b.cognosco

Screwdriver, Matches, Vaseline, and a Note

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:35:00 GMT

All it takes to get a fighter jet escort these days is a small handful of normal, everyday items that anyone in America could be carrying in their pocket. Oh, and a note with the word al-Qaida somewhere on it.

Anyone who thinks we are actually more secure with these ninnies scrambling fighter jets every time someone looks at them wrong is nuts. The TSA buffoons are now confiscating nasal spray. Vicks Sinex Nasal Spray, for christ's sake!

I realize it's all part of the, "If we can't do something useful let's at least do something visible" mentality that permeates our security efforts, but it really is stupid and makes these people look like abject morons.

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- A London-to-Washington flight was diverted to Boston's Logan Airport after a distraught passenger pulled out potentially dangerous items, according to a media report on Wednesday. Fighter jets escorted the flight after the woman produced a screw driver, matches, Vaseline and a note referencing al-Qaida, the Associated Press reported, citing an airport spokesman. United Flight 923 landed safely, Logan spokesman Phil Orlandella said, the AP reported.

Legal Network Podcast on Patriot Act Renewal

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Fri, 18 Nov 2005 22:18:15 GMT

Coast-to-Coast is a series of general interest legal podcasts produced by the LegalTalkNetwork and hosted by Robert Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams. These two bill themselves as the "top legal bloggers" and I find that bit of hubris a little offputting, but they do have some good shows.

Today's 'cast on The Patriot Act presents two views - a former FBI agent turned Congressional candidate and an ACLU representative. It's an interesting discussion and well worth listening. Both sides make valid points, and both sides are really worried about excesses already occurring.

The Steady Creep of Statist Control

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:36:34 GMT

The insidious creep of anti-terrorism laws to include all criminal activity - and the complementary definition creep which links every potential criminal activity to the support, promotion, or funding of terrorism - continues unabated amid abusive government behavior and growing use of secret National Security Letters that prevent recipients, under penalty of jail, from ever disclosing that they've been served. From a Washington Post investigative report:

Senior FBI officials acknowledged in interviews that the proliferation of national security letters results primarily from the bureau's new authority to collect intimate facts about people who are not suspected of any wrongdoing. Criticized for failure to detect the Sept. 11 plot, the bureau now casts a much wider net, using national security letters to generate leads as well as to pursue them. Casual or unwitting contact with a suspect -- a single telephone call, for example -- may attract the attention of investigators and subject a person to scrutiny about which he never learns.

The PATRIOT ACT Renewal bill - our first chance to undo many of the wrongs pushed through by the Bush Administration's John Ashcroft - is being gutted. It appears that rather than striking the most onerous parts of the PATRIOT Act, the bill is actually making them worse. EFF has all the requisite information.

Historically, what countries have embraced such laws - subjecting millions of citizens to secret surveillance, making it a crime to disclose the surveillance, and hiding the reality of the laws from the public? If you answer this question honestly you'll be hard-pressed to find a democracy on your list.

Summary of Hawash Case

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Sat, 03 May 2003 16:15:10 GMT

The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) has a good article on the Mike Hawash case. It's as good a summary of the case as I've seen, noting the difficulty the government faces in identifying and prosecuting domestic terrorists, as well as looking realistically at both the results and consequences of those efforts.

[...] As with the detention of Mr. Hawash, the case against the Portland Six also has drawn criticism from civil libertarians and others who feel that the government has been overly zealous. When the six were arrested in October, Attorney General John Ashcroft called the event "a defining day in America's war against terrorism," and said that "a suspected terrorist cell within our borders" had been "neutralized." Evidence that has emerged so far, however, appears to give little support to the contention that the group was a real terrorist cell. Despite months of intensive surveillance of the defendants by the FBI before their arrests, no allegation has been made that they were plotting any violent action after they returned home from China. Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra said that the department views sleeper cells to be any group that "conspires to support terrorists," regardless of whether it was planning any violent action here.

The criminal complaint and lengthy affidavit in the Hawash case offer little actual evidence of what Mr. Hawash's intentions were. The sole exception is a partial transcript of a conversation recorded by a confidential FBI source with one of the other defendants in the case, Jeffrey Leon Battle. In it, Mr. Battle said a "Palestinian" who was "married to a white woman ... left with us to go fight." [WSJ Online]

'24' is a Documentary

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Sat, 03 May 2003 04:28:51 GMT

I've quoted this post in its entirety from Privacy Digest, but you really ought to go read the full article in the New York Times.

According to the article, the Bush administration is now attempting to deploy the US Military and the CIA on American soil. The language authorizing this groundbreaking expansion of powers was attached, unannounced, to a broader intelligence bill now before Congress. The provision was apparently added by Senator Pat Roberts, R-Kansas and chairman of the intelligence committee, at the request of the Bush Administration.

I never, ever thought I would look back on the Clinton Administration with longing...

New York Times - free registration required Broad Domestic Role Asked for C.I.A. and the Pentagon.
The Bush administration and leading Senate Republicans sought today to give the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon far-reaching new powers to demand personal and financial records on people in the United States as part of foreign intelligence and terrorism operations, officials said.

The proposal, which was beaten back, would have given the C.I.A. and the military the authority to issue administrative subpoenas -- known as "national security letters" -- requiring Internet providers, credit card companies, libraries and a range of other organizations to produce materials like phone records, bank transactions and e-mail logs. That authority now rests largely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the subpoenas do not require court approval.

The surprise proposal was tucked into a broader intelligence authorization bill now pending before Congress. It set off fierce debate today in a closed-door meeting of the Senate Intelligence Committee, officials said. Democrats on the panel said they were stunned by the proposal because it appeared to expand significantly the role of the C.I.A. and the Pentagon in conducting domestic operations, despite a long history of tight restrictions, officials said.

After raising objections, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and other Democrats succeeded in getting the provision pulled from the authorization bill, at least temporarily, Congressional officials said.

In a closed vote, the committee passed the bill unanimously without the proposal. But Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is chairman of the intelligence committee, indicated to panel members that he wanted to hold further hearings on the idea, officials said.

There was some disagreement over exactly how the provision originated. Several Senate aides active in the debate said that Senator Roberts had included it in the authorization bill. But a senior Congressional official said the Bush administration had initiated the proposal and that Senator Roberts had not objected.

A C.I.A. official said the provision had come from the Bush administration, after the White House's Office of Management and Budget signed off on it.

The official said that Congressional leaders had asked the Bush administration whether there were any additional powers needed to help combat terrorism. The administration responded with the proposal to give the C.I.A. and military the power to use the national security letters, the official said. Another Congressional official said the move came at the urging of the C.I.A. The White House had no comment last night.

[ ... ]

They said that while the F.B.I. was subject to guidelines controlling what agents are allowed to do in the course of an investigation, the C.I.A. and the military appeared to have much freer reign. The F.B.I. also faces additional scrutiny if it tries to use such records in court, but officials said the proposal could give the C.I.A. and the military the power to gather such material without ever being subject to judicial oversight.

Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the proposal "dangerous and un-American."

Mr. Edgar said that "even in the most frigid periods of the Cold War, we never gave the C.I.A. such sweeping and secret policing powers over American citizens."

[ ... ]

New figures released today also showed that the Justice Department is relying with increasing frequency on secret warrants that allow the officials to go to a secret court to get approval for surveillance and bugging warrants in terrorism and espionage investigations without notifying the target.
[Privacy Digest]

Patriot Act Faces Opposition

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Fri, 18 Apr 2003 00:54:59 GMT

An interesting story being reported by AP via FoxNews on House Judiciary Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner's objections to the secrecy and tactics of the DoJ regarding the Patriot Act. Sensenbrenner has apparently sent a list of over 100 questions to the Bush Administration regarding the use and expansion of the Patriot Act but is still waiting for a response -- noting that virtually everything regarding the Act has been classified Top Secret and therefore off-limits to Congress.

[...] Sensenbrenner maintains that because the department refuses to be forthcoming, it is losing the public relation battle needed to extend the law beyond its October 2005 expiration, much less expand it. [...]

Toward the end of the article there is a quote from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, regarding his desire to see the Act's limited sunset provisions removed.

[...] "It seems to me to be ridiculous to take away the best law enforcement tool against terrorism before we get rid of terrorism," said Hatch, R-Utah. "This bill has helped us protect ourselves from terrorism both inside and outside the country. It's a tough bill, but it's constitutional and it works." [...]

As noted in my previous post, this quote indicates Hatch's view that any open review of the Act will lead to its death, since Americans are historically intolerant of abusive laws.

There is no way to know how this will shape up, but there is clearly a battle brewing over the extent and duration of the Patriot Act. The proper approach is for the Administration to be straightforward and forthcoming about exactly what they're doing, how they're doing it, and precisely what costs are being exacted in American liberty.

If this law been, as Hatch suggests, wildly successful in protecting us then the DoJ should be more than willing to show just how Patriot made possible what other laws could not, and how any mistakes have been corrected and compensated.

It is up to the people of America to choose the proper balance between Liberty and Security, not unelected bureaucrats in the DoJ. An open debate about the Act, its consequences and ramifications, and its innocent victims is the best way to make that choice. And Senator Hatch would be well advised to keep that in mind.