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."
have you seen the mug shots?
Profiling makes sense, just as if it were WWII and we were looking for Germans and Japanese. Young Muslim males are the most likely terrorists, as shown by the facts over several years. This does not mean we can ignore all others.
The Federal government's main role, in my opinion, is national security. So agents should have maximum authority to watch, listen to, track suspected terrorists. I'd rather have a phone call of mine listened to (I have nothing to hide) than go down on Flight XYZ crashing into the White House, the Pentagon, NYC, or Disney World simply because government agents didn't have enough authority.
Maruan Awad Muharab, 19; Adham Abdelhamid Othman, 22; and Louai Abdelhamied Othman, 23, (pictured L-R above) were charged today in Tuscola County (Michigan) with one count each of collecting or providing materials for terrorist acts and one count each of surveiling a vulnerable target. Bond has been set at $750,000.00 each. According to recovered receipts some of their purchases were made in Wisconsin.
No, we cannot have it.
*UPDATED 10 August 2006: Two men were charged with money laundering in support of terrorism at a hearing Wednesday after authorities said they found airplane passenger lists and information on airport security checkpoints in their car. They are currently in jail and being held on $200,000 bond. How did they possibly obtain the non-public airplane passenger lists and information on airport security checkpoints? Could it be that the mother of Ali Houssaiky works for Aircraft Services International Group at Detroit Metro Airport? Visit the well-done investigative report written by Debbie Schlussel at the above link, then please return here to continue reading for additional and important background information.
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.
Many FReepers seem to have lost sight of the fact that FR was founded on the premise that our Constitution was being ignored by government, and needed to be restored as our supreme law.
In their misguided quest for 'safety' some here now demand more 'laws' that restrict liberties. --- Go figure that one.
good timing, Thanks!
Wow, will that scare the chattering classes (NYTWAPOABCNBCCBSCNN & least MSNBC).
Wow! That's a mouthful of alphabet soup. ;-)
Never forget that your rights end when mine begin.
In their misguided quest for 'safety' some here now demand more 'laws' that restrict liberties. --- Go figure that one.
Never forget that your rights end when mine begin.
Meaning that a supposed right be 'safe from terrorism' equals mine to life, liberty, or property?
Who was talking about the Patriot Act? It wasn't me.
The main problem is not with the loss of rights per se, but with the creation of an impressive multitude of opportunities for bureaucrats to abuse their powers. More opportunities for abuse will translate into more abuse actually happening. No intelligent person should dismiss those consequences lightly because we know how that plays out over the long term. There are plenty of existing agencies whose misuse and abuse of powers granted many years ago get regularly savaged in this very forum. Can you guarantee that a pathological administration (e.g. Hillary) will never sit in the Oval Office, or that an government organizational structure will not get hijacked by ideological operatives? It is the default outcome, just give it some time.
The other more subtle problem is that granting broad new regulatory powers and creating new regulatory overhead dampens economic activity -- classic economics. If we keep ratcheting up government involvement in business for some nominal safety, you will quickly come to the point where the distributed economic damage in aggregate outweighs the theoretical benefit. European economies are fine examples of how the cost of "safety" aggregates to a very steep price that arguably does not give a justifiable ROI.
All this "safety" comes at a far higher price than mere inconvenience, and so far people have shown very little foresight or thoughtfulness with respect to the consequences, never mind the effectiveness. Some measures are useful and have clear net benefit, most uselessly burden the country for the illusion of security, and a minority merely shift the hazard elsewhere or to less spectacular deaths in other ways. We could do with less hyperventilating from the short-sighted "illusion of safety at any cost" crowd and more mitigation policies that generate a significant major benefit relative to the aggregate direct and indirect costs. The kneejerk "clamp down on everything" approach is stupid, dangerous, and wasteful.
Gee, Mr. Secretary. That's not what the Liberals want. They want to tie up all our capabilities with legalese boat anchors!
That picture reminds me of "Deal or no deal"
I know this is a serious thread but I just could not resist. We will have to see what becomes of the new legislation that will have to be looked at in September after the summer vacation. Poor George never gets to enjoy his vacation. Every year August sucks. He is out at the ranch getting a well deserved break and all hell breaks through. Thankfully when I go on vacation things do not happen. I think President Bush should think about changing the month he takes off. Maybe April. November. December. lol. I seriously feel sorry for him in this regard.
You might want to work on your reading comprehension, because it is a clearly a few standard deviations below normal.
You might finally discovered there are not evil corporate minions and government agents hovering around waiting to "Get you".
What does the above have to do with anything I wrote? I'll answer that for you, given your track record at reading comprehension: it has nothing to do with what I wrote, because everything I wrote flew a couple hundred meters over your head. You have constructed an elaborate fantasy about what I think and I what I wrote that has no connection with reality. Just because you are paranoid about things does not justify your projection of paranoia on others.
You are part of the problem. Your pathological fixation on one issue has so blinded you that you project everything in terms of that fixation. That is no different than liberals screeching about "the children", and about as sickeningly irrational.
I was glad to see him wearing a Hawaiian shirt yesterday as he was talking on the phone. That is as casual as I have seen him in a while.
England is a becoming a socialistic nightmare that the USA does not need to copy.
Yea the little socialistic nightmare who saved our butts this past week. Go to bed and take a pill because you are not making sense at all. Instead of bashing Britain you should be praising them.
He needs too. I mean the stress he must feel is unbearable I am sure. I would not want the job for a million dollars a year.
I hear ya..
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.