Category: Politics & Law

Assuming that Nancy Oden really was detained from her flight in Maine, it may have been because of connections with events like this, not because she’s a peacenik.

Environmental activist Nancy Oden of Jonesboro said Thursday that while she did not destroy the plants, she commended those who did. “I’m glad they did it,” Oden said during an interview at the Bangor Daily News offices. “It may not have been legal, but it was the moral thing to do.”
[…] In an Aug. 16 e-mail sent to other activists and also sent to the NEWS, Oden gave explicit directions to the location of the cornfield and advised activists to wear “a mask to avoid the toxic pollen, and gloves to avoid toxins throughout the plant” if they had physical contact with the plants.
Oden said Thursday that the e-mail was not meant to incite destruction, only as information for environmentalists

While this falls more in the category of “vandalism” than “eco-terrorism,” it does make me wonder what else Ms. Oden might be willing to support (or even do) because it’s “moral,” even if not legal.

(Via InstaPundit)

InstaPundit, via readers Scott Stafford and Don MacGregor, proposes a fun “game” to enhance airline security.

The government gives batons [smallish, coded, metal object in a variety of different shapes] to the public for a deposit of $100 each. If the passengers smuggle it onto the plane, the airline pays a reward of $500. If the airline catches the smugglers, they confiscate the baton and return it to the government to claim the $100 deposit.
This can have other benefits. Humans are notoriously bad at what human factors specialists call “vigilance tasks”, watching and waiting for infrequent events to occur. As it stands now the people running the xray machines will probably never see a real weapon smuggled through, which decreases their attention to the task. Just as in dog training, you need a periodic “reward” to keep them interested, and profit-seeking passengers would tend to liven up their day.
Intelligent airlines could also give the $100 deposit to the security personel who find a baton. This would give them an economic incentive to pay attention.

That makes passengers interested in observing airport security, security personnel interested in enforcing airport security, and airlines really interested in airport security.

The latest claim to harassment by airport security comes from Nancy Oden, a US Green Party official and “all-around firebrand.” According to this story and interview, and this story as well, Green was effectively bushwhacked at Bangor airport. The Man knew she was coming, and had already decided to bar her, since she’d written an inflammatory article.

“I walked into the Bangor airport. What I saw was National Guard folks all over carrying machine guns… The atmosphere was very tense… This was Thursday… I went over to the American Airlines ticket counter way down at the end. Nobody else was there, except the clerk. I gave him my name. He didn’t even ask for photo ID. It was almost like they were expecting me. He put it into the computer. He stayed on the computer a long time, like 10 minutes.
“He put an S on the boarding pass, for search. He said, ‘You’ve been picked for having your bag searched.’ … I said to him, ‘This wasn’t random, was it?’ He said, ‘No you were in there to be searched, no matter what.’ I went over to baggage to put my bags through the X-ray and then went into the boarding area.
“There was this National Guard guy there. He yells over at me, so everyone can hear, ‘Bring your bags over here.’ You know how they are when they’re all puffed up with themselves. He said, ‘Hurry up,’ so I slowed down some more.

The whole story reads as … far too pat. Far too appropriate to the message Oden wants to portray. The brave dissenter, victimized by The Man, who is so terrified of her message that they’ll do anything, no matter how blatant, to stop her. Frankly, my bullshit-meter is spiking up near 11.

If this really happened, as described, then my apologies, and pardon me while I pack the car for Canada. But, frankly … I think Oden is out to score points with her constituents. Heck, from the reaction of the Green hierarchy, I think it’s a desperate attempt to gain attention.

To which I say, “For shame.” There are certainly enough reasons to disagree with US policy on things, and mechanisms by which to do so. To trump up something like this is to take on the aspects of those you claim to despise — deceipt, calumny, and manipulation of public opinion.

(Via InstaPundit)

UPDATE: An InstaPundit reader confirms this vast government conspiracy to quash internal dissent!

But now, thanks to Nancy Oden, it’s all clear: it was my youthful protest votes for the Green Party that did me in. Big Brother can’t keep track of known terrorists within its borders, but they’ve got records on all the third-rate activist-wannabes out there.

(Via InstaPundit)

Another story of detainment at the airport because of a book.

On the way there the arresting officer gave me a triumphant smile. “After 11 September, you can’t travel with books like this,” he said. “In that case,” I replied, “perhaps you should stop publishing them in Germany, or, better still, burn them in public view.”

On the bright side, (a) this took place in Germany, which is so driven to deny its less politically correct past that it tends to be a police state about it, and (b) this is the first occurance I’ve heard of this sort of thing since the infamous United case … and if that’s the case, that’s not too bad, considering the number of people internationally who have flown since then.

Not that it’s a Good Thing, mind you. But given the potential extremes of behavior, especially these days, that’s not too bad of a record.

(And, for what it’s worth, it sounds to me like the author, in describing his own experiences, has more than a few axes to grind ….)

(Via Boing Boing)

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)

Airport Security

Interesting editorial in the Rocky Mountain News this a.m. on airport security. Looking at Europe, most of those countries (after having nationalized airports) now have airport corporations in charge of the whole shebang — but with strict governmental standards. This, according to the author of the opinion piece, provides the flexibility to handle changing situations and to fire people who don’t perform better than a civil service arrangement would.

I don’t know. On paper, it seems reasonable, and certainly the Europeans have more experience at this sort of situation than we do. Still, when it gets down the the profit motive, it’s not clear to me that a money-making enterprise is the best to trust our security to. Nevertheless, it’s worth reading and considering.

Blabbermouths

The Concourse A bridge route still looks to be the best way through security at DIA.

Meanwhile, if you want to feel confident and comfortable about the security screeners at the airport, don’t read this.