Friday, February 2, 2007
Non-Terrorist Embarrassment in Boston
from
The story is almost too funny to write about seriously. To advertise the Cartoon Network show "Aqua Teen Hunger Force," the network put up 38 blinking signs (kind of like Lite Brites) around the Boston area. The Boston police decided -- with absolutely no supporting evidence -- that these were bombs and shut down parts of the city.
Now the police look stupid, but they're trying really not hard not to act humiliated:
Governor Deval Patrick told the Associated Press: "It's a hoax -- and it's not funny."
Unfortunately, it is funny. What isn't funny is now the Boston government is trying to prosecute the artist and the network instead of owning up to their own stupidity. The police now claim that they were "hoax" explosive devices. I don't think you can claim they are hoax explosive devices unless they were intended to look like explosive devices, which merely a cursory look at any of them shows that they weren't.
But it's much easier to blame others than to admit that you were wrong:
"It is outrageous, in a post 9/11 world, that a company would use this type of marketing scheme," Mayor Thomas Menino said. "I am prepared to take any and all legal action against Turner Broadcasting and its affiliates for any and all expenses incurred."
And:
Rep. Ed Markey, a Boston-area congressman, said, "Whoever thought this up needs to find another job.""Scaring an entire region, tying up the T and major roadways, and forcing first responders to spend 12 hours chasing down trinkets instead of terrorists is marketing run amok," Markey, a Democrat, said in a written statement. "It would be hard to dream up a more appalling publicity stunt."
And:
"It had a very sinister appearance," [Massachusetts Attorney General Martha] Coakley told reporters. "It had a battery behind it, and wires."
For heavens sake, don't let her inside a Radio Shack.
I like this comment:
They consisted of magnetic signs with blinking lights in the shape of a cartoon character.And everyone knows that bombs have blinking lights on ‘em. Every single movie bomb you’ve ever seen has a blinking light.
Triumph for Homeland Security, guys.
And this one:
"It's almost too easy to be a terrorist these days," said Jennifer Mason, 26. "You stick a box on a corner and you can shut down a city."
And this one, by one of the artists who installed the signs:
"I find it kind of ridiculous that they're making these statements on TV that we must not be safe from terrorism, because they were up there for three weeks and no one noticed. It's pretty commonsensical to look at them and say this is a piece of art and installation," he said.
Right. If this wasn't a ridiculous overreaction to a non-existent threat, then how come the devices were in place for weeks without anyone noticing them? What does that say about the Boston police?
Maybe if the Boston police stopped wasting time and money searching bags on subways....
Of the 2,449 inspections between Oct. 10 and Dec. 31, the bags of 27 riders tested positive in the initial screening for explosives, prompting further searches, the Globe found in an analysis of daily inspection reports obtained under the state's Freedom of Information Act.In the additional screening, 11 passengers had their bags checked by explosive-sniffing dogs, and 16 underwent a physical search. Nothing was found.
These blinking signs have been up for weeks in ten cities -- Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Austin, San Francisco, and Philadelphia -- and no one else has managed to panic so completely. Refuse to be terrorized, people!
Too much secrecy helps terrorists, Overreacting to risk means we're 'giving in to fear'
Ian MacLeod
The Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Canada's spy master, of all people, is warning that excessive government secrecy and draconian counterterrorism measures will only play into the hands of terrorists.
"The response to the terrorist threat, whether now or in the future, should follow the long-standing principle of 'in all things moderation,' " Jim Judd, director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, said in a recent Toronto speech.
"The response must be calibrated carefully so as to optimally protect Canadians and Canadian interests while containing an often natural disposition of giving in to fear and panic."
Even so, he offered a candid -- and bleak -- assessment of the threat posed by terrorism.
"I regret to say that, at this juncture, there appears to be little prospect in the near term for the threat to dissipate. Successfully countering the current terrorist threat is going to be a very difficult and longer-term challenge."
Authorities, he said, are faced with an imaginative adversary and "it could be argued that traditional responses -- military, security, intelligence and law enforcement -- will go only so far in countering this threat.
"We are dealing with an adaptive adversary that learns from its mistakes, our mistakes and vulnerabilities, and our operational methods. It is an adversary that is not going to favour us with mindless repetitiveness in its actions."
He admitted officials do not yet fully understand a crucial element in combating terrorism -- the process of radicalization that can lead individuals, especially young Muslims raised in Canada and other democracies, to embrace terrorism.
That remark at the recent Raoul Wallenberg International Human Rights Symposium was followed yesterday by details from a CSIS study that found a "very rapid process" is transforming some youths from angry activists into jihadist terrorists intent on killing for their religion.
The study, obtained by the National Post under the Access to Information Act, says a few have embraced terrorism with frightening speed after becoming enraged over what they perceive as a western "war on Islam" and being coaxed on by extremist preachers.
"The most important factor for radicalization is the perception that Islam is under attack from the West. Jihadists also feel they must pre-emptively and violently defend Islam from these perceived enemies," it concludes.
The study is the government's latest attempt to understand why a handful of Canadian Muslims are alleged to have become involved in terrorist plots. It comes as a preliminary hearing is under way in Brampton for four of 18 suspects charged for their alleged role in a Canadian terrorist group accused of plotting attacks in southern Ontario.
Mr. Judd's comments are similar to those made in November by Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the normally very private head of Britain's MI5 security service.
In a major public speech, she predicted the fight against terrorism will last a generation and warned that radicalization, especially of young people, was one of the biggest problems facing anti-terror investigators. Three of the four men who attacked three London subways and a red double-decker bus on July 7, 2005, were British-born.
In his speech, Mr. Judd said governments and societies must measure their response to terrorism by keeping in mind that it is driven by the aspirations and actions of a select group of individuals and groups.
"We therefore have to avoid falling prey to the terrorist propaganda which would have people believe that this is a clash of civilizations or cultures or religions," he said. "Our own response therefore has to be carefully modulated and very focused.... And we have to be very careful in our use of language on these issues.
"Over-reaction to terrorism, it should be remembered, is a fundamental objective of most terrorists in history. We should not accommodate their goals in this regard."
Though organizations such as CSIS, he said, are often seriously constrained in what can and cannot be said publicly "we do have to play our part in this dialogue, something we have been doing much more of in the last several years.
"Broader public education and engagement is critically important to ensure a dialogue that is well-informed, robust and balanced. This is particularly the case with those diverse communities in our societies who may feel most threatened by the efforts to contain this terrorist threat."
Canadians cannot afford to see these communities withdraw or close in on themselves for fear of being unfairly associated with the actions of what amounts to a relatively few individuals, he said.
"More broadly, there is a risk that, absent adequate public dialogue and a surfeit of secrecy, the justification for action by governments against terrorism will be undermined or misunderstood. This in turn can put in jeopardy the legitimacy of the government response."
A careful, broadly based and multi-faceted national and international response to the issue is going to be required to prevail, he said.
"Democracies have taken a long period to develop and their values, laws and institutions continue to provide inspiration to those without the luxury of living in one. It is thus essential that in responding to threats such as terrorism we do so in a fashion that best reflects what democracies stand for."
The Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Canada's spy master, of all people, is warning that excessive government secrecy and draconian counterterrorism measures will only play into the hands of terrorists.
"The response to the terrorist threat, whether now or in the future, should follow the long-standing principle of 'in all things moderation,' " Jim Judd, director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, said in a recent Toronto speech.
"The response must be calibrated carefully so as to optimally protect Canadians and Canadian interests while containing an often natural disposition of giving in to fear and panic."
Even so, he offered a candid -- and bleak -- assessment of the threat posed by terrorism.
"I regret to say that, at this juncture, there appears to be little prospect in the near term for the threat to dissipate. Successfully countering the current terrorist threat is going to be a very difficult and longer-term challenge."
Authorities, he said, are faced with an imaginative adversary and "it could be argued that traditional responses -- military, security, intelligence and law enforcement -- will go only so far in countering this threat.
"We are dealing with an adaptive adversary that learns from its mistakes, our mistakes and vulnerabilities, and our operational methods. It is an adversary that is not going to favour us with mindless repetitiveness in its actions."
He admitted officials do not yet fully understand a crucial element in combating terrorism -- the process of radicalization that can lead individuals, especially young Muslims raised in Canada and other democracies, to embrace terrorism.
That remark at the recent Raoul Wallenberg International Human Rights Symposium was followed yesterday by details from a CSIS study that found a "very rapid process" is transforming some youths from angry activists into jihadist terrorists intent on killing for their religion.
The study, obtained by the National Post under the Access to Information Act, says a few have embraced terrorism with frightening speed after becoming enraged over what they perceive as a western "war on Islam" and being coaxed on by extremist preachers.
"The most important factor for radicalization is the perception that Islam is under attack from the West. Jihadists also feel they must pre-emptively and violently defend Islam from these perceived enemies," it concludes.
The study is the government's latest attempt to understand why a handful of Canadian Muslims are alleged to have become involved in terrorist plots. It comes as a preliminary hearing is under way in Brampton for four of 18 suspects charged for their alleged role in a Canadian terrorist group accused of plotting attacks in southern Ontario.
Mr. Judd's comments are similar to those made in November by Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the normally very private head of Britain's MI5 security service.
In a major public speech, she predicted the fight against terrorism will last a generation and warned that radicalization, especially of young people, was one of the biggest problems facing anti-terror investigators. Three of the four men who attacked three London subways and a red double-decker bus on July 7, 2005, were British-born.
In his speech, Mr. Judd said governments and societies must measure their response to terrorism by keeping in mind that it is driven by the aspirations and actions of a select group of individuals and groups.
"We therefore have to avoid falling prey to the terrorist propaganda which would have people believe that this is a clash of civilizations or cultures or religions," he said. "Our own response therefore has to be carefully modulated and very focused.... And we have to be very careful in our use of language on these issues.
"Over-reaction to terrorism, it should be remembered, is a fundamental objective of most terrorists in history. We should not accommodate their goals in this regard."
Though organizations such as CSIS, he said, are often seriously constrained in what can and cannot be said publicly "we do have to play our part in this dialogue, something we have been doing much more of in the last several years.
"Broader public education and engagement is critically important to ensure a dialogue that is well-informed, robust and balanced. This is particularly the case with those diverse communities in our societies who may feel most threatened by the efforts to contain this terrorist threat."
Canadians cannot afford to see these communities withdraw or close in on themselves for fear of being unfairly associated with the actions of what amounts to a relatively few individuals, he said.
"More broadly, there is a risk that, absent adequate public dialogue and a surfeit of secrecy, the justification for action by governments against terrorism will be undermined or misunderstood. This in turn can put in jeopardy the legitimacy of the government response."
A careful, broadly based and multi-faceted national and international response to the issue is going to be required to prevail, he said.
"Democracies have taken a long period to develop and their values, laws and institutions continue to provide inspiration to those without the luxury of living in one. It is thus essential that in responding to threats such as terrorism we do so in a fashion that best reflects what democracies stand for."
Bush Is Not Above the Law
January 31, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Bush Is Not Above the Law - New York Times
By JAMES BAMFORD
Washington
LAST August, a federal judge found that the president of the United States broke the law, committed a serious felony and violated the Constitution. Had the president been an ordinary citizen — someone charged with bank robbery or income tax evasion — the wheels of justice would have immediately begun to turn. The F.B.I. would have conducted an investigation, a United States attorney’s office would have impaneled a grand jury and charges would have been brought.
But under the Bush Justice Department, no F.B.I. agents were ever dispatched to padlock White House files or knock on doors and no federal prosecutors ever opened a case.
The ruling was the result of a suit, in which I am one of the plaintiffs, brought against the National Security Agency by the American Civil Liberties Union. It was a response to revelations by this newspaper in December 2005 that the agency had been monitoring the phone calls and e-mail messages of Americans for more than four years without first obtaining warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
In the past, even presidents were not above the law. When the F.B.I. turned up evidence during Watergate that Richard Nixon had obstructed justice by trying to cover up his involvement, a special prosecutor was named and a House committee recommended that the president be impeached.
And when an independent counsel found evidence that President Bill Clinton had committed perjury in the Monica Lewinsky case, the impeachment machinery again cranked into gear, with the spectacle of a Senate trial (which ended in acquittal).
Laws are broken, the federal government investigates, and the individuals involved — even if they’re presidents — are tried and, if found guilty, punished. That is the way it is supposed to work under our system of government. But not this time.
Last Aug. 17, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit issued her ruling in the A.C.L.U. case. The president, she wrote, had “undisputedly violated” not only the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, but also statutory law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Enacted by a bipartisan Congress in 1978, the FISA statute was a response to revelations that the National Security Agency had conducted warrantless eavesdropping on Americans. To deter future administrations from similar actions, the law made a violation a felony punishable by a $10,000 fine and five years in prison.
Yet despite this ruling, the Bush Justice Department never opened an F.B.I. investigation, no special prosecutor was named, and there was no talk of impeachment in the Republican-controlled Congress.
Justice Department lawyers argued last June that warrants were not required for what they called the administration’s “terrorist surveillance program” because of the president’s “inherent powers” to order eavesdropping and because of the Congressional authorization to use military force against those responsible for 9/11. But Judge Taylor rejected both arguments, ruling that even presidents must obey statutory law and the Constitution.
On Jan. 17, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales unexpectedly declared that President Bush had ended the program, deciding to again seek warrants in all cases. Exactly what kind of warrants — individual, as is required by the law, or broad-based, which would probably still be illegal — is as yet unknown.
The action may have been designed to forestall a potentially adverse ruling by the federal appeals court in Cincinnati, which had scheduled oral arguments on the case for today. At that hearing, the administration is now expected to argue that the case is moot and should be thrown out — while reserving the right to restart the program at any time.
But that’s a bit like a bank robber coming into court and arguing that, although he has been sticking up banks for the past half-decade, he has agreed to a temporary halt and therefore he shouldn’t be prosecuted. Independent of the A.C.L.U. case, a criminal investigation by the F.B.I. and a special prosecutor should begin immediately. The question that must finally be answered is whether the president is guilty of committing a felony by continuously reauthorizing the warrantless eavesdropping program for the past five years. And if so, what action must be taken?
The issue is not original. Among the charges approved by the House Judiciary Committee when it recommended its articles of impeachment against President Nixon was “illegal wiretaps.” President Nixon, the bill charged, “caused wiretaps to be placed on the telephones of 17 persons without having obtained a court order authorizing the tap, as required by federal law; in violation of Sections 241, 371 and 2510-11 of the Criminal Code.”
Under his program, President Bush could probably be charged with wiretapping not 17 but thousands of people without having obtained a court order authorizing the taps as required by federal law, in violation of FISA.
It is not only the federal court but also many in Congress who believe that a violation of law has taken place. In a hearing on Jan. 18, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said, “For years, this administration has engaged in warrantless wiretapping of Americans contrary to the law.”
His view was shared by the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, who said of Mr. Bush, “For five years he has been operating an illegal program.”
And Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, noted that much of the public was opposed to the program and that it both hurt the country at home and damaged its image abroad. “The heavy criticism which the president took on the program,” he said, “I think was very harmful in the political process and for the reputation of the country.”
To allow a president to break the law and commit a felony for more than five years without even a formal independent investigation would be the ultimate subversion of the Constitution and the rule of law. As Judge Taylor warned in her decision, “There are no hereditary kings in America.”
James Bamford is the author of two books on the National Security Agency, “The Puzzle Palace” and “Body of Secrets.”
Op-Ed Contributor
Bush Is Not Above the Law - New York Times
By JAMES BAMFORD
Washington
LAST August, a federal judge found that the president of the United States broke the law, committed a serious felony and violated the Constitution. Had the president been an ordinary citizen — someone charged with bank robbery or income tax evasion — the wheels of justice would have immediately begun to turn. The F.B.I. would have conducted an investigation, a United States attorney’s office would have impaneled a grand jury and charges would have been brought.
But under the Bush Justice Department, no F.B.I. agents were ever dispatched to padlock White House files or knock on doors and no federal prosecutors ever opened a case.
The ruling was the result of a suit, in which I am one of the plaintiffs, brought against the National Security Agency by the American Civil Liberties Union. It was a response to revelations by this newspaper in December 2005 that the agency had been monitoring the phone calls and e-mail messages of Americans for more than four years without first obtaining warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
In the past, even presidents were not above the law. When the F.B.I. turned up evidence during Watergate that Richard Nixon had obstructed justice by trying to cover up his involvement, a special prosecutor was named and a House committee recommended that the president be impeached.
And when an independent counsel found evidence that President Bill Clinton had committed perjury in the Monica Lewinsky case, the impeachment machinery again cranked into gear, with the spectacle of a Senate trial (which ended in acquittal).
Laws are broken, the federal government investigates, and the individuals involved — even if they’re presidents — are tried and, if found guilty, punished. That is the way it is supposed to work under our system of government. But not this time.
Last Aug. 17, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit issued her ruling in the A.C.L.U. case. The president, she wrote, had “undisputedly violated” not only the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, but also statutory law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Enacted by a bipartisan Congress in 1978, the FISA statute was a response to revelations that the National Security Agency had conducted warrantless eavesdropping on Americans. To deter future administrations from similar actions, the law made a violation a felony punishable by a $10,000 fine and five years in prison.
Yet despite this ruling, the Bush Justice Department never opened an F.B.I. investigation, no special prosecutor was named, and there was no talk of impeachment in the Republican-controlled Congress.
Justice Department lawyers argued last June that warrants were not required for what they called the administration’s “terrorist surveillance program” because of the president’s “inherent powers” to order eavesdropping and because of the Congressional authorization to use military force against those responsible for 9/11. But Judge Taylor rejected both arguments, ruling that even presidents must obey statutory law and the Constitution.
On Jan. 17, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales unexpectedly declared that President Bush had ended the program, deciding to again seek warrants in all cases. Exactly what kind of warrants — individual, as is required by the law, or broad-based, which would probably still be illegal — is as yet unknown.
The action may have been designed to forestall a potentially adverse ruling by the federal appeals court in Cincinnati, which had scheduled oral arguments on the case for today. At that hearing, the administration is now expected to argue that the case is moot and should be thrown out — while reserving the right to restart the program at any time.
But that’s a bit like a bank robber coming into court and arguing that, although he has been sticking up banks for the past half-decade, he has agreed to a temporary halt and therefore he shouldn’t be prosecuted. Independent of the A.C.L.U. case, a criminal investigation by the F.B.I. and a special prosecutor should begin immediately. The question that must finally be answered is whether the president is guilty of committing a felony by continuously reauthorizing the warrantless eavesdropping program for the past five years. And if so, what action must be taken?
The issue is not original. Among the charges approved by the House Judiciary Committee when it recommended its articles of impeachment against President Nixon was “illegal wiretaps.” President Nixon, the bill charged, “caused wiretaps to be placed on the telephones of 17 persons without having obtained a court order authorizing the tap, as required by federal law; in violation of Sections 241, 371 and 2510-11 of the Criminal Code.”
Under his program, President Bush could probably be charged with wiretapping not 17 but thousands of people without having obtained a court order authorizing the taps as required by federal law, in violation of FISA.
It is not only the federal court but also many in Congress who believe that a violation of law has taken place. In a hearing on Jan. 18, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said, “For years, this administration has engaged in warrantless wiretapping of Americans contrary to the law.”
His view was shared by the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, who said of Mr. Bush, “For five years he has been operating an illegal program.”
And Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, noted that much of the public was opposed to the program and that it both hurt the country at home and damaged its image abroad. “The heavy criticism which the president took on the program,” he said, “I think was very harmful in the political process and for the reputation of the country.”
To allow a president to break the law and commit a felony for more than five years without even a formal independent investigation would be the ultimate subversion of the Constitution and the rule of law. As Judge Taylor warned in her decision, “There are no hereditary kings in America.”
James Bamford is the author of two books on the National Security Agency, “The Puzzle Palace” and “Body of Secrets.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)