In this photo provided by ABC News, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff appears for an interview with George Stephanopolous on ABC's This Week, in Washington, Sunday, Aug. 13, 2006. (AP Photo/ABC News, Linda Spillers)
Posted on 08/13/2006 11:10:59 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - The nation's chief of homeland security said Sunday that the U.S. should consider reviewing its laws to allow for more electronic surveillance and detention of possible terror suspects, citing last week's foiled plot.
Michael Chertoff, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, stopped short of calling for immediate changes, noting there might be constitutional barriers to the type of wide police powers the British had in apprehending suspects in the plot to blow up airliners headed to the U.S.
But Chertoff made clear his belief that wider authority could thwart future attacks at a time when Congress is reviewing the proper scope of the Bush administration's executive powers for its warrantless eavesdropping program and military tribunals for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"What helped the British in this case is the ability to be nimble, to be fast, to be flexible, to operate based on fast-moving information," he said. "We have to make sure our legal system allows us to do that. It's not like the 20th century, where you had time to get warrants."
The Bush administration has pushed for greater executive authority in the war on terror, leading it to create a warrantless eavesdropping program, hold suspects who are deemed as "enemy combatants" for long periods and establish a military tribunal system for detainees that affords defendants fewer rights than traditional courts-martial.
Congress is now reviewing some of the programs after lawmakers questioned the legality of the eavesdropping program and the Supreme Court ruled in June that the tribunals defied international law and had not been authorized by Congress.
On Sunday, Chertoff said the U.S. is remaining vigilant for other attacks, citing concerns that terror groups may "think we are distracted" after last week's foiled plot. Attaining "maximum flexibility" in surveillance of transactions and communications will be critical in preventing future attacks, he said.
"We've done a lot in our legal system the last few years, to move in the direction of that kind of efficiency," Chertoff said. "But we ought to constantly review our legal rules to make sure they're helping us, not hindering us."
He said he expects the Bush administration to keep the U.S. on its highest threat alert for flights headed to the U.S. from the United Kingdom and at its second-highest level for all other flights.
"We haven't fully analyzed the evidence, and therefore, we're still concerned there may be some plotters who are out there," Chertoff said. "We also have to be concerned about other groups that may seize the opportunity to carry out attacks because they think we are distracted with this plot."
Still, Chertoff said he believed that the nation's airline screeners were well-positioned to catch future terrorists. He did not anticipate greater restrictions beyond the current ban on carrying liquids and gels onto airliners, such as barring all carry-on luggage.
"We don't want to inconvenience unnecessarily," he said. "I think we can do the job with our screening, screening training and our technology without banning all carry-on luggage."
Chertoff made the comments on "Fox News Sunday" and ABC's "This Week."
In this photo provided by ABC News, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff appears for an interview with George Stephanopolous on ABC's This Week, in Washington, Sunday, Aug. 13, 2006. (AP Photo/ABC News, Linda Spillers)
He did not anticipate greater restrictions beyond the current ban on carrying liquids and gels onto airliners, such as barring all carry-on luggage.
---
Full nudity will not be required in the near future when travelling on airliners,, Yet!
Psssst!
How about a little profiling.. Hint hint.
How many 85 year old grannies have hijacked and attempted to fly planes into targets..
The nation's chief of homeland security said Sunday that the U.S. should consider reviewing its laws to allow for more electronic surveillance and detention of possible terror suspects.....
***
He gets my vote for that one.
I think we need both. Recall that two of the plotters were Brits who converted to Islam.
And recall that a couple was going to bring their child on board and have the explosives in the baby bottle.
So we can't just profile those who look like muzzies - al Qaeda has been recruiting in Bosnia, where the Muslims are fair-skinnned.
You might as well call the ACLU anytime you pick up a Muslim. Profiling?? Big deal. Pick'em up. Deal with it later. They comp[lain whether innocent or guilty.
we need both
I will buy that.
to deny that a pattern has existed previousl;y and say we shouldn;t even consider it seems a bit nonsensical. the terrorists are not stupid, our responses should be more than just reactive for the most part.
It's been 5 years since the attack on 9/11.
Every mosque in America should be bugged by now.
But as soon as we start to rely on a pattern, the terrorists will try to change it, especially since the NY Times will be sure to tell them what our pattern analysis is.
That's OK, we can adjust accordingly, but for now, to deny what the pattern was and not follow it,, well, we are lucky that the egyptian youths have so far proven toothless.
some of the converts arrested here very recently have a look to them that is fairly recognzable as well, beards, goatees, etc.
the common theme, ROP influence
It occurred to me that only in America: Every aircraft bomber so far has been of Arab descent, Islamic, Pakistani descent. So we ban liquids and hand gel! Human rights trumping common sense? We wouldn’t want to discriminate!
Another way of seeing this: Instead of inconveniencing 1 million Arab descent visitors to America every year: we inconvenience everyone in the flying public to protect human rights.
My VNese wife says: only in America do you see a sign at an intersection that says “Blind Pedestrian.” We protect the one guy in a 10,000 person neighborhood. We single out the good to protect. But shame if we single out some that might not be good. Wouldn't be American!
The terrorists are laughing at us!
Child molesters we keep track of.
Terrorists? Come on in! We wouldn't want to violate your human rights or discriminate against you!
Just kidding!
What a great country....
The Libs would rather be blown up themselves than practice a little much needed profiling. It's sick to have 80 year old Grannies be given the once over while Middle Eastern men walk right through Security Check Points manned by semi literate Home Land Security "officers".
There are indeed constitutional barriers to the type of police powers the British are using. -- England is a becoming a socialistic nightmare that the USA does not need to copy.
It is for the children, doncha know. They'll inherit a third-rate version of the country they live in, but by golly they will have the illusion of safety.
"There are indeed constitutional barriers to the type of police powers the British are using. -- England is a becoming a socialistic nightmare that the USA does not need to copy."
That's certainly a concern, yes. It suprises me to so often see your constitution addressed in seemingly negative terms on FR in recent times.
Yeah and I suggest they bring it up for a vote on Oct 30th, 2006
Please give me three specific examples where your rights as a citizen have been in any way infringed by the Patriot Act. Specific source and specific event please, not the usual vague hyper emotional ranting about "third rate countries" and "police state powers etc".
The guys buying Cell Phones are reported as being home grown Americans. Might want to ponder that little datum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.