b.cognosco

Where leaping to conclusions is my primary form of forward motion.

Most Popular

Book Reviews

Recently

Saturday, May 3, 2003

Summary of Hawash Case

[...] 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]

Posted by:  Terry Frazier at 11:15 AM  | Permanent Link  | Trackback URL | 
Categories: Privacy, Homeland Security, Patriot Act

Friday, May 2, 2003

'24' is a Documentary

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]

Posted by:  Terry Frazier at 11:28 PM  | Permanent Link  | Trackback URL | 
Categories: Policy & Regulation, Security, Homeland Security

Thursday, April 17, 2003

Patriot Act Faces Opposition

[...] 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." [...]

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.

Posted by:  Terry Frazier at 7:54 PM  | Permanent Link  | Trackback URL | 
Categories: Homeland Security, Patriot Act

Syndication

Contact

 

Presence

 

 
 ICQ

 

 

 

www.flickr.com More of GratefulZed's photos

This Page was last updated: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 22:06:57 GMT