Cato Daily Dispatch for December 23, 2002
Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via email
Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via PDA (AvantGo)
(Links to outside sources were active as of the date of this dispatch; however, not all news sources maintain links to current stories indefinitely. Some links also may require registration.)
Bush Administration to Propose Centralized Internet Monitoring SystemMuslims Say Detentions Could Hurt INS Effort
Iraq "Ready to Deal" with Arms Program Questions
Bush Administration to Propose Centralized Internet Monitoring System
The New York Times reports that "the Bush administration is planning to propose requiring Internet service providers to help build a centralized system to enable broad monitoring of the Internet and, potentially, surveillance of its users.
"The proposal is part of a final version of a report, 'The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace,' set for release early next year, according to several people who have been briefed on the report. It is a component of the effort to increase national security after the Sept. 11 attacks.
"The President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board is preparing the report, and it is intended to create public and private cooperation to regulate and defend the national computer networks, not only from everyday hazards like viruses but also from terrorist attack. Ultimately the report is intended to provide an Internet strategy for the new Department of Homeland Security."
In "Cyber-Surveillance in the Wake of 9/11" Cato Institute technology and telecommunications analysts Adam Thierer and Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr. point out that "the law enforcement community wants to ensure it has all the tools at its disposal to do its job: to protect the individual rights of American citizens in a world that is often hostile to that objective.
"But here's the dilemma. Part of that arsenal," they argue, "must be not just traditional telephone wire-tapping systems, but new digital wire-tapping and e-mail tracing systems, and even wireless eavesdropping technologies and 'key stroke logging.' Such a tool allows law enforcement to install a hidden device in a suspect's computer keyboard to record and monitor the words and sentences he types. Other technologies likely exist that the public isn't aware of. The law enforcement community argues they need to be able to liberally use these technologies domestically and abroad to make credible threat assessments before the bad guys can strike.
"On the other hand, privacy advocates and many civil libertarians argue that these cyber-surveillance efforts can go too far and threaten the liberties of innocent parties. Why should law enforcement be given open-ended authority to engage in cyber-snooping, especially of its own citizenry? Are we forgetting about the Fourth Amendment's stipulation that, 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated...'?"
Muslims Say Detentions Could Hurt INS Effort
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that "fears raised by the detention of hundreds of foreigners last week could discourage future turnout for a registration process designed to detect potential terrorists, Muslim leaders and immigration lawyers are warning.
"After days of refusing to answer questions about the number of people detained, the Justice Department disclosed Friday that about 400 people were held in Southern California - including about 25 in San Diego - when they arrived to have their photographs and fingerprints taken.
"They were trying to register for the Immigration and Naturalization Service's new database that tracks foreigners who enter and leave the country on tourist, business and student visas. The first deadline, last Monday, applied to male visa holders 16 years and older from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria.
"Many of those who showed up were carrying expired visas, but they believed they wouldn't be detained because the INS was still processing their requests for permanent residency.
"Instead, they were held for days while authorities ran background checks and compared their names to terrorist watch lists. Many have since been released on bail and ordered to appear before immigration judges.
"'We are encouraging people to register, and people want to comply,' said Ibrahim Dayeh, president of the San Diego chapter of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. 'But some people may be too afraid to go, because they know others have been detained.'
"Muslim leaders accuse the Justice Department of mishandling the registration at a time when the country is calling on Middle Easterners to help in the war against terrorism.
"Justice Department officials defended the registration requirement as a valid response to post-Sept. 11 national security concerns. Two of the Sept. 11 hijackers held INS-issued student visas. The FBI also believes there are several hundred people in the United States who are either potential terrorists or part of their support network."
Cato Institute Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Robert Levy, warns that the INS's new registration system does not respect the U.S. Constitution.
In an article published for Criminal Defense Weekly, Levy notes that "the Supreme Court has not defined, with precision, the full rights of non-permanent legal aliens; but even illegal aliens are ordinarily entitled to due process unless trumped by national security interests.
"The general rule is this: Any person who has developed a sufficient connection with the United States to be considered part of our national community - roughly anyone here legally and voluntarily - is protected by the Constitution. When persons accept U.S. jurisdiction, they assume obligations and they are accorded privileges in return. Thus, to satisfy constitutional concerns, the government must show that its new rules, when applied to Middle Eastern students, workers, and tourists, are an effective and necessary answer to the systemic immigration problems that have compromised national security. That showing hasn't been made.
"Essentially, there are four problems with our immigration system: (1) Applicants aren't sufficiently screened. (2) They're not monitored closely enough after they're here. (3) They're allowed to overstay visas without penalty. (4) No one tracks their departure. The new regulations purport to mitigate those problems. But anyone truly dangerous will not show up for registration, or he'll enter the United States illegally. And remember, the overwhelming majority of targeted persons are entirely innocent.
"The new rules, because they apply to some but not all countries, raise equal protection as well as due process concerns. The selection of persons is based, not on misbehavior, but wholly on nationality. That's a clear example of unrefined profiling, which civil libertarians ought properly to condemn."
Iraq "Ready to Deal" with Arms Program Questions
The Washington Post reports that Iraq has "pronounced itself 'ready to deal' with outstanding questions about its arms programs today, agreeing to allow scientists to be interviewed here without government officials present and even inviting CIA agents to visit suspected weapons sites.
"Iraq, however, still would not commit to permitting scientists to be taken abroad for interviews, as the United States has demanded, and said it would supply no more documents to fill in the 'gaps' found by U.N. inspectors in a 12,000-page declaration about its weapons programs submitted this month.
"'We don't have any more,' Gen. Amir Saadi, a top adviser to President Saddam Hussein, said at a news conference this evening. 'We don't have any more documentation. But we are ready... to work and cooperate with' the inspectors.
"'We do not even have any objection if the CIA sent somebody with the inspectors to show them the suspected sites,' Saadi added.
"The statements marked Iraq's most extensive response yet to the Bush administration's declaration three days ago that Iraq is in 'material breach' of U.N. resolutions for failing to fully disclose its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. Saadi denounced what he called American 'lies and baseless allegations' and called for the inspectors to be allowed to work without pressure from the United States."
In "Why the United States Should Not Attack Iraq," the Cato Institute's Ivan Eland, director of defense policy studies, observes that "the key to neutralizing the Iraqi threat is to deter Hussein from aggressive action by sending a clear and credible message of commitment to protecting the United States against any challenge to its security. It is essential to communicate a willingness to massively retaliate in response to attacks against our homeland. This is crucially different from President Bush's message that overthrowing Hussein must be a top priority, regardless of his actual behavior. If Hussein believes that his political survival is being threatened, and there is nothing he can do about it, he may respond in a dangerous and unpredictable manner-with weapons of mass destruction."
Christopher Kilmer, editor, ckilmer@cato.org
/div>