Chertoff calls for stronger anti-terror laws

rick_reno

Moderator
They're at it again - time for Mr. Constitution to assume the position.

Constitutional barriers could prevent wider police powers

WASHINGTON - The nation's chief of homeland security said Sunday that the U.S. should consider reviewing its laws to allow for more electronic surveillance and detention of possible terror suspects, citing last week's foiled plot.

Michael Chertoff, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, stopped short of calling for immediate changes, noting there might be constitutional barriers to the type of wide police powers the British had in apprehending suspects in the plot to blow up airliners headed to the U.S.

But Chertoff made clear his belief that wider authority could thwart future attacks at a time when Congress is reviewing the proper scope of the Bush administration's executive powers for its warrantless eavesdropping program and military tribunals for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"What helped the British in this case is the ability to be nimble, to be fast, to be flexible, to operate based on fast-moving information," he said. "We have to make sure our legal system allows us to do that. It's not like the 20th century, where you had time to get warrants."

Greater authority sought
The Bush administration has pushed for greater executive authority in the war on terror, leading it to create a warrantless eavesdropping program, hold suspects who are deemed as "enemy combatants" for long periods and establish a military tribunal system for detainees that affords defendants fewer rights than traditional courts-martial.

Congress is now reviewing some of the programs after lawmakers questioned the legality of the eavesdropping program and the Supreme Court ruled in June that the tribunals defied international law and had not been authorized by Congress.

On Sunday, Chertoff said the U.S. is remaining vigilant for other attacks, citing concerns that terror groups may "think we are distracted" after last week's foiled plot. Attaining "maximum flexibility" in surveillance of transactions and communications will be critical in preventing future attacks, he said.

"We've done a lot in our legal system the last few years, to move in the direction of that kind of efficiency," Chertoff said. "But we ought to constantly review our legal rules to make sure they're helping us, not hindering us."

Heightened thret level remains
He said he expects the Bush administration to keep the U.S. on its highest threat alert for flights headed to the U.S. from the United Kingdom and at its second-highest level for all other flights.

"We haven't fully analyzed the evidence, and therefore, we're still concerned there may be some plotters who are out there," Chertoff said. "We also have to be concerned about other groups that may seize the opportunity to carry out attacks because they think we are distracted with this plot."

Still, Chertoff said he believed that the nation's airline screeners were well-positioned to catch future terrorists. He did not anticipate greater restrictions beyond the current ban on carrying liquids and gels onto airliners, such as barring all carry-on luggage.

"We don't want to inconvenience unnecessarily," he said. "I think we can do the job with our screening, screening training and our technology without banning all carry-on luggage."

Chertoff made the comments on "Fox News Sunday" and ABC's "This Week."
 
It's not like the 20th century, where you had time to get warrants

I think it would have been clearer to most Americans if he'd said "It's not like 1776 America, where the King didn't need warrants. Back then subjects were subjects, and kings were kings. Things were simpler and let's be honest - most of the time it worked pretty well."

I think it's time for those in Congress to wake up and realize we're at war - and to stop letting the Constitution get in the way of President Bush keeping the homeland free and secure. He's doing a damn good job, but let's face it - his hands are tied. I can only imagine how safe and free we'd be if he weren't constrained by a musty 200+ year old document.
 
But Chertoff made clear his belief that wider authority could thwart future attacks at a time when Congress is reviewing the proper scope of the Bush administration's executive powers ...
The next terrorist attack falls squarely on the shoulders of those who question the scope of executive authority.

Michael Chertoff, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, stopped short of calling for immediate changes, noting there might be constitutional barriers to the type of wide police powers the British had in apprehending suspects ...
What separated and separates US from them.

The Bush administration has pushed for greater executive authority ...
Yes, indeed.

Attaining "maximum flexibility" in surveillance ...
Bend over, y'all.

"We've done a lot in our legal system the last few years, to move in the direction of that kind of efficiency," Chertoff said.
With considerable questionable legality concering the Constitution.


"But Chertoff made clear his belief ..."
"Still, Chertoff said he believed ..."

Amazing and frightening what belief can accomplish.
 
Dear Mr. Homeland Security.
We, the undersigned 300,000,000 of your loyal subjects submit to you the following proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States. We feel that you must have more power to keep our nation and it's subjects safe from all things evil (even ourselves). Whaddya think Mr. Chertoff?

Amendment XXVIII
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to be safe and secure are paramount, they shall ignore the man (or woman) behind the curtain (or black mask) as he (or she) goes about protecting the homeland from terror in their name, it being understood to be a necessity in the 21st century. The unnamed woman (or man) behind the mask (or curtain), shall not be denied or any of her (or his) powers, rights and privileges abridged by the United States or by any State on account of any thing, any time, any where.
Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


That oughta about do it.

Sad thing is, if one were to clean up the language, I bet that over 75% of the people in this nation would vote it up.
 
So whats the governments definition of terrorist now? Have they defined it as anyone who breaks any federal or state law yet? I also think we will also hear the term "illegal newspapers" or "terrorist newspapers" soon.:barf:


Hey does this sound familiar?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I just cant remember Ware Ive heard it before I think it used to be in the constitution.
 
Yessiree Mr. Secretary. We just gotta put more claymores around the front porch. Might as well top off the razor wire. While were at it why not put a few cameras trained on the driveway. Since you are in the mode of doing something to be doing something, why not take private information and broadcast it all over the planet due to "errors" or "technical mistakes."


'Cuse me Mr. Secretary, When will you and your feckless boss DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE FREAKIN' BACKDOOR? I am sick unto death of you and your boss askin' for more money, more surveillance, more limits to my liberty, more threats, more of everything designed to make me a suspect while you consistently refuse to deal with the most obvious threat to my security. You are either deceiving me, stealing from me, or threatening me. Which is it, sir?
 
noting there might be constitutional barriers to the type of wide police powers the British had in apprehending suspects

Ya think? There's some glimmering nugget of remembrance of his publik skool 8th grade civics class I guess.
 
It's obviously not from his Harvard civics class. Hope he regresses some more.

BTW

It's not like the 20th century, where you had time to get warrants

How scary can the Ministry of Fatherland Defense become?
 
So whats the governments definition of terrorist now? Have they defined it as anyone who breaks any federal or state law yet?

No, but it's just a matter of time. I guarantee that is the fast-growing definition encompassed by a word in the universe. First up on the list - gun owners - obviously, if you own more than two guns, you are up to no good and a terrorist.
 
WMD's were originally defined as nuclear devices that go "boom". Later is was modified to include bugs, chemicals, nerve agents, etc.

Within recent years WMD grew to include a 12 ga shotty.

Yeah, you can bet the definition will evolve in a negative direction.
 
The Constitution is pretty much moot for dead folks. Tough situation. I don't feel infringed upon by any proposed increased surveillance. When I do feel infringed upon, I'll kick and scream, I suppose.
 
With that kind of thinking...

who will be left to defend you when it's your turn to get on the frieght car for camp.

It's happened before, more than once. and it was perfectly legal.
 
gunslinger555,

H.R.3162

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 (Received in Senate from House)

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;(think speeding, jaywalking, no seatbelt, etc.)
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;(sounds like USA Patriot Act)
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.

badbob
 
Man oh man...

So are we all just gonna sit here and hope that our "government will do the right thing" because we're all too busy and distracted? Who here smells Civil War 2: Back with a Vengeance the movie? Oh yeah, pass me the gas mask and duct tape will ya? I think I smell anthrax in my vent, I never knew trains could fit through vents!!:D :D :D


Epyon
 
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 (Received in Senate from House)

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;(think speeding, jaywalking, no seatbelt, etc.)
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;(sounds like USA Patriot Act)
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.

I wonder when it will be defined as a violation of any federal or state law. Who wants to start making bets?
 
Back
Top