pinkeye
12-17-2003, 01:59 PM
Report: Danger of growing complacence in US about terrorism
Federal commission cites continuing problems with intelligence sharing, lack of 'clear strategic guidance' from White House.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
US intelligence agencies are still reluctant to share information with each other. The Bush administration hasn't put forth "a clear strategic guidance" about the definition of homeland security, and objectives of preparedness. While the US has made progress in "beefing up" its defenses against terrorism, momentum for a comprehensive, national homeland security strategy appears to have diminished. The result could be a patch quilt of different rules and regulation in each state about how to deal with issues like weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and national emergencies like 9/11, and that Americans might think the US is more prepared for another major terrorist attack than it really is.
These findings are detailed in a report by the "Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction." The federal commission chaired by former Virginia governor James Gillmore (current chair of the Republican Party) will disband next year.
"The panel has serious concern about the current state of homeland security efforts along the full spectrum from awareness to recovery," the report states. "Efforts by the government may provide the perception of enhanced security that causes the nation to become complacent about the many critical actions still required."
GovEx.com also reports that the panel recommended that President Bush create an independent, bipartisan oversight board to provide advice on security efforts, such as the Patriot Act, that may impact civil liberties. The freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment could be violated by increased reliance on sophisticated technology that has "vast potential to invade personal privacy," according to the commission's statement.
Mr. Gilmore later denied that the report is a criticism of the Bush administration's stance on civil liberties. But The Washington Times reports that Gilmore did say that the US should resist the temptation to try to eliminate all threats of terrorism, which he called "an impossible task."
"There will never be a 100 percent guarantee of security for our people, the economy and our society," Gilmore wrote in the report. "We must resist the urge to seek total security. It is not achievable and drains our attention from those things that can be accomplished."
In what seems an effort to do just that, however, The Washington Post reports wednesday that the FBI wants to add tens of thousands of illegal immigrants and foreign students to an FBI database – known as the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) – designed primarily to help police apprehend wanted criminals. The FBI says it would help instantly identify foreign nationals who have been deported or have violated student visas. But the move has been criticized by civil liberties groups, and by law enforcement officials, who worry it will force the police to spent a lot of time dealing with people who have committed no serious crimes.
The issue is also part of a broader debate over the proper role of local police, many of whom fear that illegal immigrants will stop reporting crime if they cannot trust law enforcement and that relations with Hispanics will be strained if police are seen as an arm of federal immigration authorities. "There's this issue, which is dealing with NCIC, and the broader issue of law enforcement getting into the business of enforcing immigration, which is a philosophical problem," said Gene Voegtlin, legislative counsel for the police chiefs' association. "It's an area state and local law enforcement hasn't been involved in before, and it's an area that is yet to be resolved."
******* reported last week that a recent poll commissoned by the American Civil Liberties Union showed most US voters surveyed oppose parts of the Patriot Act enacted after Sept. 11, 2001, and would vote for a presidential candidate who believes it goes too far in restricting civil liberties.
But that support varies geographically. For instance, The Leaf Chronicle of Clarksville, TN reports that 65 percent of local residents think it's perfectly OK to detain terrorism suspects without specific charges. Austin Peay State University (APSU) Communication Research Center conducted the survey. Also, 82 percent of local residents said that in a democratic society, it is "important" to place some controls on the press.
"The results of the First Amendment questions did ... present a rather interesting and somewhat puzzling picture to me," said [APSU] junior communications major Kathy Yung. "Although there was strong support of First Amendment rights, there was evidence that these rights did not apply to everyone equally."
Nat Hentoff, writing a column for the Freedom Forum's First Amendement Center website, and pondering a vote for the "Hugh Hefner First Amendment Award," says he thinks he should vote for US Attorney General John Ashcroft, as "no one in modern times has done more than Attorney General John Ashcroft – though unintentionally – to inspire Americans to preserve and protect not only the First Amendment, but also the parts of the Bill of Rights that are interconnected with it."
One of his USA Patriot Act’s chilling effects on the exercise of free speech and dissent was cited recently by Dan Kennedy in the Boston Phoenix: "It’s not that you’re being watched. It’s that you might be, and that you have no way of knowing whether you are or not." We have never been more under surveillance than now.
It's been a rough week for Mr. Ashcroft, who found himself on the other side of the law, not once but twice. First, a federal judge admonished Ashcroft for violating a court order by making remarks about defendants in the nation's first major terror trial after Sept. 11. US District Judge Gerald Rosen said Ashcroft's statements could have compromised defendants' rights to a fair trial. And The Washington Post reports Wednesday that the Federal Election Commission has determined that Ashcroft's unsuccessful 2000 Senate reelection campaign violated election laws by accepting $110,000 in illegal contributions from a committee Ashcroft had established to explore running for president.
Federal commission cites continuing problems with intelligence sharing, lack of 'clear strategic guidance' from White House.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
US intelligence agencies are still reluctant to share information with each other. The Bush administration hasn't put forth "a clear strategic guidance" about the definition of homeland security, and objectives of preparedness. While the US has made progress in "beefing up" its defenses against terrorism, momentum for a comprehensive, national homeland security strategy appears to have diminished. The result could be a patch quilt of different rules and regulation in each state about how to deal with issues like weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and national emergencies like 9/11, and that Americans might think the US is more prepared for another major terrorist attack than it really is.
These findings are detailed in a report by the "Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction." The federal commission chaired by former Virginia governor James Gillmore (current chair of the Republican Party) will disband next year.
"The panel has serious concern about the current state of homeland security efforts along the full spectrum from awareness to recovery," the report states. "Efforts by the government may provide the perception of enhanced security that causes the nation to become complacent about the many critical actions still required."
GovEx.com also reports that the panel recommended that President Bush create an independent, bipartisan oversight board to provide advice on security efforts, such as the Patriot Act, that may impact civil liberties. The freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment could be violated by increased reliance on sophisticated technology that has "vast potential to invade personal privacy," according to the commission's statement.
Mr. Gilmore later denied that the report is a criticism of the Bush administration's stance on civil liberties. But The Washington Times reports that Gilmore did say that the US should resist the temptation to try to eliminate all threats of terrorism, which he called "an impossible task."
"There will never be a 100 percent guarantee of security for our people, the economy and our society," Gilmore wrote in the report. "We must resist the urge to seek total security. It is not achievable and drains our attention from those things that can be accomplished."
In what seems an effort to do just that, however, The Washington Post reports wednesday that the FBI wants to add tens of thousands of illegal immigrants and foreign students to an FBI database – known as the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) – designed primarily to help police apprehend wanted criminals. The FBI says it would help instantly identify foreign nationals who have been deported or have violated student visas. But the move has been criticized by civil liberties groups, and by law enforcement officials, who worry it will force the police to spent a lot of time dealing with people who have committed no serious crimes.
The issue is also part of a broader debate over the proper role of local police, many of whom fear that illegal immigrants will stop reporting crime if they cannot trust law enforcement and that relations with Hispanics will be strained if police are seen as an arm of federal immigration authorities. "There's this issue, which is dealing with NCIC, and the broader issue of law enforcement getting into the business of enforcing immigration, which is a philosophical problem," said Gene Voegtlin, legislative counsel for the police chiefs' association. "It's an area state and local law enforcement hasn't been involved in before, and it's an area that is yet to be resolved."
******* reported last week that a recent poll commissoned by the American Civil Liberties Union showed most US voters surveyed oppose parts of the Patriot Act enacted after Sept. 11, 2001, and would vote for a presidential candidate who believes it goes too far in restricting civil liberties.
But that support varies geographically. For instance, The Leaf Chronicle of Clarksville, TN reports that 65 percent of local residents think it's perfectly OK to detain terrorism suspects without specific charges. Austin Peay State University (APSU) Communication Research Center conducted the survey. Also, 82 percent of local residents said that in a democratic society, it is "important" to place some controls on the press.
"The results of the First Amendment questions did ... present a rather interesting and somewhat puzzling picture to me," said [APSU] junior communications major Kathy Yung. "Although there was strong support of First Amendment rights, there was evidence that these rights did not apply to everyone equally."
Nat Hentoff, writing a column for the Freedom Forum's First Amendement Center website, and pondering a vote for the "Hugh Hefner First Amendment Award," says he thinks he should vote for US Attorney General John Ashcroft, as "no one in modern times has done more than Attorney General John Ashcroft – though unintentionally – to inspire Americans to preserve and protect not only the First Amendment, but also the parts of the Bill of Rights that are interconnected with it."
One of his USA Patriot Act’s chilling effects on the exercise of free speech and dissent was cited recently by Dan Kennedy in the Boston Phoenix: "It’s not that you’re being watched. It’s that you might be, and that you have no way of knowing whether you are or not." We have never been more under surveillance than now.
It's been a rough week for Mr. Ashcroft, who found himself on the other side of the law, not once but twice. First, a federal judge admonished Ashcroft for violating a court order by making remarks about defendants in the nation's first major terror trial after Sept. 11. US District Judge Gerald Rosen said Ashcroft's statements could have compromised defendants' rights to a fair trial. And The Washington Post reports Wednesday that the Federal Election Commission has determined that Ashcroft's unsuccessful 2000 Senate reelection campaign violated election laws by accepting $110,000 in illegal contributions from a committee Ashcroft had established to explore running for president.