News: Democrats Defeat Wire-Tap Amendment

Source: From Reuters

U.S. House of Representatives voted on Thursday, defying President George W. Bush,passing a bill tightening legal oversight of the power of intelligence agents to use wiretaps to eavesdrop on terror suspects.

The vote in the Democratic-led House was 227-189, largely along party lines.The bill now heads to the Senate for consideration. If it passes both chambers, the White House has threatened to veto the measure, warning it would hamper electronic spying efforts, subjecting the United States to increased risks.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the bill "fails to give our intelligence community the tools it needs, and it fails to protect companies facing massive lawsuits for allegedly stepping up and answering the nation's call for help after the 9/11 terrorist attacks."

House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer defended the measure, saying, "This legislation gives our intelligence community the tools it needs to listen in on those who seek to harm us while addressing concerns that (a Bush-backed) bill passed in August could authorize warrantless surveillance of Americans."

Democrats rejected Bush's demand for retroactive immunity for any telecommunications company that may have taken part in the warrantless domestic spying program begun after the September 11 attacks on the United States in 2001.

The White House said it was prepared to work with Congress on a possible compromise bill that "would strengthen the nation's intelligence capabilities while respecting the constitutional rights of Americans."

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires that the government receive the approval of a secret FISA court to conduct surveillance in the United States of suspected foreign enemy targets.Shortly after the September 11 attacks, Bush secretly authorized warrantless surveillance of communications between people in the United States and others overseas if one had suspected ties to terrorists.

The legislation would replace a previous law passed in August under fierce pressure from the administration that expanded the powers of the US intelligence services to use wiretaps in global terror probes.A warrant would be needed only if the American was a target.Nearly 40 lawsuits have been filed accusing AT&T, Verizon and Sprint Nextel Corp of violating Americans' privacy rights in helping the government's warrantless domestic spying program.

News: US Courts Pour Cold Water On Wire-Tap Case

Source: AP

A federal appeals court dealt a near-fatal blow Friday to an Islamic charity's lawsuit alleging it was illegally wiretapped by federal investigators, saying that a key piece of evidence the charity planned to use is a protected state secret.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that a top secret call log accidentally turned over to the now-defunct U.S. arm of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation's lawyers by the U.S. Treasury Department can't be used as evidence.

Al-Haramain, which was labeled by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization, alleged it had been illegally wiretapped by the Bush administration without a warrant.

The charity's lawyers voluntarily turned over the document to FBI agents after it was given to them.The appeals court said that ruling was "a commendable effort to thread the needle," but still ran counter to the state secrets law, which precludes the disclosure of sensitive information in court that could jeopardize national security.

"Such an approach countenances a back door around the privilege and would eviscerate the state secret itself," Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.

Comment:Extraordinary Rendition-Is there an ethical case?

With Hollywood giving its ‘verdict’ on the ‘War on Terror’ I thought it might be high time to take a closure look at ‘Extraordinary Rendition’ and canvas opinion on what libertarian and centre right thinking is.

In fact the practice of Extraordinary Rendition is nothing new. The British Government often carried out kidnappings in the Republic of Ireland against key IRA personnel who had escaped legal rendition. The US first documented usage was against the hijackers of the Achille Lauro in 1985, with a US Navy jet forcing down a flight to land at Naval Air Station Sigonella and then rendered the hijackers to the United States. Other states that have also used this power are: China, South Korea, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, France, Israel and a number of Middle Eastern and African countries.

Many countries have also benefited from the intelligence that has been gained from the interrogation of prisoners that have been captured under extra judicial kidnappings including the EU and its institutions (the main Governmental critics of the US use of ER.)

What is often forgotten is that the Clinton Administration first brought in the law as this rather revealing piece by Richard Clark, counter-terrorism czar in the Clinton and Bush Administrations shows:

“‘Extraordinary renditions’ were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'”

Richard Clarke, Enemies pp143–4

One can’t help thinking that this is the same Al Gore that has just got a Nobel Peace Prize.

Since 9/11 The Bush administration has increased its usage and allowed prisoners to be removed to black sites-covert sites where it is alleged torture is used to extract information.

The arguments FOR the use of Extraordinary Rendition are powerful:

The country where a suspect is held might be linked to the terrorist group and beyond the ‘normal’ reach of legal and diplomatic channels. For example capturing wanted war criminals in Serbia, Bosnia or Croatia
It may well be an advantage to interrogate a prisoner in his own country of origin where s/he would be familiar with the language, customs and a tradition of that country for example Al Qaeda uses Middle Eastern operatives.
The intelligence gained would not only benefit the nation rendering the capture, but the domestic intelligence agency carrying out the interrogation and third parties.
The ‘ticking bomb’ scenario. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_arguments_regarding_torture
To prevent unnecessary press intrusion that may effect how a case is prosecuted

The arguments AGAINST are equally powerful:

There is no legal or ethical oversight
It may well damage the reputation and relationship between the parties
The action itself may be dangerous or can expose the country carrying out the action to unwanted press and media attention if it becomes a failed operation.
The intelligence gain may not reflect the cost and effort put into the operation
It is again ‘international’ agreements and laws

Rather than lay out an argument, here is a scenario in which we can ponder:

A ‘war criminal’ takes refuge in country X and is granted diplomatic protection and is considered a ‘rogue state’. Country Y wants to prosecute the individual for war crimes and Country Z wants information on intelligence on weapons shipments including chemical transfers and nuclear material that might be in the hands of terrorists. As leader of Country Z would you authorize the use of Rendition-especially if Country Y uses torture to extract information and confessions?

Unlike Pallywoods ‘cardboard cutout world’ these are real world problems. Do you have a duty to protect your country or do you remain ethical and uphold international law? Will people die at a later date because of your inaction? Will the press find out? Will it cause diplomatic problems? Will you loose the greater battle of ‘hearts and minds’?

Comment-28 Day Extention

I commented on this on this subject on Iain Dale's Blogspot:

Iain,

Having just come back from living in the Netherlands, I find the whole debate regarding terrorism and security quite backward to say the least. It seems that British Society (including the Political elite) as a whole has not yet grappled with base principles:

-How does an open society deal with elements that are actively hostile to the established way of life and rule of law (the relationship between each other and between us and Government)?

-What balance should there be between individual rights and responsibilities?

-How do we aid the Police and Security Services to carry out their work without abuse any of power?

-Which is more important- social cohesion or individual rights?

Ed says its “Parliament's job is to protect our freedoms and liberties.” .This sounds like “passing the buck” and absolving themselves of their responsibility, because its everybody’s responsibility to ensure democracy is upheld. Sir Ian Blair said a couple of years ago “What type of police service do we want” yet nobody seems to answer that question in any meaningful way.

Where is the rational debate? Does anybody in the “Little Britain” actually understand the threat we face? Do we fully understand the consequences of modern technology, radical thinking (be it extreme left, right or a religiously inspired ideology) and violent action has on society as a whole?

To put it even more brutally do we comprehend the fact that somebody with Sixth Form Chemistry can make crude biological/chemical weapons and release it on a packed commuter train going to London?

Aum Shinrikyo understood this in Tokyo when they released home made Sarin. Islamic insurgents understand this with jerry rigged Chlorine Bombs in Iraq and other groups hostile to our way of life understand this to, perhaps they might even be working in the NHS…

Can we be so complacent regarding the ‘new reality’? The Dutch Intelligence Services released public papers on the destabilizing threat of Radical Islam within Dutch Society (which can be found on my blog)-has MI5 done the same?

The UK has the lowest participation in the democratic process in Western Europe, lower than even Iraq, yet we crow on about living in a ‘police state’. Who allows that to happen? Those who are engaged politically usually do so from a tub-thumping, tribal, dogmatic point of view from the prism of a self important media that can barely report beyond its shores, and when it does it is through a narrow minded viewpoint, making the ‘British’ even more ignorant of the outside world (far more than even America).

If ID cards, CCTV, extra security and the extension of the 28 day questioning won’t work then what will work?

There needs be a bi-partisan approach to Anti-Terror legislation, with a public fully engaged and informed not just on domestic terrorism, but its international aspects as well, with all its implications considered. I find all too often that 'informed opinion' is based on British Media (both from the left and right) which is dogmatic to say the least.

I'm not suggesting that the current administration has got it 'right', but I do find it astonishing that Conservative Commentary is against working with the Government when they themselves have introduced Anti-Terrorist Legislation that equally affected Civil Liberties when combating the IRA.

What is equally disappointing regarding the Conservative position is when it considered its ‘Broken Society’ policy that it did not consider the wider geo-political factors that fuel Islamic neo-Salafist militancy within Western Society.

And what of other wider questions-Does Anti-Americanism (which is rampant) damage the way Britian deals with future security threats and how America can provide us with help? Likewise the same with Europe?Are we going to be isolationist without any Allies?

The UK is engaged in a dogmatic debate based on wishy washy ideology. Perhaps not going through the trauma of the Sarin Gas attacks in Tokyo, Oklahoma Bombings, 9/11, or the assassination of key political figures as happend in The Netherlands has made Britain complacent? This is not to say that the 7/7 bombing were not a shock to the United Kingdom-clearly it was- but it seems to have none of the political effects that have caused other countries to become more considered and robust.

Too many kettles and pots for my liking in this 'debate'.

News-Senate Gives Approval Over New Wire-Tap Rules

Source: Reuters UK

Sen Chris Dodd votes against amended Wire-tap Bill

A U.S. Senate committee approved a bipartisan bill to tighten rules on government eavesdropping on terrorism suspects,

The Senate Intelligence Committee voted 13-2 for the measure, which Chairman John Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, said strengthened national security and protected civil liberties. Mr. Rockefeller was quoted "It ensures that the unchecked wiretapping policies of the administration are a thing of the past"

Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Kit Bond, a Missouri Republican, called the Senate bill "a delicate arrangement of compromises."

The bill would allow wiretapping without a court order of suspected foreign terrorists, including when they call Americans. It would grant lawsuit immunity, demanded by the White House, for telephone companies that participated in a secret warrantless eavesdropping program launched by U.S. President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks. The House bill would have required court approval when eavesdropping on terrorism suspects who might call Americans, and omitted the phone company immunity.

To safeguard civil liberties, the Senate bill would require a secret court to approve methods for targeting suspects and eavesdropping, more congressional oversight, and the removal of identifying information from intercepted calls involving innocent Americans. An amendment added during committee debate would require court approval to eavesdrop on the communications of an American overseas. The bill would expire after six years.

However a number of Democrats are prepared to ‘hold’ the Bill which could block the Senate vote. Presidential Candidate Sen. Chris Dodd (Connecticut); Sen. Ron Wyden (Oregon) and Sen. Russ Feingold (Wisconsin) voted against the committee's bill because of the immunity provision, despite winning passage of the amendment on Americans overseas.

News-New Zealand Anti-Terror Raids Spark Protests

Source:NZ Herald

On Monday New Zealand Police raided a number of ‘alternative’ lifestyle camps, in the Bay of Plenty on the North Island on suspicion of activities relating to terrorism as defined under the new Terrorism Suppression Act.

Seventeen people were arrested in initial raids around the country on Monday, and further raids have taken place throughout the week.

Dawn raids were executed at several properties in the Ruatoki Valley, including a tin shack where Tuhoe (A Maori Tribe) activist Tame Iti, a militant Maori Nationalist, was staying.

Police remained at the shack on Tuesday, conducting searches in tall grass outside, after earlier arresting Iti in relation to the suspected nationwide terror plot.

Police became aware of the group's activities last year, before they began their weapons training camps. Investigations began in earnest at the end of last year, said Acting Deputy Commissioner Operations, Jon White. "There have been several training camps over that passage of time. It is of considerable concern to us that people were attending training camps and engaging in what we believe to be unlawful activities, training and using firearms and other weapons as part of that training. That seemed to us to step over the line in terms of what would be acceptable”.

However this has caused a storm of protests with some sections in New Zealand-including some in the Maori Community.Dr Pita Sharples of the Maori Party was quoted as saying this would send Maori and Pakeha (white) relations back 100 years.

And trouble continued on Friday when an approximately 1000 protestors gathered in Whakatane with further smaller demonstrations taking place in Auckland and Wellington.