Liability protection needed in terror war
The recent legislation to authorize wiretapping of foreign calls is essential to track possible terrorist plots, but it does not go far enough.
According to The Washington Times, retroactive liability protection is still needed to protect cooperating companies from possible lawsuits.
Since most foreign calls are often routed through U.S. switches, the ability to intercept such calls is imperative. If the interception of a single call passing through U.S. networks would prevent a potential terrorist attack, that in itself is sufficient reason to update current FISA laws to maximize our surveillance capability.
I hope the president will square off with the Democrats when the Congress returns next month. Defending our national security is not an option, especially in time of war.
Brian Stuckey, Denver
You know common sense in this war does not set well with the left. If a company cooperats with the government then the should be punished ... the attitude of the left.
The screaming and crying about a supposedly infrindgment of personal rights is what the left will say. then they will cry the loudest if something should happen to them and thiers.
By haveing U.S. switchers provide possible intelligence that can and will prevent future attacks around the world makes no sense. But then again a lack of understanding the war we have been involved in since 1979 and the hostage crisis Carter failed to put an end to. Yes Carter the great peacemaker (surrenderer) failed to do anything about.
Granting civil rights to foriegn nationals and enemy combatants is absurd. But hey the left would like and are forceing us to take a back seat in our civil rights to grant privallages upon those who want to see the constitution destroyed.
Posted by on August 30, 2007 06:33 AMPosted by on August 30, 2007 06:33 AM:
"Granting civil rights to foreign nationals and enemy combatants is absurd."
...this is debatable and has nothing to do with the subject at hand...
Posted by Charles B on August 30, 2007 06:46 AMBrian "Steno" Stuckey wrote another cowardly plea to abandon the 4th amendment.
Whenever I read BS's obtuse diatribes urging complete subservience "or we're all gonna die!", I'm reminded of a fraternity pledge being paddled violently on his botttom and asking "thank you sir, may I have another"?
Posted by Charles B on August 30, 2007 06:52 AMGiving up our rights is not a way to keep our freedom! You want to abandon the 4th Amendment for national security?!!??! Well maybe ( heaven forbid!) someone should suggest that we abandon the 2nd Amendment since, afterall, terrorists in this country need guns. Is that what you Mr. Stuckley? Of course the fanatical right will say that is Un American. Truth is, taking away ANY of the Bill of Rights is UN AMERICAN! You can take back the 4th Amendment when you pull it from my cold dead hands.
Posted by Bill Rights on August 30, 2007 07:00 AMWhat rights have been removed from any of you? Porvide one person that you know that has had their 4th amendment rights violated by this act? YOU CAN'T
Maybe you are collaboraring with radical terrorist types? If not shut up and don't worry about as they don't give a crap about you and yours.
You guys are a couple of paranoid freaks - and all you other conspiracy theorists rejoice - you can still whine about this.
And guess what Charles B and Bill Rights, your Democratic buddies voted for extending this function - so they must also think we're all gonna die!
The first poster, anonymous at 6:33am, and the fifth poster, anonymous at 7:21 am, are probably from the same person. Check the grammer and spelling. This guy advocating the gestapo takeover of the United States doesn't even have the spelling or grammer skills to articulate his position. He probably doesn't care if the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended...he doesn't know what it is!
An ignorant person without the self-respect to name him/her/itself wrote:
"What rights have been removed from any of you? Porvide (sic) one person that you know that has had their 4th amendment rights violated by this act? YOU CAN'T."
Wiretapping is done in secret, therefore, how could anyone know if they were being spied upon? That's the purpose of FISA. It allows an independent judge to insure our 4th amendment rights aren't being violated without having to remove the secrecy necessary to effectively operate such a program.
"Maybe you are collaboraring with radical terrorist types? If not shut up and don't worry about as they don't give a crap about you and yours."
Pre-FISA, Richard Nixon spied on journalists, anti-war activists, and ordinary Americans at will, and without probable cause of wrong-doing. So your "if you're not doing anything wrong, then you don't have to worry" bullsh*t doesn't wash.
"And guess what Charles B and Bill Rights, your Democratic buddies voted for extending this function - so they must also think we're all gonna die!"
I'm not a Democrat and you aren't really an American. Americans don't lie prostrate before Kings.
Posted by Charles B on August 30, 2007 08:23 AMcharles b.,It has everything to do about it.You just showed you are unable to comprehend facts.
Posted by Keith on August 30, 2007 08:23 AMKeith:
You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the ass.
Posted by Charles B on August 30, 2007 08:25 AMI will never understand why those on the Right are in such a hurry to give up their freedom and their guaranteed American rights, unless it is the fear and paranoia that the current adminitration is causing. It is the Right that is paranoid and driven by the fear of terrorists under every bed that allows them to yield the freedoms that millions of Americans have died for. Give up those rights and this country is no better of than the countries we attack
Posted by Bill Rights on August 30, 2007 08:26 AMYou'd think that the death yesterday of Richard Jewell the unfortunate guard from the Atlanta olympics who erroneously fell afoul of the FBI and had his reputation and life ruined for no good reason would induce caution in a reasonable person about the wisdom of the wingnuts old "if you've nothing to hide..." chestnut.Jewell would not be the only example of the pitfalls of that fallacy there would be Dr. Stephen Hatfill who became a "person of interest" during the useless anthrax mailer investigation and Brandon Mayfield the attorney from Oregon whose fingerprint the FBI positively identified from the scene of the Madrid train bombings.Let me extend that bit of wingnut "logic" into a different area. I live at least a thousand miles from the twin towers. I did not personally know anyone killed or injured that tragic day, I do not personally know anyone who personally knows anyone who was killed or injured in that obscenity- does this mean it was not my country which was attacked?The very basis for the reasoning of the founders was that human rights are universal and inalienable they said but the wingnuts would have everyone quiveringly throw those principles away upon the flimsiest of pretexts.Wingnuts I'm sorry your country is so fragile that it must diminish those principles upon which it was founded to ensure a little temporary safety. My democratic republic is not so fragile as yours.
Posted by patrick on August 30, 2007 08:45 AMcharles b.,read the 4 amendment,it says nothing about protecting foreign enemy combatments who are trying to kill Americans.Again you don't find out the facts,instead you listen to a lying liberal.You are such a tool.
Posted by Keith on August 30, 2007 09:23 AMAll liberels are traters and should be shipped to gitmo for retraining and rehabilitation. If they don't reform to the conservative government then they should be executed.
Posted by Keef on August 30, 2007 11:24 AMI have some questions for people like Mr. Stuckey.
In defense of the American way of life, how far to we go in changing that desirable way of life in an attempt to protect it? Aren’t we in fact forever modifying and eliminating the very freedoms and liberties that provide that envied life to us by instituting restrictions to those liberties? By restricting or eliminating our basic rights on the pretext of stopping an external enemy who believes that our freedoms and liberties aren’t “correct” because they aren’t allowed in their vision of the world, aren’t we in fact acceding to their goals of destroying, or at least drastically altering our lifestyle – in effect, acquiescing to their demands?
Where do we draw the line in the sand that proclaims we have forgone enough encroachment on our civil liberties in an effort to protect our life style based on those civil liberties? If you pay a thug extortionist money not to break your window one time, he’ll just come back again for more payoff to once more “guarantee protection” – until the next time he decides he needs more appeasement. If you keep restricting the civil liberties guaranteed in our Bill of Rights for protection against real or perceived outside terrorism, the terrorists are just going to rattle their sabers more violently as they are obtaining their desired effect and want more – and we’ll concede to their demands by restricting more civil liberties.
But, you cry plaintively, we are at war; a war for our very survival. We are at war with terror? Terror is a concept, and idea. How can we be at war with an idea, a concept? How do you defeat it? Whom do you kill? How do you win? Yet, this concept of being "at war with an idea" has lead to some of the most egregious abuses of governmental power any American has ever witnessed. The most far-reaching example is the reverse named "USA Patriot Act" (it should be entitled “The Anti-American Civilian Subjugation Act.”
No true patriot of this nation would propose, let alone sign such a foul Act of Congress. This "Act" is so blatantly anti-constitutional, anti-freedom and illegal that average Americans should have already been in the streets demanding its repeal along with the resignation, recall or impeachment of any elected office holder that either voted for or otherwise facilitated its passage into law.
Perhaps, Mr. Stuckey, you and other “knowledgeable conservatives, real Americans” are comfortable with the restrictions of civil rights implemented in the name of security. Perhaps you feel comfortable in your belief that those restrictions and exceptions will never be misused or abused by our own government (present or future; Republican or Democratic lead); and, therefore, deny that we have edged out onto the precipice of that proverbial slippery slope to the loss of more freedoms.
I’m not that comfortable. I’m a conservative leaning libertarian who stands staunchly behind the concept of Conservative Constitutional Interpretation. I don’t hold that it’s a living document that evolves to fit the ever changing societal needs or whims. It provides a parameter and guarantee of rights and responsibilities for all citizens in our ever evolving societal context so that they may enjoy the American way of life without government interference.
I’m not willing to sit back in quiet acquiescence as our government takes that way of life away from us in the name of security. The Patriot Act allows for our constitutional liberties to be overridden in the name of terrorist investigation without any judicial review or proof of application in most cases. I don’t want to see us continue down that slippery slope to the day that we have to have National ID cards to show at check points in order to move about in this country.
Do I think we are becoming a police state? No, not yet. But where we’re standing on the precipice of the slippery slope is where as a nation we have to realize the dangers inherent in not pulling back before sliding into one.
"...are comfortable with the restrictions of civil rights implemented in the name of security."
darfor - What civil rights are you refering to that have been restricted?
Posted by KW on August 30, 2007 12:50 PMKeith chimed in like a dull monkey:
"charles b(sic).,read the 4 amendment,it says nothing about protecting foreign enemy combatments(sic)"
Keith, this thread has nothing to do with enemy "combatments". Try to stay on the subject please..
Posted by Charles B on August 30, 2007 01:00 PMDefending our national security is not an option, especially in time of war.
Brian Stuckey, Denver
****************************************************
Would you be so kind as to point out when the Congress declared War?
Please correct me if i am mistaken, but isn't the constitution quite specific about who can declare war?
Posted by Grim Reefer on August 30, 2007 01:26 PMI feel sorry for this Bushbot
Posted by It's True on August 30, 2007 01:28 PMKW
"Modifications" in place can be seen in the following factual examples from the Patriot Act. All any duly authorized law enforcement agency has to do is invoke a claim of suspected terrorist activity to use these provisions. Eventually (no time limit established) actual terrorist related charges have to be filed or dropped. If dropped and the "suspect" can be charged under civilian criminal statutes all evidence gather under the umbrella of terrorist suspected acts is valid, and admissible in the civilian criminal proceedings.
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations. No warrant required.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation. Not even the "suspect" can be told his records are being investigated.
RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jail house conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation. Again, no warrant required.
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial. You can be held without attorney or appeal until the government decides to either prosecute or release you.
RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. Same as the right to a speedy and public trial.
Read the Bill of Rights, the entire Constitution; you won't find these exceptions denying these rights, nor the government's right to invoke them, even alluded to.
These rights have already been lost, or in the best light, modified. Whether individual Americans have been personally subjected to the resultant tyranny or not doesn't change the fact that they have the changes in effect pertaining to these Constitutional freedoms. This fact, alone, should be enough for any studious lover-of-liberty to be concerned.
And I didn't even address Executive and signing orders which have, among other things, made a provision for over riding the Posse Comitatus Act. Those are a subject for another discussion.
Again, KW, just because you or someone you know hasn't felt the effect of these provisions does not deny the existence nor potential consequences of them. Are you convinced that neither the present nor future government officials will never misuse or abuse these. No administration or legislature is going to ever voluntarily relinquish these powers.
I repeat that we are at the precipice of a slippery slope. Do we pull back or continue to walk the dangerous edge?
Posted by darfor on August 30, 2007 01:49 PMBrian,
Had your boy George W. Bush been doing his job on August 6, 2001, there would be a greater chance the Towers would be standing today.
The problem pre-9/11 wasn't surveillance. It was leadership. We had all the intelligence information we needed-- we just didn't use it. I would rather not give up my freedoms to incompetent leadership.
Posted by Dan on August 30, 2007 01:51 PMGrim Reefer:--
Bush declared the was under the War Powers Act. His declaration was in fact ratified by Congress when thy didn't counteract his declaration within the prescribed time frame. But, it was not a declared war against terrorism per se, but a war against Saddam Hussein's regime on the justification of world threat with WMDs
CA
Posted by on August 30, 2007 01:54 PMdarfor - I'm not comfortable with the feds having unreasonable power to conduct the constitutional violations you listed.
But given the nature of our system of government, I'm not accepting the belief that an innocent person, with absolutely zero ties to terrorism would be unduly burdened by these provisions anymore than current laws and law enforcement practices already allow.
The potential for future powers to abuse these modifications will always be a concern but as we test these new waters we can deal with any abuses on a case by case basis and add additional restrictions when necessary.
In the interest of national security, I want our intelligence departments to have the necessary tools to intercept any terrorist activity and avoid having another 9/11 (or worse) ever happen on our soil again.
Posted by KW on August 30, 2007 02:36 PMBrian:--
Can we now justifying monitoring all domestic calls to and from stores? You can't deny these are essentially terrorist acts; especially since they terrorize innocent civilians by threat of death:
NEWPORT, R.I. (Aug. 30) - Large grocery and discount stores across the country have been targeted by a caller who threatens to blow up shoppers and workers with a bomb if employees fail to wire money to an account overseas, authorities said.
Frightened workers have wired thousands of dollars - and in one case took off their clothes - to placate a caller who said he was watching them but may have been thousands of miles away. The FBI and police said Wednesday they are investigating similar bomb threats at more than 15 stores in at least 11 states - all in the past week.
"At this point, there's enough similarities that we think it's potentially one person or one group," FBI spokesman Rich Kolko said from Washington.
Posted by on August 30, 2007 02:39 PMKW
While still believing that we are treading dangerous waters, I can accept your position without ranting and raving my points of disagreement. It'll be interesting to see how we develop a system of watchdogs to monitor the watchdogs who monitor the watchdogs...
And as to "...not accepting the belief that an innocent person, with absolutely zero ties to terrorism..." could be effected by some of these provisions, there have been enough cases where attorneys have had to fight in court with writs of habeus corpus to meet with individuals picked up and held under dubious charges while police were attempting to gather evidence in non-terrorist crimes. Granted, they are still the exception rather than the rule, but where does it end? The potential for abuse is very great.
Posted by darfor on August 30, 2007 02:49 PM"We might have to hope that our Supreme Court helps us out a little. The Court has been better than the executive branch and a heck of a lot better than the Congress, because we've given the President everything he's asked for and the President has been begging for all this authority, so immediately we have to hope that the courts will save us on some of these things. But once again ultimately its only when the people wake up and say they don't like this... sometimes the people wake up to late. Right now we don't have concentration camps, but like you have pointed out, the authority has been given so that concentration camps can come without Habeas Corpus . I have heard the argument that there is nothing else left in the Bill of Rights. If they can lock you up, what good is freedom of speech or what good is a gun? That is now part of the books, part of the law."
Dr. Ron Paul on the Alex Jones radio show November 13, 2006
I like the redundant watchdog reference darfor. So true.
There will be exceptions and some will be burdened, the definition of "unduly" will no doubt be tested. But I see this as not so different than someone falsely suspected of criminal enterprise who has their assets seized. Asset forfeiture laws allow the authorities to keep these assets for a virtually unlimited amount of time without ever charging you with any crime.
Definitely unfair if your innocent, but there you have it.
But I do agree with you, how we keep an eye on how this power is used will be the key in not losing more of our civil rights.
And thanks for not rantin' n ravin' in your response!
Posted by KW on August 30, 2007 04:00 PMGrim Reefer:--
Bush declared the was under the War Powers Act. His declaration was in fact ratified by Congress when thy didn't counteract his declaration within the prescribed time frame. But, it was not a declared war against terrorism per se, but a war against Saddam Hussein's regime on the justification of world threat with WMDs
CA
****************************************
Does that make Congress's blatant deraliction of it's duty make the resolution constitutional? I would say not, but I'm no law scholar...I like the Ron Paul quote...Bush has pretty much been given every damn thing he's cried for...you know...i never liked Bush, wayyyyy before the 2000 election...but I was right there behind him after 9/11 and the invasion of afghanistan...but he's got no one to blame but himself for this divided nation and the collossal cluster fvck that is Iraq...he gave Bin Ladin everything he could hope for with our land war in Iraq...now they can train and attack our men and women over there (i still got bros over there from my navy days) and he is wating their talents...
so blame libs, or dems, but this whole debacle is on bush...and no he doesn't need more powers...with just a little changes, we could've fixed the snafu's that allowed 9-11...now we have an endless war in Asia (always a good place to be in fighting...not), a nation split in two, and jackasses yelling t'il their blue in the face about how anyone who sez this is Un-American and loves terrorists...anyone who knows half of anything about history can appreciate the irony of it all...
Posted by Grim Reefer on August 30, 2007 04:31 PM
Grim Reefer
When Congress didn't reverse the Bush war declaration they were by law ratifying the declaration. It was similar to a Governor not signing or vetoing a bill, but just allowing it to become law without comment. Congress allowed the declaration to become official without dissent. It was not technically dereliction of duty, just acceptance without comment of what Bush wanted.
And thank you for your excellent analysis of the current state of the union. I consider your statement to be a form of secular gospel in finding our "...nation split in two, and jackasses yelling t'il their blue in the face about how anyone who sez this is Un-American and loves terrorists...anyone who knows half of anything about history can appreciate the irony of it all..."
Our country was founded on dissent and diverse opinions; and continually adjusts and improves though the continuation of those precious options.
If you stifle dissent and shut down opposing opinions in this country, we might as well tun of the light because the party will be over.
As I keep saying, it isn't about either party. They are both the same and fight over a handful of token issues but continually speed toward a more and more powerful federal government, and strip rights from states, localities, and individuals. There is only 1 candidate who wants to turn back the tide... Anyhow, the new type of officer doesn't scare me half as much as the automated equipment mentioned at the bottom of the article, and it's "potential" abuses.
The Patriot
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/238871.html
‘Behavior detection officers’ are keeping a close eye on travelers
By KAITLIN DIRRIG
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON | Next time you go to the airport, more eyes may be following you than you notice.
Reading your body language. Studying the facial cues of the passenger in front of you. Scanning for signs of bad intentions, the watcher could be the attendant who hands you the tray for your laptop or the one standing behind the ticket checker. Or even curbside with the baggage attendants.
Called behavior detection officers, they are part of recent security upgrades, Transportation Security Administrator Kip Hawley told an aviation industry group in Washington last month, “a wonderful tool to be able to identify and do risk management prior to somebody coming into the airport or approaching the crowded checkpoint.”
The officers are working in more than a dozen airports already, said Paul Ekman, a former professor at the University of California-San Francisco who has advised Hawley’s agency.
Amy Kudwa, a Transportation Security Administration public affairs specialist, said the agency hopes to have 500 behavior detection officers in place by the end of 2008.
Kudwa described the effort, which began as a pilot program in 2006, as “very successful” at identifying suspicious airline passengers. Terrorism suspects have been apprehended, two independent sources said.
At the heart of the new screening system is a theory that when people try to conceal their emotions, they reveal their feelings in flashes that Ekman calls “micro-expressions.” Fear and disgust are the key ones, he said, because they are associated with deception.
Behavior detection officers work in pairs. Typically, one officer sizes up passengers openly while the other seems to be performing a routine security duty. A passenger who arouses suspicion, whether by micro-expressions, social interaction or body language, gets more serious scrutiny.
A behavior specialist may decide to move in to help the suspicious passenger recover belongings that have passed through the baggage X-ray. Or he may ask where the traveler is going. If more alarms go off, officers will “refer” the person to law enforcement officials for further questioning.
The strategy is based on a time-tested and successful Israeli model, but in the United States the scrutiny is much less invasive, Ekman said. American officers receive 56 hours of training.
The use of “micro-expressions” to identify hidden emotions began nearly 30 years ago when Ekman and colleague Maureen O’Sullivan began studying videotapes of people telling lies. When they slowed the videotapes, they noticed distinct facial movements and began to catalog them.
The Department of Homeland Security hopes to dramatically enhance such security practices.
Jay M. Cohen, undersecretary of homeland security for science and technology, said in May that he wants to automate passenger screening by using video cameras and computers to measure and analyze heart rate, respiration, body temperature and verbal responses, as well as facial micro-expressions.
Homeland Security is seeking proposals from scientists to develop such technology. The deadline for submissions is Aug. 31.
It faces hurdles, however.
Different cultures express themselves differently. Expressions and body language are easy to misread, and no one has cataloged them all. Ekman noted that each culture has its own specific body language, but that little has been done to study each individually.
Also, automation won’t be easy, especially for the multiple variables a computer needs to size up people.
Finally, the extensive data-gathering will raise civil-liberties concerns.
“If you discover that someone is at risk for heart disease, what happens to that information?” Ekman asked. “How can we be certain that it’s not sold to third parties?”
All of you who are so against the tracking of terrorist international phone calls should also be outraged at Gov. Ritters plan for a GPS tracking device on your vehicle so he can tax you per mile of travel.
Where is the ACLU on this one? Where are the bleeding heart liberals on this one?
Oh, I know, this is a Democratic Governors idea so it OK.
charles b.,are you smoking dope.,are you brain dead?You are not capable of consuming knowledge.I know alot of smarter dogs.
Posted by Keith on September 3, 2007 11:39 PMKeith,
I won't bother asking you the same question, as it's readily apparent that your brain is "dead".
Talking to dogs? Heh.
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 07:02 AM