Andrew Hagen

Congress and the White House have refused to deal with each other in passing an update to US foreign surveillance law. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and George W. Bush might hate each other, but right now, for the good of the country, they need to put down their pop guns and work together on a key bill that transcends political differences.

The newly drafted bill under consideration in Congress allows the US to listen in on foreign terrorist conversations. Advances in technology including computers and cell phones means that the prior legislation, enacted decades ago, is out-of-date. The proposed legislation enacts many powerful new protections against governmental abuse to benefit the privacy of US citizens, including those abroad. Congress will be kept regularly and fully informed through the Intelligence Committee. Separate bills have passed the House and Senate. Yet, there is no bill on the President’s desk to sign. As a result, the temporary legislation that preceded these bills has now expired. Harry Reid, George W. Bush, and above all, Nancy Pelosi have failed. Now our ability to stop terrorist activity lies in shambles. Harry Reid, George W. Bush, and Nancy Pelosi have been selfish in aggrandizing their own political positions no matter what the cost. Apparently they think that risking another 9/11 is worth it if they can whip up their political bases for the November elections. Sickening.

We are presently engaged in a dire struggle to stop suicide bombs and terrorist attacks. A few hours ago, we let our guard down for no reason. We cannot let the violence of Iraq, reduced as it is since the surge, spread to the US.

The claimed sticking point is whether telecommunications companies should have protection from lawsuits for helping the government listen in on terrorists in the days after 9/11. They should have that immunity. Yet, some have suggested that business and government must not cooperate or we risk fascism. A little history suffices to remedy any misconception. Business and government cooperated extensively in World War II. Without that, the US would not have achieved victory over fascism. In prior years, FDR attempted to spark extensive business-government cooperation in the New Deal, but FDR is not considered a fascist. Business and government often cooperate. Cooperation is not ipso facto tyrannical. The desire for freedom concerns itself with abuses of power. We have First Amendment freedoms in America today and free elections coming up that undermine any claim that our government is fascist.

There is no record of any serious abuse of power in terrorist surveillance in the days after 9/11. US agencies were not exploiting the new cooperation with telecoms after 9/11 to dig up dirt on Americans by listening to their phone calls, like East Germany would have done. There is every indication that our intelligence services acted in good faith at that time. There is no evidence that any telecom company betrayed its customers. In the days after 9/11 we were all worried about more attacks that would kill thousands at a time. There is no evidence that any American’s privacy was invaded by foreign surveillance. If that did happen, it would have been a regrettable mistake, yet forgivable in the immediate days following 9/11. The telecoms were trying to do the right thing for the good of our country.

Benjamin Franklin wisely said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” A temporary and minor reduction in privacy was justified by a threat that became real on 9/11. Now we have new legislation to permanently protect our privacy and liberties and provide a cornerstone for our future security. We need not punish telecoms who acted in good faith in the meantime. We deserve both liberty and security.

To forestall continued squabbling, might I suggest a compromise bill? Make the telecoms liable during that period if they did not act in good faith. If they did act in good faith, grant them amnesty. This compromise is a last resort.

Contrary to what conservatives are saying, trial lawyers are not fighting FISA. Maybe civil rights lawyers like the ACLU are currently in the dark and are fighting the update to FISA for no good reason. Trial lawyers are not against this change, even though it grants limited immunity to an industry. In this case, the protections afforded to our lives, liberty, and privacy justify the result.

Give the telecoms amnesty as per the Senate bill. Pass the legislation. Stop playing chicken with American security.

Step back for a second. Is fighting terrorism a war? If not, fighting terrorism is a law enforcement action. Regardless of one’s opinion, it is plain that we cannot stop terrorism unless we give the right tools to either law enforcement or the military–take your pick. One necessary tool against foreign terrorists is foreign surveillance. Congress has put together an adequate bill. Now it is time to make it law.

President Bush is pushing hard to sell to a United Arab Emirates company control of the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. (*)

Ports are a known vulnerability in US homeland security. There is the possibility that terrorists could slip a nuclear warhead into the US through port security, and then set it off.

Congressional representatives have stated that illegal nuclear weapons technology was transferred in the AQ Khan network through the United Arab Emirates (UAE) between countries such as North Korea and Iran.

While the Homeland Security department has declared that this deal is inevitable, that is false. National security trumps administrative procedure.

Congress should call for a full-fledged investigation of this matter. In particular, the Bush Administration should be asked if there is any “secret deal” between the White House and the UAE.

With the press obsessed with Cheney’s bad aim and the latest sensationalized criminal case, perhaps the news professionals should think about covering this important story.

The FBI admits it is not promoting agents on the basis of having international or Middle East experience. (*) FBI Director “Mueller described his top anti-terror managers’ knowledge of dealing with foreign governments, Middle East history, international terrorism and al-Qaida this way: ‘Helpful, not essential.’” This appears to be incompetence, cronyism, or corruption. (†)

Will Congress have the guts to stand up to the FBI and force them to fix their broken organizational culture?

Schmaltz king Yusuf Islam, formerly Cat Stevens, who once applauded the Ayatollah’s death warrant on author Salman Rushdie, is barred entry into the US on national security grounds. The “Peace Train” singer’s transatlantic flight was stopped in Bangor, Maine, where he was removed from the United Airlines craft. (*) MSNBC reports that he will be deported.

Now if we could only do the same thing to Britney Spears.

Update: 22 September 2004. More allegations have been made against Yusuf Islam. (†) (‡)

Update: 23 September 2004. Federal officials discuss allegations against Mr Peace Train, and also why he was allowed to board the plane in the first place. (§)

Vice-President Cheney rightly received heat for stating that the US would be hit by a terrorist attack if John Kerry is elected President. Chagrined, Cheney is now softening the edge of his remark. (*)

But could he have been unintentionally on to something? The WTC bombing of 1993 came early in Clinton’s term. The 9/11 attacks came early in Bush’s term. Perhaps one of the terrorist strategies is to attack the US during the early days of each new US President to test our defenses. For reference, the State Department has a list of major terrorist attacks going back four decades. (†)

Should that be the case, it should not play a role in the campaign. National security should be a bipartisan matter.

The book, In Defense of Internment: The Case for “Racial Profiling” in World War II and the War on Terror, is Michelle Malkin’s new book. It is coming out in a few days. (*)

It turns out that FDR had a lot of intel guiding him when he made the decision to intern many American residents from Japan, Germany, and other countries. The intel suggested that saboteurs and spies were very prevalent amongst those populations.

The implications for the War on Terrorism today are obvious.

This is an important debate to have, and a timely one. We should have this debate before an American city gets hit with a new 9/11–scale attack, or a radiological, biological, or nuclear device. In the aftermath of such an attack, emotions will run high. We should discuss internment and racial profiling logically and carefully now, so that anger and outrage do not control our actions later.

Out of: (1) civil liberties and privacy; (2) security from terrorism; and (3) open borders; the cold, hard reality is that we can only have two.

Since the political establishment is committed to both security from terrorism, and open borders, inevitably civil liberties will suffer.

Put it in perspective. The Patriot Act reduces civil liberties by a relatively tiny margin. The proposals of the 9/11 Commission to centralize domestic intelligence gathering will likely deal a crushing blow to our civil liberties. Racial profiling, not to mention internment, would significantly reduce our freedoms as well.

Ultimately, because the political consensus is to keep us safe even as we keep the borders wide open, even as we catch (some of the) Islamist terrorists crossing the Mexican border, our civil liberties are now on the chopping block.

We don’t need to close the border. We just need to guard it better, and to tighten the rules on who can get in. Congressional committment is needed.

The objection to open borders is not a moral one, but one based on policy need.

The fourteen Syrian airline passengers that disturbed Annie Jacobsen and others turned out to be a real Syrian musical band. (*)

That said, what Annie Jacobsen was right. She was right to make the public aware of what happened. That’s what we should all do in a situation we believe to be suspicious. Annie Jacobsen did the right thing, and I applaud her.

Airline crews report that, even leaving that apparent non-incident aside, there have been many real “dry run” incidents. These dry run incidents probe our national defenses against another commercial airline hijacking. (†) Based on the number of dry run incidents reported, the terrorists are desperately trying to hijack more US planes today.

The only way to be truly safe from further hijackings and foreign terrorism is to greatly restrict immigration and visas from Islamic countries. It would not be not politically correct, but it would save lives. Neither air marshals nor ethnic profiling are guaranteed to keep us safe.

Remember that the next time you fly, and the next time you hear our political leaders talking about how important it is that our borders stay open to nearly anyone from any part of the world during this time of war.

In short, no.

Paul L Williams claims in a new book, called Osama’s Revenge, that:

al-Qaida has been planning a spectacular nuclear attack using six or seven suitcase nuclear bombs that would be detonated simulantaneously in U.S. cities.

“They want the most bang for the buck, and that is nuclear,” Williams told NewsMax.

“I expect such an attack would come between now and the end of 2005,” the author said.…

Williams’ contention is not far from what U.S. intelligence believes, a source close to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has told NewsMax.

(*) If that were really true, then Williams has surely shared the source for this information with the FBI already, and the federal government already knows all about it.

If there were solid evidence that the Enemy had suitcase nuclear bombs in the US, the top news of the day would not be Martha Stewart’s trip to the slammer. It would be the declaration of martial law in the US and the house-to-house searching of suspicious areas by government agents.

If we are really talking about nuclear weapons in enemy hands on US soil, survival would quickly become the ultimate law.

As that is not what we are seeing, this book is something that I would look at with the utmost of suspicion. Hence, I do not find Williams’s claim to be warranted.

I haven’t actually seen a copy of the book, but the severity of the claim as relayed by Newsmax needs to be addressed promptly.

This story is heating up.

It was Northwest Airlines flight 327 from Detroit to Los Angeles on 29 June 2004, departing at 12:28 p.m. If you were on that flight, please contact someone in the media like Michelle Malkin. (*) According to Malkin, it looks like NBC News and the other big media organizations are about to cover the story. Was it all innocent, or was it sinister?

Malkin talked to Annie Jacobsen, the witness.

I asked how she [Jacobsen] felt about suspicions that her story had been a hoax. She hadn’t heard of these suspicions and instead has been hearing overwhelming corroboration of her experience in thousands of e-mails, many from pilots and flight attendants reporting similar incidents.

That is not exactly comforting. It sounds like a much bigger problem than just one flight.

Glenn Reynolds has more relevant links. (†)

Steven Den Beste suggests some excellent methods of defensive fighting against hijackers in an aircraft cabin. (‡) He suggests using the seat cushion as a shield (hold it by the straps in your off-arm), and a pen for a weapon (aim for the eyes).

If you don’t have a pen, use your car or house key. Keys can be very sharp, and could also help you significantly injure the eyeball of a terrorist.

A cell phone in your hand can be used to increase the power of a punch.

You could pull the phone out of an airplane seat and bash a terrorist’s head in with that.

A laptop computer crashing over the head of a terrorist may do some good.

A power cable from a laptop may work as a garrote.

If you end up in one of these situations, you will be fighting for your life. As such, you must recognize that there are no “rules.” Whatever it takes to defeat the terrorists, do.

My original post on this subject. (§)

Update: 17 July 2004. Reynolds has yet more. (**)

Annie Jacobsen tells the story of a Northwest Airlines flight this June 29th last. Fourteen Middle Eastern males who appeared very suspicious were aboard the Detroit to Los Angeles flight. The flight drew the attention of the authorities. Jacobsen describes the cabin as full of fright. Probably everyone on board noticed the fourteen Middle Eastern males and their strange actions. The men apparently carried documents that had the appearance of Syrian passports. (*) (In the Global War on Terrorism, all identity documents must be considered with suspicion.)

What Jacobsen describes was either an aborted attack (the finger cutting across the throat with the word “No” being mouthed), a dry-run that was to give terrorists information on how to more effectively launch an attack in the future, or a series of incredibly wild coincidences.

Jacobsen correctly notes a vulnerability in our air security framework. If many Middle Eastern males board a single commercial flight, only two of them can be set aside for searching. This policy treats the security of our country as unimportant.

The enemy is primarily made of Middle Eastern Muslim males. This observation is not a matter of politeness or impoliteness. Making this observation is a matter of survival. In this war, we must be able to recognize the enemy, and those who are potentially the enemy. If we put blinders on our own eyes, our side will suffer casualties.

Jacobsen’s tale is an illustration of how the US and other Western countries now face a deadly dilemma. Out of the following three: open borders immigration and travel policies; civil liberties; and security of life and limb; we can logically expect to have only two. In that we are attempting to claim all three, we compromise each of the three goals, including security.

To protect our liberty and security, we must rethink the policy of open borders.

Glenn Reynolds is the source for the link, and he has some interesting related material. (†) Some people are skeptical of the account. I believe Jacobsen. Her story is filled with lots of little details. She and her husband don’t come out of the story as heroes, only as observers. Jacobsen sounds authentic to me.

Update: 22 July 2004. It was apparently a series of wild, innocent coincidences. (‡)

In a recent blockbuster article in the New Republic, John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman and Massoud Ansari reported that the Bush Administration has implored Pakistan to help catch Al Qaeda’s high leadership by the date of the November 2nd national elections. This plan is met with a cynical, cold reception by TNR.

This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban’s Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan.…

This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November. The Bush administration denies it has geared the war on terrorism to the electoral calendar.

(*) (emphasis in original) This sensational revelation was heatedly debated by the Washington elites this past week.

Meanwhile, CNN reported that

A plot to carry out a large-scale terror attack against the United States in the near future is being directed by Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda members, senior intelligence officials said Thursday.

Bin Laden and his top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are overseeing the attack plans from their remote hideouts somewhere along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, according to senior intelligence officials.

“This type of plotting, this type of operational activity, is being done with the direct direction and authorization of that senior leadership,” said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

A Democratic senator who attended Thursday’s CIA and FBI briefing said, “It is the most worrisome situation since 9/11″ without elaborating specifically.…

“They are focusing on what they perceive to have been successful attacks in Madrid as far as the impact on the electoral process there and the outcome of that election,” the official said. “The reporting that we are seeing, the information that we have, is tied to the different types of democratic processes here.”

(†) In other words, Al Qaeda wants to launch an attack on the US that would disrupt the election. That means attacking the Democratic National Convention in Boston, the Republican National Convention in New York, or hitting some US target to produce mass casualties just before Americans go to the polls.

So perhaps the conspiracy theory of TNR is entirely wrong. Perhaps there is a very good reason, after all, why it is in the national interest to capture Al Qaeda’s high leadership by November 2nd. If we do so, we would be much better able to stop any planned attack.

The New Republic should apologize to its readership for its unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

Update: 12 July 2004. Andrew C McCarthy’s take is that TNR’s charge is laughable. (‡)

McCarthy notes TNR’s charge that the Bush Administration wants these HVTs captured by the time of the Democratic National Convention. Even if this is true—and even if we forget, as McCarthy wryly observes, that this should be considered a good idea—capturing the HVTs before the Democratic National Convention may very well prevent an attack that those HVTs could be planning for the Democratic National Convention.

ABCNEWS reports that a terrorist attack on the US, possibly involving “soft targets,” such as shopping malls, may be “imminent.”

The intelligence, received a week ago but secret until now, is from known Muslim extremists who suggested an attack — possibly in the U.S. — was imminent, and that operatives were already “in place,” sources tell ABCNEWS.… Sources tell ABCNEWS the information is not specific enough to raise the national threat level from yellow to orange. In addition, officials have not seen a huge surge in intelligence information.

(*)

During the summer of 2001 there had been much chatter. Then, just before 9/11 there was a lull in intelligence chatter. Since we civilians don’t have access to the data the “chatter” reports come from, we cannot rely on them for any purpose.

The ABCNEWS report is another sign that we should be vigilant and aware, as always.

Jay Reding dispenses justice to the Patriot Act’s detractors. (*) He is of course right to defend that legislation so badly needed by prosecutors in their efforts to punish and deter terrorism in the homeland.

Sadly, many bloggers take a knee-jerk response to the Patriot Act. It sounds bad, and thus must be bad. Some understand the Patriot Act, but oppose it anyway. Perhaps they don’t understand why it is needed.

We need the Patriot Act to stop Islamofascists from blowing up more buildings. If you want to oppose the Patriot Act, please consider providing a concrete, feasible alternative that will actually stop terrorism in the real world. I would prefer a less intrusive solution. The problem is I don’t know of any.

The US Department of Homeland Security has lowered the national threat level to Elevated, Level Yellow. (*) It had been at High, Level Orange. (†)

Some sectors and cities remain at Level Orange.

Updated.

Mustafa Saied is a former University of Tennessee student and a Muslim who has moved away from political Islamism and to secular principles. He says that the Muslim Brotherhood was active on campus, solicited charitable donations, and gave them to terrorist groups fighting in Chechnya and Bosnia in the 1990s. Robert Spencer reports. (*) Furthermore, Saied says:

Anti-American sentiment is usually reserved for closed-door discussions or expressed in languages that most Americans don’t understand. While such rhetoric has been drastically reduced since 9/11, it is still prevalent enough to be a cause for concern.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the granddaddy of radical Islamism and the terrorist networks. The Muslim Brotherhood is an arm of the Enemy.

Homeland security has gone on high alert. Most of America has failed to take notice. Nuclear scientists have been walking around with radiation detectors, looking for terrorists with dirty bombs. Government officials are flabbergasted at the casual, unconcerned attitude of most Americans. (*) I don’t blame them. I blame the politicians.

I don’t see the borders being closed, even momentarily. I don’t see immigration being rolled back. If this were treated as it should be—as a war—immigration would be restricted.

If President Bush really thought the current situation was an emergency, and really had the best interests of his country at heart, then why is he about to propose a massive reform that will result in an out-of-control influx of foreigners entering the homeland?

That said, I am terribly concerned with the recent warnings. I just wish that President Bush face up to reality and drop his allegiance to big money for once.

The Italian newspaper Il Giornale reports that an Al Qaeda online statement—since removed by the FBI—threatened New York City with destruction by the 2nd of February. (*) Threatened destruction methods include nuclear weapon attack.

February 2nd is Groundhog Day, a light-hearted holiday in the US. This year, that day falls within the three-day Muslim holiday called the Feast of Sacrifice, Eid al-Adha. (†)

It is the worst threat so far. The terrorist assault on civilization continues.

Update: 7 January 2004. Second link changed to a working site.

The Department of Homeland Security has just raised the national threat level of foreign terrorist attack from elevated to high, orange. (*)

The DHS has an explanation of the levels. (†)

Update: Tom Ridge said that the level is not raised only because of the holiday season. It was also raised because of the greatest danger of a major attack since 9/11. He specifically warned of “aircraft as a weapon.” (‡)

Wikipedia has an accessible background article on enemy combatants. (*)

Lynxx Pherrett has some in-depth explanations of the Geneva Conventions, and the extent to which the United States might be bound by them. (†) (‡)

The term “illegal combatant” is explained. (§)

Ronald D. Rotunda analyzes the issue. (**)

Update: 21 December 2003. Lynxx Pherrett also has an article on the legal landscape of the enemy combatant issue. (††)

Two different US Courts of Appeal issued rulings yesterday that have impact on the War on Terrorism. One said that the US government cannot hold Abdullah Al-Muhajir (frequently called by his former name “Jose Padilla”), a US citizen, without trial despite his enemy combatant status. The other ruled that the Guantanamo detainees must be given trials in US courts. (*)

These rulings are unfortunate, but should not have been unexpected.

The Bush Administration has claimed the right to create its own system of justice by executive order. While that may indeed be the better interpretation of the Constitution than that offered by the majorities yesterday, it is politically inadvisable. It unnecessarily pushes the legal envelope. It would have been far better if President Bush had introduced legislation two years ago to create some kind of basic judicial process for these enemy combatants.

For example, an executive branch court could be created. Every detainee labeled as an enemy combatant would be given a hearing at a prudent time where an administrative law judge could determine his status. The proceedings would be limited for reasons of national security. Evidence relevant to a detainee’s status would be admissible. If the burden of proof is met, the government could hold the prisoner under the appropriate international rules. In some cases, that might mean for the duration of the war.

That is not what Bush did. Now the Administration is faced with the nightmarish dilemma between letting enemy fighters go free and turning them over to the US criminal justice system. They are not criminals. They are enemies. In the courts they would make a mockery of the process and engage in relentless politically-oriented fishing expeditions, all calculated to play to the hands of the self-hating American media. Zacharias Moussaoui’s courtroom shenanigans are nothing compared to what could happen.

Most likely the rulings will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Before filing the paperwork and crossing his fingers for a favorable decision, President Bush should first introduce legislation to give some Congressional oversight to the handling of these people. That might negate the rulings. Better to preserve executive authority in this way than gamble it in an uncertain Supreme Court case.

Update: 20 December 2003. This is commented upon at Walloworld. (†)