everyone to comply. It appears we now have the answer: by making them too cold and hungry to stay put. [...] The supply blockade is theoretically a more peaceful way to get protesters to depart as winter approaches, but it remains an open question how authorities would respond if anyone tries to deliver supplies against government orders. While the order went into effect immediately, as of Tuesday morning no cars or trucks carrying supplies had yet been turned back, according to the North Dakota Department of Emergency Services.

And the efforts of the government to prevent journalists from covering these protests has not only led to the arrest and assault of US reporters ...

In North Dakota, at least seven journalists in total have been arrested while covering the clashes, according to a count by the Bismarck Tribune. Others have been stung by tear gas, pepper spray, or rubber bullets.

... has now been extended to the foreign journalists. Ed Ou, a Canadian photojournalist was recently stopped at the border and subjected to hours of interrogation, harassment and violation of his right to enter the country to cover to cover the DAPL protests at Standing Rock.

Ed Ou is a renowned photographer and TED senior fellow who has traveled to the United States many times to do work for The New York Times, Time magazine, and other media outlets. Last month, Ed was traveling from Canada to the U.S. to report on the protests against the Dakota Access pipeline in Standing Rock, North Dakota, when he was taken aside for additional inspection. Although Ed clearly identified himself as a journalist on his way to Standing Rock, the CBP officers detained him for more than six hours and subjected him to multiple rounds of intrusive interrogation. They questioned him at length about his work as a journalist, his prior professional travel in the Middle East, and dissidents or “extremists” he had encountered or interviewed as a journalist. They photocopied his personal papers, including pages from his handwritten personal diary. They also asked Ed to unlock the three mobile phones he uses to communicate in different locations worldwide. Ed told them he couldn’t agree to do that because of his ethical obligation as a journalist to protect his confidential sources. The officers took the phones, and when they returned them several hours later, the tamper tape covering the phones’ SIM cards was altered or missing, suggesting that the officers had removed and possibly copied the cards. After all that, the officers denied Ed admission to the country without giving him a valid reason. One of the officers said he couldn’t provide any details. Another officer said that Ed’s refusal to grant access to his mobile phones “did not help.” Ed’s treatment was unjustified and unlawful. Although CBP has the authority to stop and search travelers at the border for the purpose of identifying people who are inadmissible or engaged in criminal activity, the officers exceeded that authority. They had no legitimate cause to detain Ed for six hours, interrogate him about his professional activities, copy his diary, or search his phones. That abusive and harassing conduct is all the more troubling given that the officers apparently conditioned Ed’s admission to the U.S. on his willingness to assist them in searching his phones.

In effect, the Federal government is aiding and abetting crimes by the local and state authorities to use violence against both demonstrators and reporters exercising their constitutional rights, while also doing its best to censor any reporting of the actual situation. Much like the protests during the Occupy movement, the Water Protectors are facing the heavy hand of an authoritarian regime to silence and intimidate dissent by the harshest means possible.

But perhaps you are not terribly concerned about these matters. After all, they are occurring far away from you, safe in your own home, free from any government intrusion. If you indeed think that you would be wrong. The Obama administration has taken it upon itself, prior to Trump's inauguration, to expand the authority of federal law enforcement officials to more easily obtain search warrants to hack into your computer and other electronic digital devices under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that will go into effect tomorrow.

Beginning December 1, 2016, federal judges will be allowed to issue search warrants for computers that are located anywhere. Not just in their circuit or jurisdiction. Nope. Anywhere in the country. Arguably, anywhere in the world. Foreign soil, no problem. Read the changes made to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure here. SCOTUS gave its stamp of approval on this amendment back in April 2016. If Congress doesn’t act fast, it’s going into effect in less than a month. [...] Of course, the Justice Department likes these changes. They worked to make them happen, arguing the changes are needed so the FBI can do its job. Read the DOJ’s position on this new Rule here. Their perspective makes it sound so warm and fuzzy: “The amendments do not change any of the traditional protections and procedures under the Fourth Amendment, such as the requirement that the government establish probable cause. Rather, the amendments would merely ensure that at least one court is available to consider whether a particular warrant application comports with the Fourth Amendment.”

"The amendments do not change anything to the traditional protections and procedures under the Fourth Amendment ..." except when they do, as Congressional leaders as diverse as Sen, Elisabeth Warren and Louie Gohmnert pointed out in their October 27, 2016 letter to the Department of Justice regarding concerns about these expanded police powers:

The group of lawmakers, led by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, among others, wants to know how DOJ will prevent police and prosecutors from “forum shopping” for friendly judges under the revised rule. They also ask how police will ensure they don’t accidentally damage innocent people’s computers or invade their privacy. “We are concerned about the full scope of the new authority that would be provided to the Department of Justice,” the lawmakers write. “We believe that Congress—and the American public—must better understand the department’s need for the proposed amendments, how the department intends to use its proposed new powers, and the potential consequences to our digital security before these rules go into effect.” The lawmakers ask how the Justice Department will ensure it doesn’t invade the privacy of innocent people whose computers are being used as botnets, whether it will remotely kick hackers out of those computers, and if and when it will let innocent people know their computers were searched. They also ask if law enforcement will remotely disable suspect computers and if it has ever done this in the past.

That's right, as of tomorrow the government can hack your computer, even if you have no involvement in any criminal activity. Indeed, these changes to Rule 41, brought to you by President Obama's Department of Justice, means that your computer could be hacked by the Feds even if you are the victim of a cybercrime instead of the perpetrator of one.

The government says the changes are minor but necessary to keep pace with cross-border internet crime and anonymizing software like Tor that hides the real IP address and location of computers. But civil liberties groups say the amendments let authorities conduct expansive hacking operations with little oversight, potentially threatening the security and privacy of innocent parties. They’re also alarmed that the changes suggest the government aims to hack the computers of crime victims—not just perpetrators. [...] Aside from the fact that letting the FBI search unlimited victim machines would violate the particularity rule—which requires search warrant applications identify the specific computers or devices to be searched—a wide swath of people would potentially be affected by such searches. Botnet victims, Amie Stepanovich, US policy manager at Access Now points out, can include journalists, dissidents, whistleblowers, military personnel, lawmakers, and corporate executives. “[T]he proposed change would subject any number of these users to state access to their personal data on the ruling of any district magistrate,” she wrote to the rules committee. The Center for Democracy and Technology also points in its comments to the rules committee that although the government used a botnet infection as an example of a case where it might seek to search the computers of victims, the actual amendment refers to any machine damaged in the commission of a crime as defined by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This would conceivably apply to any computer infected with a virus or other malware.

Yes, the same President who authorized the assassination of American citizens overseas by drone attacks at the drop of a hat. Who unilaterally determines whether or not our military will be deployed, covertly or not, in wars (he calls them conflicts, but let's call a war a war, shall we?) in so many countries and regions of the world I've lost count.

The same President who deported more undocumented immigrants, including small children, than George W. Bush or any other any other President in our history. The President who expanded the NSA's surveillance powers and prosecuted and jailed more whistle-blowers for more time, such as Chelsea Manning, than any other President. That Obama.

So, I'm a tad astonished at all the concern certain Americans (i.e., Democrats) are expressing about the dangers to our civil liberties posed by President Trump. We've lost so many civil liberties under President Obama that they never bothered to notice. Maybe it's because they liked the cut of Obama's jib more than the Donald's, which made losing our rights to such a charming man not seem all that bad. Especially when they weren't among the groups being targeted by his authoritarian regime.

What do you think?