|
See links and
related reading, below. America wrestles with
privacy vs. security
From
driver's licenses to domestic spying, recent debates test public values amid
terror war. By Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, Friday,
July 22, 2005 The recent attacks in London by home-grown terrorists have
intensified attention on homeland security in the US. And that in turn has
raised new questions about protecting civil liberties and privacy during a new
kind of war that knows no national borders. There's no doubt that Americans are concerned about
both. A poll this week finds that
86 percent of those surveyed believe it's likely that another major terrorist
attack will occur in this country, with nearly half saying such an attack is
"very likely." Americans clearly favor stronger measures to protect US
borders and facilities like chemical and nuclear plants, according to the
survey conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates. Most people also favor
renewing the USA Patriot Act, according to the poll. This controversial law,
passed just after the attacks of September 11, gives law enforcement agencies
more powers to identify and detain suspected terrorists. Many of its key
provisions are due to expire this year, and there's an effort in Congress to
extend those provisions or make them permanent. But there are also a cluster of legal and political threads
that - woven together - could act as a restraint on efforts to strengthen
domestic security at a time of increased terrorist threats. Among them: • The case of Brandon
Mayfield* in Portland, Ore. He's the young American lawyer, a
convert to Islam and the husband of an Egyptian woman, who was erroneously
linked to the 2004 Madrid bombings that killed 191 people. Although the federal
government officially apologized, Mr. Mayfield is suing to find out what
information federal agents had gathered on him. In a case in federal court now
underway, he contends that FBI wiretaps and secret searches of his home, not to
mention locking him up for two weeks - all conducted under the Patriot Act -
are unconstitutional. • Recent revelations that the FBI has been gathering
thousands of pages of intelligence on such organizations as the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) and the environmental group Greenpeace. Other groups
that have been part of peaceful protests find that they are being investigated
as well. "There is no need to open a counterterrorism file when people are
simply exercising their First Amendment rights," says Ann Beeson,
associate legal director of the ACLU. • Efforts to use state driver's licenses as a tool for
intelligence gathering on foreigners. At the annual meeting of the National
Governors Association recently, chairman Mike Huckabee
(R) of Arkansas, echoed other critics in warning that driver's
licenses could become de facto national identity cards. • The extension of US military activity into domestic
intelligence-gathering and law enforcement. This raises questions about the
legal restrictions on domestic military activity known as "posse comitatus," restrictions that
date back to 1878. The Pentagon justified this extension in a report last month
titled "Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support." Pentagon
officials wrote: "Our adversaries consider US territory an integral part of a
global theater of combat. We must therefore have a strategy that applies to the
domestic context the key principles that are driving the transformation of US
power projection and joint expeditionary warfare." What military leaders see as a new threat at home, others
see differently. "In the
absence of clear guidelines and effective oversight, the US military is
becoming increasingly involved in domestic operations, including surveillance
activities that blur the traditional distinction between foreign intelligence
and domestic security," warns the Federation
of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy. Meanwhile, the Senate Intelligence Committee last month
approved an expansion of FBI investigative powers enabling it to issue
"administrative subpoenas" for personal information without judicial
authorization. Senator Ron Wyden
(D- Oregon) warns that the move "raises the risk of real abuse." "Doing so would give the FBI the authority to demand
just about anything from just about anybody, with no independent check, simply
by claiming that it is relevant to a national security investigation,"
says Mr. Wyden. For now, the focus
is on reauthorization of the Patriot Act. A
bill in the House of Representatives, which was taken up on the floor Thursday,
would extend all provisions of the law that are set to expire in December. But
proposed amendments would limit the law, ending "roving wiretaps" and
adding judicial oversight to search and seizure provisions. On Tuesday, a coalition of organizations
- ranging from Americans for Tax Reform
on the right to the ACLU on the
left - urged caution in reauthorizing the act, noting that some sections now
violate civil liberties. Speaking in Baltimore Wednesday, President Bush said, "This is no time to let our guard
down, and no time to roll back good laws." "The Patriot Act is expected to expire, but the
terrorist threats will not expire," Mr. Bush said. "I expect, and the
American people expect, the United States Congress and the United States Senate
to renew the Patriot Act, without weakening our ability to fight terror, and
they need to get that bill to my desk soon." The President would like to see that happen without
amendments to the law, but that seems unlikely. Sen. Wyden, a member of the Select Committee on
Intelligence, describes the process of reauthorizing this controversial
legislation as a "high-wire act." "Success means striking a balance, an equilibrium,
between fiercely protecting our country from terrorism while still preserving
the privacy and civil liberties that make our democracy so precious," he
says. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0722/p03s01-uspo.html *The Brandon
Mayfield case will be worth watching because his lawyer is Gerry Spence, the
media-doting maverick legal beagle is leading this challenge to the Patriot Act’s
constitutionality. The government’s lawyers have stated that the Oregon judge does not have authority to rule
on the basis of that challenge. In the
meantime, the House of Representatives passed the renewal of the Patriot Act
yesterday. The Senate also passed a bill this week that will forbid foreign aid
to any country that refuses to extradite, which doesn’t quite explain why the
Irish gov’t signed a treaty with the US that will allow the CIA to interrogate
Irish citizens on Irish soil, seize them and/or their property in the global
war on terror. And, for the record, Pres. Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, John
Roberts, was part of the judicial ruling last Friday that approved the
Executive Branch being able to detain enemy combatants as it sees fit. - KwC US House votes to extend Patriot Act (hours
after second London bombings) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072100711.html?nav=rss_nation US Senate passes legislation barring aid to
countries refusing to extradite http://news.findlaw.com/ap/p/56/07-21-2005/a3f4001b473e6afc.html Treaty gives CIA
powers over Irish citizens: w/be
able to interrogate Irish citizens on Irish soil in total secrecy. “Although the Department of
Justice insists that the arrangement merely updates existing agreements, it
goes much further. The US may ask Irish authorities: Ø
To track down people in Ireland. Ø
Transfer prisoners in Irish custody to the US. Ø
Carry out searches and seize evidence on behalf of the US
Government. Ø
It also allows US authorities access to an Irish suspect's
confidential bank information. The Irish authorities must keep all these
activities secret if asked to do so by the US. The person who will request co-operation is US Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales, the man who, as White House counsel, instigated the notorious
'torture memo' to US President George W Bush which advised how far CIA agents
could go in torturing prisoners. The person to whom the request is sent is the
Minister for Justice. About 20,000
immigrants, who have not been charged with any crime, are currently in prison
in the US. In two recent US Supreme Court cases, the US Government argued that
US citizens could be imprisoned indefinitely without charge if the president
designated them as "enemy combatants". http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/web/ireland/Full_Story/did-sg46g7Ks0cvBEsg7OWirIStPSk.asp |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
