Respect my Authority!
Cheers!
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."
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.
14 tortoise
Please give me three specific examples where your rights as a citizen have been in any way infringed --
MNJohnnie
I can't carry a gun, a knife, or now even a bottle to use as a club, -- aboard an airliner.
Try sticking your head out of your shell once in awhile. You might finally discovered there are not evil corporate minions and government agents hovering around waiting to "Get you". Most of them have no interests in working any hard then they half too. Time to turn off the made for TV fantasy land world most of you live in and discover the REAL world. You know, the world of 9-11, Al Qeda, Shoe bomber etc?
Johnnie, the world is full of boogie men "Shoe bombers".. -- If we let them use their terrorist methods to subvert our constitutional way of life; -- we've lost.. -- That is the ~real~ world kiddo..
Do you really believe that butts were 'saved' last week?
Do you really believe that determined terrorists can't smuggle bomb components aboard an airliner and explode them?
Keep dreaming. Short of internal scanning of every passenger, enough explosives to bring down an airplane could be brought aboard in a few peoples guts.
Meaning that your perceived rights shall not abrogate my perceived rights.
Just use the authority you already have to forbid entrance to citizens of foreign countries.
Just use the authority you already have to start executing Muzzies for treason; and some of the Clintonite / Muzzie moles in certain government bureaucracies; and some members of the MSM (NYT); and a few professors.
Just use the authority the President has to seal the Southern border with Mexico.
Just use the authority the President has to open up formerly restricted lands to oil drilling.
The Muzzies will get the message.
And if they don't we still have our nukes.
Cheers!
Respect my Authority!
Cheers!
If that is the case, do you think this was just a stage event or something? Why would the US and Britain go through all this? I think that you might be wrong at least on the part of saved people. However, I agree that determined terrorists could do what they could.
Then you won't need the authority.
Build the freakin wall then get back to us.
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?
Meaning that your perceived rights shall not abrogate my perceived rights.
Our rights to life, liberty, or property are unquestionably inalienable. -- What you perceive/see as a 'right to safety' does not trump those basic freedoms.
The Constitution will not protect your butt from physical harm.
Ding ding ding, winner, the best post.
Chertoff looked better with wiskers BuMp.
The Constitution will not protect your butt from physical harm.
Unlike some here, I don't expect 'society' to protect my butt... I only expect the liberty to protect it myself.
That is absolutely fine with me. However,if you infringe upon my rights, you will not be able to protect your butt.
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.