Napolitano: Internet Monitoring Needed to Fight Homegrown Terrorism
Napolitano: Internet Monitoring Needed to Fight Homegrown Terrorism
WASHINGTON — Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation’s homeland security chief said Friday.
As terrorists increasingly recruit U.S. citizens, the government needs to constantly balance Americans’ civil rights and privacy with the need to keep people safe, said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
But finding that balance has become more complex as homegrown terrorists have used the Internet to reach out to extremists abroad for inspiration and training. Those contacts have spurred a recent rash of U.S.-based terror plots and incidents.
“The First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet,” Napolitano told a gathering of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.
Napolitano’s comments suggest an effort by the Obama administration to reach out to its more liberal, Democratic constituencies to assuage fears that terrorist worries will lead to the erosion of civil rights.
The administration has faced a number of civil liberties and privacy challenges in recent months as it has tried to increase airport security by adding full-body scanners, or track suspected terrorists traveling into the United States from other countries.
“Her speech is sign of the maturing of the administration on this issue,” said Stewart Baker, former undersecretary for policy with the Department of Homeland Security. “They now appreciate the risks and the trade-offs much more clearly than when they first arrived, and to their credit, they’ve adjusted their preconceptions.”
Underscoring her comments are a number of recent terror attacks over the past year where legal U.S. residents such as Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad and accused Fort Hood, Texas, shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan, are believed to have been inspired by the Internet postings of violent Islamic extremists.
And the fact that these are U.S. citizens or legal residents raises many legal and constitutional questions.
Napolitano said it is wrong to believe that if security is embraced, liberty is sacrificed.
She added, “We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable.”
As an example, she noted the struggle to use full-body scanners at airports caused worries that they would invade people’s privacy.
The scanners are useful in identifying explosives or other nonmetal weapons that ordinary metal-detectors might miss — such as the explosives that authorities said were successfully brought on board the Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day by Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. He is accused of trying to detonate a bomb hidden in his underwear, but the explosives failed, and only burned Abdulmutallab.
U.S. officials, said Napolitano, have worked to institute a number of restrictions on the scanners’ use in order to minimize that. The scans cannot be saved or stored on the machines by the operator, and Transportation Security Agency workers can’t have phones or cameras that could capture the scan when near the machine.
The Dept. of Homeland Security was created by the “Patriot Act”and is,under the direction of the Department of State. The Dept. of State,is under title 22 USC Foreign Relations. The Homeland Security is for Americans stationed in foreign Countries, party to the treaty which is the “Patriot Act”.This treaty has no Application in tne several states of the union see 4 USC 71-72. Futhermore,the Supreme Court stated in Lopez v. United states “Congress dosen’t have anything close to a police power in the several states of the union”.The only monitoring the Dept. could legally do would be for federal, or military installations stationed in other countries.Perhaps the real definition of Homegrown Terrorism will help,”A ground swell of opposition to the International Bank seizing a nations assets”. Now we know who she works for.
The DHS is merely a Washington D.C Municipal Agency with zero police force in the several states.
http://michie.lexisnexis.com/dc/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm
District of Columbia Code
DIVISION I GOVERNMENT OF DISTRICT
TITLE 7 HUMAN HEALTH CARE AND SAFETY
SUBTITLE J PUBLIC SAFETY
§ 7-2202. Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency authorized; Director and other personnel; compensation [Formerly § 6-1402].
(a) To carry out the purposes of this chapter, the Mayor of the District of Columbia is authorized to establish in the municipal government of such District a Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency to consist of a Director and such other personnel as may be needed. Such Director shall be the executive head of such Agency……….
One of the more important statutory restrictions which secures and reinforces Congress’ authority is at 4 U.S.C. §§ 71 & 72. The first of these sections establishes territory within the current borders of the District of Columbia as the seat of government for the United States; the second prohibits any government department from operating outside the District of Columbia save as Congress authorizes by statute:
Sec. 72. Public offices; at seat of Government
All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law.