Perhaps you didn't read that the srutiny discussed includes saving your credit card information, travel plans, and storing what, to me, is especially private information... whether you order a kosher or vegetarian meal, for example. That information was to be held in a database for as long as the CIA/Homeland Security and who-knows-who-else decided they needed it.
That wouldn't bother you, d?
Like you, I also expect some scrutiny when I travel abroad. I expect that my passport is checked and I am surprised how often it isn't. I expect to be asked about my plans and to assume my bags will be checked for weapons and black-market items. The plans that I questioned at the beginning of this thread went far beyond that.
As I posted a few hours ago and as it happened, in a very timely manner, the administration now says it will back down. I am shocked though, that despite the administration deciding they
had gone too far... so many on a2k thought it wasn't such a bad idea.
Bodes ill, imo. Do some of you feel a little sick that you would so willingly give up/exchange freedoms which even this government has recognized was a wrong move? Possibly it felt less silly than using duct tape on your windows and watching for almanac-carrying strangers.
The CNN reports:
Quote:Thus far, $40 million dollars of the appropriated $100 million has been spent on the development of CAPPS II, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
The department is developing an alternate method to screen passengers. Calling the new program a "high priority for the department," the department is "reconfiguring the way in which the system works," according to Brian Roehrkasse, spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security.
The new system, which is in development, would check passengers' names and additional information against a significantly expanded terrorist watch-list.
No date has been set for implementation of a new plan.
USA Today, which first reported the story, quoted Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge citing privacy concerns as a key reason to go in a different direction. Privacy advocates (such as Piffka!) had stringently opposed the program, saying it was overly intrusive, unworkable and had few guarantees that passengers' privacy would be protected.
Under CAPPS II, a person's identity would have been verified and the name run through federal law enforcement data bases to see if the traveler was a known or suspected terrorist or had been convicted of a felony.
All passengers would have received a number and a color code. Those designated as "red" would have been prohibited from flying. "Yellow" coded passengers would have faced secondary screening, similar to that now given to some passengers, and "green" passengers would have been allowed to fly.
Government officials had said they were trying to reduce the backlog in airport lines caused by additional passenger screening.
CAPPS II would have followed on the heels of the current CAPPS system, which singles out some passengers for additional scrutiny because of certain factors -- such as whether they paid cash for their tickets, or purchased one-way tickets.
Because the CAPPS criteria are so well-known, Transportation Security Administration officials acknowledge terrorists can easily circumvent the system.
There is an interesting discussion about the issue
in this book review.
Quote:At the end of his book (Michael Ignatieff's Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror), Ignatieff states "I have no doubt that we will prevail," but his own analysis undermines his optimistic message. The real message to take from the book is that unless we are more wary about the conditions - and information - upon which derogations of our rights are based, we may lose them, and our claim to be a free society, permanently.
Ignatieff's Basic Thesis: Rights Can Be Suspended, But Process Must Be Observed
In the first chapter, Ignatieff lays out the fundamental thesis of the work: In an open liberal democracy, force is sometimes necessary to cope with fundamental threats to a society. Thus, certain rights may be suspended, or derogated, during times of emergency or crisis, including times of terror.
But - and this is Ignatieff's crucial point -- they cannot be suspended willy-nilly. The government must publicly justify the measures it takes; subject its justifications to open political debate; and subject its measures to independent judicial review.
In addition, when legislation is passed, Ignatieff counsels, it ought to include "sunset" provisions to ensure it does not outlast the emergency for which it is designed. Such provisions, he notes, are more likely to be effective then unrealistic calls for an absolutist view that rights are inviolable even in times of emergency.
I am the absolutist here... and proud of it. Somebody needs to guard the guardians.
Quote:Indeed, in case after case, Ignatieff concludes -- from ETA in Spain, to the IRA in Northern Ireland, to the Red Brigades in Italy, to the Baader Meinhof gang in Germany -- democracy has won out over terrorism. Even Israel, under constant attack, has remained a democracy. Peaceful elections have been held; national coalition governments have changed hands smoothly; courts continue to review executive branch measures; and the country's press continues to be free and highly critical, much of the time, of its government.
Yet Ignatieff warns that "terrorism distorts democracy," because people want safety and so the executive branches of governments respond, and give themselves more and more police power - and power to infringe rights, without judicial oversight, along the way. Courts, too, typically defer and allow national security to take precedence individual rights.
"In these ways," Ignatieff explains, "terrorism cannot defeat democracy in a straight fight, but democracy can defeat itself."
First, Ignatieff stresses the necessity of judicial review. In contrast, the Bush Justice Department has argued that the judiciary has no power to review certain crucial decisions by the executive branch relating to the war on terror.
One such decision is the "enemy combatant" designation - and consequent incommunicado, indefinite detention -- at issue in the Hamdi and Padilla cases, which the Supreme Court will rule on in the coming days. According to the Administration, even a U.S. citizen can be deemed an "enemy combatant" without any judicial inquiry into the factual basis for the designation.
Decisions relating to Guantanamo Bay also fall into this category. According to the Administration, the almost 600 foreigners being held in Guantanamo Bay cannot bring federal habeas corpus claims in a U.S. court -- even though they are under U.S. authority on the naval base.
The Administration denies that U.S. federal court have any jurisdiction -- even if the detainees allege that they are entirely innocent and have been wrongfully confined, or that they have suffered abuse while detained.
Second, Ignatieff argues for openness and transparency where fundamental rights - such as dignity and liberty -- are at stake. In contrast, the Bush Administration's track record is characterized by darkness.
For example, after September 11, thousands of Muslim and Arab-American men were secretly detained around the country. Often, their families had no idea of what happened to them or where they were. There was no reason for them not to have been informed. And many of the detentions, it seems, had no relationship to terrorism - contrary to the government's claim at the time.
Later... even an office of the government itself (though not the Attorney General) admitted the detentions were wrongful. In the end,1,200 people were detained. Over 760 non-citizens were held on immigration charges; others were held as material witnesses or on criminal charges unrelated to the Sept. 11 attacks. Out of all of these, there has not been even one single 9-11-related conviction.
To take another example, the Administration does not always provide truthful information about its current policies and practices. For example, Attorney General Ashcroft assured the public that a controversial provision of the USA Patriot Act had never been used - then neglected to inform the public when that very provision was invoked just a few weeks later.
Certainly, in light of intense public interest, it was deceptive for Ashcroft to fail to update his assurance to the public when it became factually false. How can the public fairly evaluate the USA Patriot Act, when it does not even know if or how it is being used?
The Justice Department has also been deceptive in claiming that the USA Patriot is being used, as intended, to combat terrorism. It's not true - as we are only now, finally, learning.
In fact, the Act, and similar Executive Orders, are often being deployed in ordinary criminal cases. As a September 27, 2003 New York Times article, based on a high level internal DOJ report, detailed, there have been literally hundreds of non-terrorism cases for which the Patriot Act had been used.
The Treasury Department, for instance, has used the Act to prosecute financial transactions in casinos, storefront check-cashing schemes and auto dealers. Now it wants to expand it to cover home purchases as well! Meanwhile, the FBI has used Act provisions in a political corruption probe involving a Las Vegas girlie bar. And the Justice Department reported to the House Judiciary Committee last year that it used the new law in probes of credit-card fraud, theft from a bank account and a kidnapping.
It's true that the American public are willing to give up at least some rights, for some amount of time, if it is truly necessary to combat terrorism. It is an abuse of trust to use that mandate in situations totally unconnected to terrorism.
I understand and applaud your cynicism. I also worry about the government trying to permanently abridge our freedoms. I just think that there is a point when the people will decide that it's gone too far, and at that point, the tide will turn the other way. We aren't there yet.
