Month: October 2001

InstaPundit notes that anthrax spores occur in nature, as any rancher knows. How sensitive is the testing they are doing on post offices, etc.? What’s the possibility/probability that they are now merely reading “background” rather than something significant?

Other InstaPundit goodies this morning (which I’ll summarize here):

• Our politicians are not doing well acting as war leaders, which means taking the same risks they’re asking others to take. “But maybe it’s more basic. Politicians, like show biz types, are now so unnaturally sealed off from the world by their vast entourages that the sudden piercing of the perimeter has utterly confounded them: suddenly, they feel vulnerable, as many Americans do in a thousand situations–walking down an empty city street after dark, working the midnight shift at a convenience store in a crummy neighborhood.”
• The “freak-out factor” continues to rule on our air flights. If you make anybody nervous, upset, or suspicious, you’re in big trouble. “I felt the many eyes in the room follow me all the way to the ticket counter. . . . I searched for a behavior type that would ease the tension and alleviate their worries, but could not manage more than a nervous smile. I avoided eye contact, but wait, I told myself, that is suspicious behavior. Look at them. No, don’t stare; that’s even worse” I’ve written (as late as yesterday) that we need to be patient about this — but we also all need to start trying to get a grip. If you can’t serve the public — that includes people who perhaps look like some of the folks who committed the evils of 9-11 — then maybe you shouldn’t be working for the airlines.
• Does profiling (see previous item) make sense? It’s worth noting that only a minority (23%) of Arab-Americans are Muslim (most are Christian), and only a minority of Muslims world-wide are Arab. “But the first step towards a just — and justifiable — profiling policy would have to involve carefully studying the groups in question, first to determine whether the approach would be effective; and if so, to learn how best to protect us efficiently while avoiding racist stereotyping and the undue harassment of innocents.” (This is from a few days ago — I should have posted it then.)

Or you can just go to the InstaPundit page and read the stuff as it comes out. He posts even more than I do.

Wired has an interesting article on more details coming to light about the USA PATRIOT Act. Despite proud crowing that there are a number of sunset clauses in the bill, much of it is in there permanently (until explicitly repealed), and much of the rest has plenty of loopholes in the sunset clauses.

After the president signs the measure on Friday, police will have the permanent ability to conduct Internet surveillance without a court order in some circumstances, secretly search homes and offices without notifying the owner, and share confidential grand jury information with the CIA.
Also exempt from the expiration date are investigations underway by Dec. 2005, and any future investigations of crimes that took place before that date.

The problem, of course, is not with the desire to put the screws to the terrorists. The problem is that the law broadly defines “terrorist” such that it could be applied to virtually any group the government wants to investigate, and therefore gives unprecedented powers to secretly sniff through peoples’ phone records, Internet records, computers, credit reports, and homes.

(Via words mean things)

The ACLU goes into the new, broad definition of terrorism in the newly-passed USA PATRIOT Act (somebody spent way too much time fiddling up that acronym). Even though the 9-11 terror violated all three existing federal definitions of terrorism, the new Act creates a new definition:

Under Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act, a person commits the crime of domestic terrorism if within the U.S. they engage in activity that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any State and appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.
… This over-broad terrorism definition would sweep in people who engage in acts of political protest if those acts were dangerous to human life. People associated with organizations such as Operation Rescue and the Environmental Liberation Front, and the World Trade Organization protesters, have engaged in activities that could subject them to prosecution as terrorists.
Under the USA PATRIOT Act, once the government decides that conduct is “domestic terrorism,” law enforcement agents have the authority to charge anyone who provides assistance to that person, even if the assistance is an act as minor as providing lodging. They would have the authority to wiretap the home of anyone who is providing assistance. Also, the government could prosecute the person who provided their home under a new crime of “harboring” a terrorist (Section 803) or for “providing material support” to “terrorists.”
The ACLU does not oppose the criminal prosecution of people who commit acts of civil disobedience if those acts result in property damage or place people in danger. That type of behavior is already illegal and perpetrators of these crimes can be prosecuted and subjected to serious penalties. However, such crimes often are not “terrorism.” The legislative response to terrorism should not turn ordinary citizens into terrorists.

Far-fetched? Recall how RICO has expanded in its use from busting the Mob to busting any sort of “organized” criminal activity.

There are certainly plenty of folks who consider Operation Rescue to be “terrorists.” And others who consider PETA to be terrorists, or the anti-WTO types, or the Environmental Liberation Front. And then we have “terrorist” unions. And “terrorist” union-busters. And “terrorist” gay-bashers. And “terrorist” pro-choicers. And …

How many terrorists do you want to have? Now you can have all you want. Figure out how they are threatening human life, figure out how they are coercive, and any group of people can be labeled as terrorists. And then the Feds can monitor them, detain them, investigate them, all in secret, and both them and their “supporters.” Donated to one of the groups above? Or to a group that supports one of the groups above? You, too, may get a knock on the door, or discover folks going over your records.

This is bad law-writing, folks. I don’t think it’s a deep, dark conspiracy (ever being the optimist). I just think it’s bad law-writing. And I hope it doesn’t take too many abuses of it before it’s changed.

(Via Bornfamous)

I was going to do this as a comment to the below story, but figured I’d blog it into the mainstream here.

An editorial I read in this morning’s Denver Post gave me a different spin on this. To wit, Fritz the National Guard dude who plays such a role in the below tale is not a law enforcement officer.

Consider that. The National Guard has many roles, but serving as law enforcement officials, except to shoot at looters during disasters, is not one of them.

That may explain the rather all-or-nothing, civil-liberties-be-damned, I-either-ignore-you-or-shoot-you attitude. Because that’s a soldier’s role: to shoot the folks who need shooting, and not shoot the ones who don’t. Niceties like civil rights and due process are not a key part of the mission.

Which is appropriate, for the military. But doesn’t work well in a civilian application.

Or, as the Post editorial puts it, in disagreeing with the calls to use the Army to support local law enforcement:

Soldiers have a different orientation: Their prime function is to destroy the enemy, not bring him to justice. Moreover, the military ethos fosters prompt obedience to orders. How would a 19-year-old infantryman react if, for example, a civilian questioned the propriety of having his house searched?

Sure, police go overboard in such circumstances, too. But at least they’ve been trained in what “protect and serve” means. They aren’t indoctrinated in the (reasonable for a soldier) motto of “return with your shield, or on it.”

Fritz, or whatever his name is, was given a mission. Military thinking is, don’t make decisions based on what your enemy will do, do it based on what they can do. Getting into a hissy-fit over taking pictures is understandable, from the framework of “There’s Us, and then there’s the Enemy.”

Of course, that doesn’t excuse all the other bureaucratic folderol the writer ran into. But I chalk that up to general fear. Fear of being the person to let the terrorist through. Fear of contradicting what others have done. Fear of digging too deeply, of being the nail that stands out.

Hopefully, we’ll all get over that. Until then … try to avoid being that nail. There’s no profit in it

A Sacramento story about a journalist who managed to get on the wrong side of some folks who could make his life much less pleasant.

“Hey you! What are you doing?”
A California National Guardsman, a big guy with a buzz-cut dressed head-to-toe in camouflage army fatigues, was moving rapidly toward me. I froze as he approached. He came so close it seemed impossible he wasn’t touching me.
“Did you take my picture?” he asked angrily. “Did you take my picture?”
“I’m a journalist, working on a story about airport security,” I told him.
“You can’t take pictures here,” he said.
“Says who?” I asked.
“Says me!” he barked.

Police state run amok? Journalists poking their noses into things they oughtn’t?

Or people trying to figure out how to balance an imminent, tragic sense of urgency with expectations of How Things Have Been?

Or just the sort of confusion and mixed signals that occur when action precedes policy, and then testing of that action follows immediately?

About 15 years ago, I was in England. I was touring through London on my own, on foot, near twilight. I was taking a “short cut” through some side streets to get to Buckingham Palace.

I stepped out of a side street into a — well, it was another side street. Or a back street. And what it was the back of (on the other side of the street) was a major military barracks.

The street was deserted. No traffic. No parked cars (duh). Nobody but me.

And two British soldiers, standing by the truck entrance across the street. Guarding it against the obvious threat.

I looked at them. They, lacking anything else to look at, looked at me.

I considered, for all of about two seconds, taking a picture. It would be intersting, I thought. It would be fun. I could show my friends. It would be a conversation piece.

It would be so stupid …

I pride myself on being able to put myself into the Other Guy’s shoes. This sometimes makes me extremely wishy-washy, but other times it saves me a trip to the local constabulary. Like this time.

Since, for all those guards would know, I was an IRA supporter, sypathizer, or member, taking photos of a secure entrance to a barracks, for purposes that would be unpleasant for the inhabitants therein.

You don’t tug on Superman’s cape. You don’t spit into the wind. Etc.

And maybe, just maybe, you don’t give hypersensitive security guards at airports any reason to worry. Because, in the tension of the moment, before policies and procedures and little things like Constitutional Protections are all firmly in place and integrated, they might react badly. And do stupid things. And then other people will overreact and do stupid things.

And then you get to be in stories like this.

Did the writer do anything wrong? Nope. Did the guardsman overreact? Absolutely. Did the bureaucracy mess things up? Duh, that’s their job, and during a crisis is when they do it best.

But it’s understandable, dammit. It’s not a sign of the impending apocalypse, or proof that we’re all about to be rounded into Re-education Camps by grey-uniformed State Police.

This is a crisis. People aren’t thinking clearly. They still aren’t. Most are, probably for the best, erring on the side of over-caution, overreaction, which is understandable because underreaction and blithe disregard of threats is part of what got us into this to begin with.

So think, people. At least for a while. Consider how something might look. And if you transgress, don’t start waving around the Bill of Rights and getting all snarky. Err on the side of over-apologizing. Make yourself as non-threatening as possible. Cooperate above and beyond.

And then go home and file your story. Because we don’t want treatment like this — understandable now — to become the norm. We do expect appropriate policy and Constitutional protections to come back into play Real Soon Now. And if something really dire happens — well, save your moral indignation and standing on the Constitution for those times.

But until then … expect problems. And don’t be stupid about them when you run into them.

(Via Boing Boing)

Even some of the hawkier, harder-line folks are a bit dismayed over the scope of the anti-terrorism bill passed, as well as the speed at which it was rushed through Congress. This Reason article makes it sound like all the various law enforcement agencies (the FBI at the vanguard) simply dusted off all the proposals they’d had over the past two decades, bundled them up, and sent them to Capitol Hill.

Although the House passed anti-terrorism legislation earlier this month, it was far removed from a bill that made it through the Senate. Deliberations that normally would have gone on in a conference committee instead happened informally. In the meantime, congressional sources who could have shed some light on the proceedings were almost impossible to track down because of the anthrax-induced frenzy on Capitol Hill. According to McCullagh, rank-and-file House members were still in the dark Tuesday night as leaders tried to hash out a deal with the Senate and the administration: “Members of the House of Representatives were saying, ‘Whoa, can I see a copy of this bill? We haven’t seen it yet.’”

Bad laws rarely have good results.

(Via InstaPundit)