Immigration Crackdown Proves Chertoff Wrong

When the government initiates an enforcement "crackdown," it is reasonable to conclude that it was previously lax on enforcement. Today's headlines read, "Bush to Order New Crackdown on US Border," or "Feds Stepping Up Immigration Efforts." Less than three months ago, while pleading for passage of the McCain-Kennedy illegal immigration amnesty bill, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff warned that America needed to "bow to reality" and realize that deportation of illegal immigrants in large numbers was "not going to happen."

At the time, Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-CA) rebutted Chertoff's white flag approach by pointing out that the proposed legislation would not be necessary if the Bush administration actually enforced existing laws. Bilbray accused Chertoff of intentionally following a "conscious strategy of not enforcing the law," that has created the crisis of 12-20 million illegal immigrants to which Chertoff and President Bush wanted to grant amnesty. Who was right, Bilbray or Chertoff, in the debate over enforcement of existing laws versus the need for "comprehensive" solutions contained in the failed McCain-Kennedy legislation?

The answer to that question will be officially announced today by the Bush administration and the Department of Homeland Security. Without passing the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, the government is initiating a series of "initiatives" that increase punishments for employers hiring illegal immigrants, crack down on workers using fake or stolen Social Security numbers, reform temporary worker programs, deploy Border Patrol agents to the borders in larger numbers and with less delay, and increase the number and pace of deportations. Secretary Chertoff had previously claimed that such reforms were "not going to happen" without the McCain-Kennedy legislation, yet now we see most of those reforms being implemented through internal initiatives within Homeland Security and executive initiatives authorized by the president. As the Associated Press reports, the initiatives are strikingly similar to many of the immigration reform and enforcement provisions of the McCain-Kennedy bill, minus the "path to citizenship" aspects that critics rightfully castigated as facilitating amnesty for those already in America illegally.

Chertoff has apparently changed his tune, now vowing to enforce laws that in May he considered unrealistic. From the AP and Fox News:

Chertoff alluded to the new enforcement tactics in a speech in Boston on Wednesday, calling it "tool sharpening."

"We shouldn't have a patchwork of laws. We should be doing a comprehensive federal solution, but we haven't got that thing done," Chertoff said. "What I can tell you is we will certainly use every enforcement tool that we have, and every resource that we have available, to tackle the problem."

Even after suffering a major defeat when the proposed amnesty bill went down in flames this summer, Chertoff continues to pine for his beloved "comprehensive federal solution." Yet now, under enormous political pressure from conservatives to enforce existing immigration laws or be replaced by someone who will, Chertoff vowed to use every tool and resource available "to tackle the problem" of illegal immigration. Congressman Bilbray and American voters have the right to ask Chertoff, why weren't you using every available tool and resource to crack down on illegal immigration before your beloved reform bill was rejected?

There was no such assurance of enforcement before the defeat of McCain-Kennedy. Homeland Security appeared to be content to place strict enforcement efforts on sabbatical until an amnesty bill could be passed that would remove the impetus for tracking down 12-20 million illegal immigrants and gradually deporting them. It is clear that Congressman Bilbray's accusation against Chertoff was accurate: prior to the failure of the recent amnesty bill, the Bush administration was indeed consciously avoiding strict enforcement of existing illegal immigration laws, which only made the problem more severe. The administration seemed to believe that it could get itself off the hook for lax immigration enforcement and simultaneously earn the affection of millions of potential voters by granting amnesty.

Why has the Bush administration stepped forward now to enforce laws it would have been content to replace with amnesty only a few months ago? Considering its intentional failure to enforce existing law prior to the McCain-Kennedy debacle, the Bush administration appears now to be stepping up enforcement and initiating internal immigration reform within Homeland Security out of political expediency rather than actual desire for enforcement. The grass-roots groundswell in both parties, but championed most effectively by conservatives, that was created by the president's attempt to grant amnesty was much stronger and career-threatening than anyone in the White House or Congress apparently anticipated.

Now running for their political lives, those who once claimed reform could not happen without amnesty are rapidly "discovering" that the reform that voters wanted most, strict enforcement of existing immigration laws, is possible and essential to their future political viability.

Without granting amnesty and by merely changing internal priorities, Homeland Security will reportedly announce later today the following crackdown enforcement measures, among others:

1. Impose criminal sanctions against employers who refuse to terminate workers using fake or stolen Social Security numbers.

2. Install by the end of the year an exit visa system to track foreigners leaving the U.S. Currently only entrance visa data is collected.

3. Update the list of international gangs whose members are denied U.S. entry.

4. Speed up deployment of Border Patrol agents to the border.

5. Increase fines imposed on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

6. Reduce processing times for immigrant background checks.

7. Request that states voluntarily share driver's license info and photos with DHS to facilitate an employment verification system.

8. Reform temporary worker programs.

9. Increase the number of beds for detained illegal immigrants so they will not be released due to insufficient detention space.

10. Train increasing numbers of state and local law enforcement to identify and detain immigration offenders.

11. Reduce the number of documents accepted as foreign identification for immigration purposes and weed out those most frequently associated with fraud.

Each of these is certainly a welcome change from what could charitably be described as "deficient" previous enforcement efforts. The very fact that the government can "crackdown" on illegal immigration when it becomes politically expedient demonstrates that it already had all of the tools and resources needed to enforce existing laws, as Congressman Bilbray argued. While this new crackdown is a step in the right direction, it should also keep Americans wary of government officials who insist that something cannot be done. The McCain-Kennedy bill debate demonstrated that the government did not lack the tools or resources needed for strict illegal immigration enforcement, it simply did not have the stomach or political will to enforce the law.

Our justice system is supposed to be blind, as the symbol of that system, Lady Justice, illustrates. She holds the scales of justice and hears the arguments from each side of the scale, yet she also wears a blindfold. This is symbolic of the need for justice to not see or take into consideration the race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, or any other characteristic of the parties pleading their cases before her. Law enforcement is supposed to take the same approach. It should not matter whether an administration, Democratic or Republican, might suffer politically from the enforcement of our laws. Those laws were enacted by the people's representatives and should be enforced with blindness to the political climate of the moment. Governments should not pass laws they do not intend to enforce. Hopefully these new initiatives to be announced later this morning signal a new resolve within this administration to listen to voter concerns and strictly enforce existing laws long enough for us to determine what changes, if any, are needed in the future.

Technorati Tags:
Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Brian Bilbray, Illegal Immigration, Immigration Reform, McCain-Kennedy, Border Enforcement, Immigration Crackdown

From "Freakonomics" to "Freakoterror"?

Has NY Times blogger and co-author of the best-seller Freakonomics, Steven Levitt, unintentionally spawned a new phenomenon that could be referred to as “Freakoterror?” Levitt’s post to the Times’ Freakonomics blog yesterday titled “If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?” has generated much controversy in the media, with seemingly equal numbers condemning Levitt as irresponsible for giving terrorists ideas or praising him for getting ideas out into the open so counterterrorism officials can consider them and plan accordingly. Could Levitt's foray into issues beyond his expertise result in waves of attacks by "Freakoterrorists," inspired by the attack ideas submitted by Levitt's readers?

I will admit that my career involvement in threat assessment and security planning caused me to react initially to Levitt’s post title with a slight cringe. This was not because I think he was doing terrorists any favors with his amateurish attempt to address a deadly serious issue, but because such hypothetical questions tend to blur the distinctions between what law enforcement and intelligence agencies can prepare for realistically and grandiose attack plans that would be a nightmare but are ultimately unpreventable.

Much of the criticism directed at Levitt for his choice of topic centered on the notion that by soliciting readers to submit their ideas for effective terrorist attacks in the United States, Levitt was somehow providing terrorists with potential plans they may not have thought of previously. That logic is flawed on several levels: First, it is a misguided assumption that radical Islamic terrorists read the Freakonomics blog. For argument’s sake, even if terrorist planners read Levitt’s blog, they would not have gained any knowledge they did not already possess; second, Levitt would not have been accused of helping terrorists if he had merely posed the question a different way. For example, if Levitt had asked his readers to submit their best ideas for an action movie involving a terrorist attack in America, as former CIA officer Bruce Schneier did last year, his readers would have proposed the same ideas, using their imaginations to attempt to concoct “realistic” terrorist attacks that would make for riveting film entertainment.

Some authors or screenplay writers have proven prescient, such as Tom Clancy’s novel Debt of Honor, in which a large jet was flown into the U.S. Capitol building during a State of the Union speech, wiping out most high-ranking government leaders. Did al Qaeda come up with the 9/11 plot after gathering around a campfire in Afghanistan and listening to Clancy’s book on tape? Of course not. Drawings of aircraft ramming American buildings were found in Ramsey Yousef’s dwelling during the investigation of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, two years before Clancy’s novel was published. It should surprise no one that terrorists are perfectly capable of hatching effective and original plots without the help of creative geniuses in American literature or Hollywood.

It is a testament to our arrogance that so many condemned Levitt based on the belief that terrorists lack the intelligence to come up with thousands of hypothetical plans on their own, without help from New York Times readers. Such thinking misses the mark. While western counterterrorism officials go home each day to eat, sleep, and interact with their families as much as their demanding schedules permit, radical terrorist planners go “home” by moving from one part of daily training camp to another, caves or tents, eating while discussing potential methods of attack, and relaxing around the campfire at night by tossing out hypothetical attack plans for debate. That is their life and the sole purpose to which they have dedicated themselves.

Levitt’s hypothetical plan, imagined shortly after the DC Sniper rampage, involved a score of armed terrorists driving around in cities of various sizes randomly shooting citizens. That was his suggestion for a terror attack that would meet his proposed criteria for fear inducement and low potential for the attackers to be captured or killed. Levitt is a professor of economics, not a counterterrorism analyst, thus it was not surprising that his proposal was not particularly imaginative.

Reader submissions, on the other hand, offered a variety of plot ideas that ranged from beautiful female Lara Croft versions of al Qaeda to Molotov cocktails constructed only with items purchased in airport terminal Duty Free shops, including gift cigarette lighters that are now allowed on flights after the TSA ban was lifted. Liberal readers argued that the terrorist threat is greatly exaggerated by the Bush administration to keep Americans in fear and Republicans in office. One reader suggested that it would be simple for terrorists to acquire automatic weapons, cross the U.S.-Mexico border, and shoot up movie theaters in south Texas, further alleging that the reason that has not happened under Bush’s watch is that such threats are concocted by the government to enslave fearful citizens.

It is obvious that the author of that comment underestimates, or more likely avoids discussions of one important reason why we have not seen attacks of that nature on American theaters, restaurants, or shopping malls, and especially such establishments in Texas: the 2nd Amendment. Yes, it would be relatively easy for a determined terrorist to acquire a weapon and go on a rampage at a mall. Non-terrorists have done that, as recently as February at Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City. That gunman killed several people, but was cornered and shot by an off duty police officer who had been dining at a mall restaurant. That is the key obstacle for organized plots for terror attacks at public places in America: the terrorists cannot predict how many average citizens among the potential victims is carrying a firearm and could thwart the plot before it achieves its goal of mass casualties.

This, among other reasons, is why gunmen plotting mass casualties like the Columbine killers or the Virginia Tech shooter focus on schools. Students are not allowed to carry guns on campus, thus the possibility of resistance is greatly reduced. Some commenters clearly missed another Clancy novel, The Teeth Of The Tiger, in which Islamic terrorists attempt a firearms rampage in a Northern Virginia shopping mall and are killed by off-duty counterterrorism operatives who resided in the area.

Such an attack might work in Britain or other “enlightened” European nations that have banned gun ownership by citizens, but Americans present a well-armed and action-oriented populace that would not easily be cowed into submission. American malls, theaters, and restaurants are filled each night with men and women who carry firearms and are willing to use them to preserve the lives of their families and fellow citizens. I can assure Levitt’s commenters that terrorists would not do much damage in a Texas (or Northern Virginia) theater or mall before being brought to justice by an armed movie-goer. Those clothing bulges aren’t concealing food smuggled into the movies to avoid high concession stand prices!

While Americans love to conjure up imaginative conspiracy theories, movie plots, or methods terrorists could use to attack us, ultimately the exercise is futile. Counterterrorism officials, limited as they are by budget constraints, must pick and choose which forms of attack are most probable, and dedicate resources and assets accordingly. Americans rightfully do not want to live in a police state or pay the terribly burdensome taxes that would be required to fund efforts to secure the country against all possible attacks. The alternative to a police state is what we see currently: government doing what it can with available resources, combining forces with an armed and vigilantly observant populace, knowing that we will be attacked but hoping to thwart as many attempts as possible.

In the end, it is good that we have Tom Clancy’s and others with active imaginations among us to help citizens think tactically and be more aware of their surroundings and potential targets in their communities. In a war against a radical ideology that devalues innocent life, preparation is not paranoia.

Technorati Tags:
Steven Levitt, Freakonomics, Freakoterror, Terrorist Attack Plans, 2nd Amendment, Counterterrorism, Tom Clancy, Mall Shootings, Bruce Schneier, Deterrence, War on Terror

Russian Danger and Dollar Signs in Iran

This has been a week for news of surprise common sense actions of great importance by some who previously had demonstrated little such sense. First, congressional Democrats, after more than a year and a half of harsh criticism and accusations against President Bush, made a wise and potentially lifesaving decision by passing legislation authorizing intelligence agencies to utilize warrantless wiretaps to monitor terrorist communications with suspected counterparts in America. Since I addressed that legislation in detail in a previous post published by Reuters I will not do so here. The turnaround by the Democrats was pleasantly surprising, but of equal or greater importance for global security was the stunning action taken by Russia against Iran.

That story received only moderate media attention yesterday, apparently not important or morally shocking enough for sites like the Drudge Report to give it more exposure than tabloid images of Prince Harry looking less than royal seated provocatively in a chair dressed only in his underwear. Prince Harry’s status as a sex symbol may have generated high levels of Internet traffic, but developments in Iran’s status as a potential possessor of nuclear weapons somehow seemed slightly more newsworthy than pictures of the pretty-boy prince.

It was no secret that with the technological and material assistance of Russia, Iran has been constructing a nuclear reactor facility in Bushehr, Iran, ostensibly for peaceful civilian power generation purposes. The Bushehr reactor was slated for completion at the end of this year, which surely not coincidentally agrees with Israeli intelligence warnings that December 31 of this year will be the deadline after which diplomatic solutions must yield to more aggressive options to halt Iran’s nuclear program. Iran had confidently thumbed its nose at UN Security Council resolutions and sanctions, relying on Russia as its business partner to restrain other UN Security Council members pushing for more aggressive actions against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Until three weeks ago Iran appeared safe from any unanimous actions by the Security Council, with Russia’s veto vote securely in pocket due to the lucrative Bushehr construction contracts between the two countries. In its arrogance, however, Iran made a critical mistake: it failed to pay its bills to money-hungry Russia.

In retaliation for Iran’s falling behind in its Bushehr-related payments, Russia earlier this year brought construction of the reactor site to a screeching halt. Russia expressed no qualms at that time about the morality of allowing the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism to develop nuclear capabilities; the sticking point for Putin’s government was money, or more specifically the lack of it flowing from Iran to Russia’s government coffers. In a twist of irony that only Cold War veterans could appreciate, it was a moment of greedy, irresponsible, amoral Russian capitalism run amok. Russia was doing business and selling sensitive weapons and nuclear technology to any regime willing to pay, without any concern for political ideology or to what uses those weapons or technologies would be put. Yet, as reported publicly for the first time yesterday, three weeks ago Russia changed course in its dealings with Iran over Bushehr.

According to a confidential diplomatic source quoted by AFP, three weeks ago Russia delivered a message to Iran’s mullahs that carried more than the expected demand for timely payment of Bushehr construction debts. The message reportedly warned the mullahs that the nuclear fuel needed to complete and activate the Bushehr reactor would not be delivered until Iran satisfied international concerns, presumably through full inspections and monitoring, over ongoing uranium enrichment at the Natanz facility that appears to be of a military rather than civilian power generation nature. Of course, the Russian message also contained complaints over unpaid debts and other monetary concerns, but as AFP further reported, a second diplomatic source emphasized that “The Russians don't want to be seen as the ones helping the Iranians get a nuclear weapon.”

Despite other actions by Putin’s government to assert Russia’s power on the world stage, such as its latest territorial claim to the North Pole and the region’s natural resources, Russia demonstrated a degree of responsibility and cooperation on an issue far more critical than who should own rights to an undersea continental shelf supporting Santa’s workshop. Russia is the only nation capable of applying sufficient non-military leverage against Iran regarding its nuclear facilities and motives. Only Russia had the economic power to slow or halt construction of the Bushehr reactor or withhold the nuclear fuel necessary for power generation or uranium enrichment.

The importance of Russia’s decision to force Iran to yield to international concerns over military production of nuclear material cannot be overemphasized. Russia’s leverage with Iran reportedly has pushed back the potential completion of the Bushehr reactor until late 2008. Hopefully this setback will convince the Iranian regime to take Russia’s demand seriously, but the world should not count on Iran to act sensibly on an issue central to that regime’s pride and power projection.

Much can still change in this volatile situation. If Iran provided full payment to Russia in short order, there is always a risk that Russia might back down from its demand that Iran openly comply with the UN sanctions it has thus far ignored. The sources for the AFP report also have no indication that Russia will shift from its previous stance which supported Iran’s right to develop “peaceful” civilian nuclear power for electricity generation purposes only. The other members of the UN Security Council and obviously Israel oppose the very idea of Iran’s development of nuclear power for any purposes due to the undeniable links between Iran and Islamic terrorist groups as well as apocalyptic pronouncements against the United States and Israel by Iran’s current leaders.

Russia’s position on Iranian civilian nuclear power has thus far been irreconcilable with the other Security Council members, but its message to the mullahs at least temporarily demonstrated what may be a good faith effort by Russia to win goodwill in the West and keep nuclear weapons out of a radical regime’s hands.

Praising congressional democrats and Putin’s government in the same week for making wise decisions regarding domestic counterterrorism surveillance and blocking Iran’s potential production of nuclear weapons could almost lead me to consider, as two Brookings Institution fellows wrote of Iraq last week, that this is “a war we just might win.”

Technorati Tags:
Bushehr Reactor, Iranian Nuclear Program, Vladimir Putin, Russia, UN Security Council, Nuclear Proliferation, Drudge Report, Nuclear Power, Mullahs

Former Congressman Fuels "Big Brother" Fears

Americans are being scared into compromising their own safety, and Bob Barr is doing the scaring. As Barr has discovered, nothing is more effective at whipping alleged privacy fears into anti-government frenzy than inflammatory warnings that “Big Brother is watching.” Barr, a former Georgia Republican congressman and U.S. Attorney contributed an OpEd piece to today’s Washington Times that contained a torrent of fear-inducing comparisons between Tony Blair’s and Michael Bloomberg’s efforts to install thousands of surveillance cameras throughout London and New York with George Orwell’s “1984 ” and philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon society. According to Barr, Americans have much to fear from governments at all levels that place great emphasis on the need for surveillance cameras as a solution for ensuring safety.

According to Barr’s dire warnings, we must not allow America to become a land where, as in Bentham’s Panopticon, “control was exercised not by being surveilled continuously but by each person knowing they might be under surveillance at any time, or all the time.” Barr was a U.S. Attorney, and as such one would assume that at some point he attended law school. Apparently Barr missed the course where privacy in public places was discussed, because his OpEd piece, “Big Brother in the Big Apple,” was long on exaggeration and incongruous conspiratorial comparisons to Orwell but short on facts or for that matter, the truth about London’s and New York’s surveillance systems.

No surveillance system is perfect, and despite conspiracy-fueling television or movie depictions they are not installed in every hallway or room in any city. It is important to separate the fear mongering from fact: in London and New York there are no cameras in private areas, such as restrooms or dressing rooms where by law one is granted a reasonable expectation of privacy. Private establishments such as a business or doctor’s waiting room are mandated to post signs indicating the presence of closed circuit TV cameras. Those who do not wish to be on camera in such areas are not required to stay. The cameras that Barr and privacy rights activists condemn are located in public places, such as malls, city streets, tourist attractions, and other areas where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Ironically, Barr, a former congressman, is more afraid of government cameras monitoring public areas than he is of terrorist cells in the planning phase monitoring those same public areas for vulnerabilities.

Major tourist attractions such as Disney World have utilized closed circuit TV surveillance for many years, with great success. Signs are posted at the entrances to such theme parks advising that visitors will be surveilled. Bags are checked, certain items are banned, all in the name of security. Would Barr prefer to visit Disney World in today’s age of terrorism without these security measures in place? Reasonable people are glad that steps are taken to protect them while they visit attractive terrorist targets, and like it or not, the streets of our major cities are lined by such targets, whether they are historical sites, government buildings, or financial nerve centers of the global economy.

The key to such security measures is simple: if you are not a criminal or a terrorist, you should not be bothered by the fact that when in public you may be on camera. If you wanted to do something that you wouldn’t want anyone else to see, wouldn’t you find somewhere private to do it off camera?

Barr avoids this entire issue by focusing his OpEd on a baseless argument that “government at all levels convinces a fearful populace that a surveilled society is a safe society.” Having worked in the private sector and the federal government I can assure Barr that no promises are given by government that any security measures are guaranteed to produce “a safe society.” There are thousands of government attorneys at all levels whose duty is to make certain that government never guarantees anything, because it if fails to deliver on its promises, it would be ripe for lawsuits. Government certainly extols the virtues of camera surveillance systems, particularly for their role in identifying pre-operational surveillance conducted by criminals and terrorist groups or providing investigative leads after attacks that lead to identifying and arresting the suspects, like the London Tube bombers in 2005. Yet at no time has government stated that installing cameras will make us completely safe.

Terrorists never strike at random, and cell operatives must physically visit and evaluate potential targets, usually taking many photos and lingering in the area engaged in seemingly innocent behaviors. It is only through careful monitoring by law enforcement and intelligence specialists and reviews of surveillance footage that pre-operational planning and descriptions of the suspects are gleaned and plots thwarted or pieced together after the fact.

The point of video surveillance in public areas is not to guarantee safety but to deter criminals and more specifically terrorists from choosing those areas for attack. Like criminals, terrorists often seek out targets that offer the least resistance. A home with an ADT or Brinks security sign posted in the yard is far less likely to be burglarized than a home where no such system is visible. That same principle applies to counterterrorism and anti-crime security measures in the public areas of our major cities.

Barr would like to live in a world where only specific political buildings, such as government symbols in Washington, DC were targets. The reality of our age, however, is that every American city is home to scores of potentially attractive terrorist targets ranging from financial centers, defense industry companies, and natural resource facilities, to local malls, swanky restaurants, and as the thwarted London bomb plot in July should have made clear, even unsuspecting nightclubs. All of these targets share one important commonality: all are surrounded by public areas, streets, parking lots, and parks where there is no expectation of privacy. Installing cameras in those areas would make terrorist pre-operational planning and target surveillance much more difficult and increase the risk of detection. The only “right” violated by such cameras is the terrorist’s “right” to conduct his pre-attack target surveillance without the fear of being caught.

Barr exposed his own Orwellian conspiracy fears throughout his OpEd piece, but nowhere more clearly than in these lines:

Of course, the notion that surveillance is key to control was not new with Bentham; centuries before, the Greek philosopher Plato had mused about the power of the government to control through surveillance, when he raised the still-relevant question, "Who watches the watchers?"

More recently, of course, George Orwell gave voice to the innate fear that resides deep in many of our psyches against government surveillance, in his nightmare, "Big Brother is Watching You" world of the novel "1984."

…Mayor Bloomberg and former Prime Minister Blair epitomize the almost mindless, unquestioning embrace of surveillance as the solution to problems — real, manufactured or exaggerated — that pervades government post-September 11, 2001. Fear of terrorism as much as fear of crime is the currency by which government at all levels convinces a fearful populace that a surveilled society is a safe society.

Barr’s reference to “the innate fear that resides deep in many of our psyches against government surveillance,” was telling. He raised a fear all too commonly cited by opponents of government video surveillance systems, Plato’s “who is watching the watchers?” This question is a conundrum because if taken to its logical conclusion, no one anywhere at any level could be trusted. For if there are watchers watching the watchers, who watches the watchers’ watchers? Where does it end? With Barr, fear of so-called privacy violation is the currency by which privacy rights activists convince a fearful minority of the populace that government at all levels, rather than terrorists, is our enemy.

I understand suspicion of government. Clearly government has grown to exert influence in aspects of our businesses and lives into which it was never meant to encroach. That is our fault as citizens, as government excesses are the result of voter apathy and could be reigned in by a more informed and involved populace. However, this alleged concern over who is watching the watchers when it comes to government video surveillance in public areas is misguided. The watchers observe only public behavior that they could witness if they were seated on a park bench watching crowds pass by them. The fact that they sit in a control room instead of a park bench should make no difference. They are not watching citizens engaged in any private behaviors or in intimate settings, thus it is difficult to pinpoint precisely what Barr fears he will be observed doing by these “Big Brother” public surveillance systems. Like most privacy advocates, Barr cannot offer one example of how his privacy would be violated by a surveillance system in a public area or explain what liberties or freedoms he would lose while on camera.

Americans have been filmed burning the flag, making obscene finger gestures at the president, and similar behaviors and these have been protected as “free speech.” Cameras do not curb political protest or freedom of expression. Barr should speak with any political action group and ask whether they prefer to demonstrate in front of cameras or in useless anonymity off camera. Obviously they seek out cameras and attention, and have no fear of voicing their opinions in public. What freedoms would Barr lose with the presence of public surveillance cameras? He left the answer to that question out of his OpEd piece because the answer would have rendered his fear mongering unnecessary.

Barr may have couched his argument in anti-government rhetoric about privacy, but it seemed that his real concern may have been that New York will one day follow London’s example and use cameras to identify traffic violators and issue fines or tickets. I reiterate my previous point that government excesses are the fault of voter apathy. Americans have expressed overwhelming support for London and New York-style surveillance camera systems in public areas to help protect us from terrorists, and if we do not want those systems to be used for other purposes like traffic fines then we must exercise control over government and restrict its reach.

In the meantime, I will continue to visit historic sites, tourist attractions, government buildings, and financial centers knowing that I am on camera and not bothered at all by that fact. After all, in public it is always a wise personal safety tactic to assume you are being watched. I am glad that our cities are making terrorists more conscious of that fact. If I am being watched in public, so are the planners of a potential attack. I am confident that “the watchers” will differentiate between us. Unless Barr plans to engage in criminal or terrorist pre-operational surveillance in a public area, the only thing he needs to fear with cameras is his fear itself.

Technorati Tags:
Bob Barr, Big Brother, Michael Bloomberg, Surveillance Cameras, CCTV, Privacy Rights, Terrorist Surveillance, New York, London

US Al Qaeda Reality Hits Dems on NSA Bill

Is there anyone in the American intelligence community who does not think there are al Qaeda and other terrorist cells organizing and operating in the United States? Since 9/11, hasn't this been the single greatest suspicion among Americans? The fear of such cells lurking in America's shadows was sufficient to prompt a Time magazine cover dedicated to it in August 2004. In my career, especially since 9/11, my employer has wisely worked under the assumption that there are active terror cells in America, and we have worked closely with other government agencies to develop counterterrorism programs and security planning reflecting that belief. Perhaps because of this long held position in my workplace, it amazes me that news headlines like “Al Qaeda Cell May Be Loose in U.S.” are met with shock, fear, or even surprise by readers. That headline, from today’s New York Sun, frankly tells Americans nothing that should cause surprise, particularly to anyone who even remotely follows trends and developments in the War on Terror.

I do not mean to single out the New York Sun or the author of the above-mentioned article, Eli Lake, for criticism. The Sun and Lake in particular, have been referred to and frequently praised by Capital Cloak for fine coverage of the War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Lake in this article was merely reporting what one of his reliable Washington sources told him about new evidence that al Qaeda had been in contact electronically with sympathizers or potential operatives inside the United States. Lake reported, in part, as follows:

E-mail addresses for American individuals were found on the same password-protected e-mail chains used by the United Kingdom plotters to communicate with Qaeda handlers in Europe, a counterterrorism official told The New York Sun yesterday. The American and German intelligence community now believe the secure e-mail chains used in the United Kingdom plot have provided a window into an operational Qaeda network in several countries.

"Because of the London and Glasgow plot, we now know communications have been made from Al Qaeda to operatives in the United States," the counterterrorism official said on condition of anonymity. "This plot helps to connect a lot of stuff. We have seen money moving a lot through hawala networks and other illicit finance as well." But this source was careful to say that at this point no specific information, such as names, targets or a timeline, was known about any particular plot on American soil. The e-mail addresses that are linked to Americans were pseudonyms.

Lake’s report is important not for the fact that it appears to confirm the presence of al Qaeda cells in America, something that virtually everyone in the intelligence community has assumed for years. What makes Lake’s information important is its timing. Over the weekend, as the most significant final pre-recess action taken by Congress, the House and Senate approved a bill strengthening and expanding government authorization to monitor international telephone and electronic communications without a warrant between Americans and foreign suspects.

These are the same Democrat-controlled House and Senate bodies that have relentlessly and obviously disingenuously accused the White House of abusing the NSA’s warrantless domestic surveillance program. There have been hearings, misrepresentations of the Bush administration’s motives, and cries of violations of civil liberties from the left since the program was leaked to and eagerly exposed by the New York Times. Now it appears that the intelligence gleaned from the thwarted London and Glasgow plots in July was sufficient to convince the virulent leaders of the anti-Bush Congress, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, that all those warnings about potential terrorist cells in America were not merely presidential bluster.

Neither House nor Senate Democrats were personally pleased to pass this expanded surveillance powers legislation, and they continue to grumble about it in the media. After all, it was Pelosi who stated in January 2006 that, “I would not want any president — Democrat or Republican — to have the expanded power the administration is claiming in this case.” Yet now, when faced with the reality of actual email evidence of al Qaeda cells receiving communications from the bomb plotters in London, even the liberal left wing in Congress realized the surveillance was distasteful to them but ultimately necessary for survival.

As a safety net for the Democrats, the powers authorized in the bill were extended only for a six month period, in which we can expect rancorous debate over domestic surveillance, further accusations that the president is abusing civil liberties, and likely revisions of certain aspects of the bill. That six month period also indicates, however, that Congress felt the threat to the homeland was sufficiently grave in the next six months to merit special preventive measures. That fact, in and of itself, is telling.

The following is an excerpt from the New York Times’ description of the new legislation approved Saturday night by Congress and signed into law yesterday by President Bush:

Congressional aides and others familiar with the details of the law said that its impact went far beyond the small fixes that administration officials had said were needed to gather information about foreign terrorists. They said seemingly subtle changes in legislative language would sharply alter the legal limits on the government’s ability to monitor millions of phone calls and e-mail messages going in and out of the United States.

They also said that the new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.

“This more or less legalizes the N.S.A. program,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, who has studied the new legislation.

Previously, the government needed search warrants approved by a special intelligence court to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, e-mail messages and other electronic communications between individuals inside the United States and people overseas, if the government conducted the surveillance inside the United States.

Today, most international telephone conversations to and from the United States are conducted over fiber-optic cables, and the most efficient way for the government to eavesdrop on them is to latch on to giant telecommunications switches located in the United States.

By changing the legal definition of what is considered “electronic surveillance,” the new law allows the government to eavesdrop on those conversations without warrants — latching on to those giant switches — as long as the target of the government’s surveillance is “reasonably believed” to be overseas.

This change was necessary because much of the infrastructure of the world’s largest telecommunications companies is housed in the United States, particularly the switch and server backbone that powers the Internet globally. The vast majority of the world’s email, even point to point between foreign countries, passes through servers located in America. In all respects, the bill was a necessary and prudent expansion of government surveillance powers to monitor international communications, and regardless of their motives or their half-hearted passage of the measures, Congressional Democrats should be applauded for doing the right thing to protect Americans by coming to terms with President Bush on this issue, even if it is only a temporary fix.

While no one in the intelligence community was surprised at the report of email communications between European al Qaeda and American operatives, it provided a wake up call to Congress that the War on Terror and the threat of attacks in the United States, are not merely “bumper sticker” slogans of the Bush administration. There were active al Qaeda cells in America more than one year prior to 9/11, and it is logical to conclude that there were others at that time and now who merely await activation and instructions from leadership. The activation and instructions will likely come in some form of long distance communication; email, telephone, instant messenger, or similar. Thanks to the president’s vigilant insistence on the power to monitor such communication and Congress’s reluctant cooperation, our chances of intercepting key messages have increased, and that makes America safer than it was just last week prior to this legislation.

It should be remembered that these expanded surveillance powers will not necessarily prevent any plans that have already reached the execution phase with a predetermined date or time, but they will prove crucial to detecting developing plots and in identifying suspected cell members.

It was not surprising to read of communications between al Qaeda and its operatives in America. The real surprise was that Congressional Democrats took so long to realize the importance of the government surveillance program in protecting America from attack. When the president’s critics do the right thing, even grudgingly, for national security, we all benefit.

Technorati Tags:
Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda in America, FISA, NSA, Wiretap, Electronic Surveillance, Terrorist Cells, Bush Administration, Email monitoring