Tag: Patriot Act

It’s the Biggest National Threat and We Can’t Help You

The Department of Defense’s (DoD) new Cyber Strategy is a refinement of past attempts at codifying and understanding the “new terrain” of cybersecurity threats to the United States.   While I actually applaud many of the acknowledgements in the new Strategy, I am still highly skeptical of the DoD’s ability to translate words to deeds. In particular, I am so because the entire Strategy is premised on the fact that the “DoD cannot defend every network and system against every kind of intrusion” because the “total network attack surface is too large to defend against all threats and too vast to close all vulnerabilities (13).

Juxtapose this fact to the statement that “from 2013-2015, the Director of National Intelligence named the cyber threat as the number one strategic threat to the United States, placing it ahead of terrorism for the first time since the attacks of September 11, 2001.” (9).   What we have, then, is the admission that the cyber threat is the top “strategic” –not private, individual or criminal—threat to the United States, and it cannot defend against it. The Strategy thus requires partnerships with the private sector and key allies to aid in the DoD’s fight. Here is the rub though: private industry is skeptical of the US government’s attempt to court it and many of the US’s key allies do not trust much of what Washington says. Moreover, my skepticism is furthered by the simple fact that one cannot read the Strategy in isolation. Rather, one must take it in conjunction with other policies and measures, in particular Presidential Policy Directive 20 (PPD 20), H.R. 1560 “Protecting Cyber Networks Act”, and the sometimes forgotten Patriot Act.

Continue reading

Standing Up against the “Patriot Act”

It’s great to see a few of our elected representatives fighting back against the Democratic and Republican leadership’s attempt to renew the Patriot Act for another four years without amendment or even debate.  
I highly recommend reading a few of the statements and speeches by the handful of Congress people brave enough to stand up against the leadership of both parties.  Here is one of Republican Senator Rand Paul’s speeches from a few days ago.  Here is John Tester.  And here is Democratic Senator Tom Udall.  They make many telling points about the Patriot Act’s gutting of the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment–and the lack of meaningful debate that America has had about this. 
Their bold effort may be futile given the powerful political and economic forces behind continuation of the Patriot Act’s invasions of all Americans’ privacy and rights (not to mention the broad foreign policy effects).  But the attempt is worth paying attention to.
 For one thing, it is one of the most important issues facing our country.  Over the last 10 years, we have traded freedom after freedom for the illusion of “security” and the enrichment of the “homeland security” industry.  Even 10 years after 9/11, political leaders continue to use fear to empower the government, intelligence and military institutions.  Those tactics help generate the “I don’t care” or “I have nothing to hide” attitudes that too many Americans claim to have–but which, with a bit of probing and debate, often fall away. 
What is particularly sad is that both mainstream Democrats and Republicans avidly support these incursions on American liberties and stoke the fear-mongering.  Party loyalty—what Glenn Greenwald rightly calls “tribalism” by both sides–prevents all but the “fringes” of the parties from fighting back.  Yet just a bit of long-term thinking should make even hardcore loyalists think twice:  It is inevitable that the “other side” will hold the reins of power again soon.  Yet, for instance, Democrats servile to the Obama administration, think not about what might happen if Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman became President—and wield these very same instruments of government.
Taking a more optimistic view, another reason to pay attention is that this might, just might, be one of the early signs of an eventual ebb in attacks on Constitutional freedoms in the name of homeland security.  It’s true of course that these efforts to debate the Patriot Act are receiving relatively little coverage in the mainstream press.  It’s also true that the coverage is often biased.  The New York Times’ backpage story for instance headlines that the delay in reauthorizing the Patriot Act “could hinder investigators.”  Shudders!  Those always trustworthy government agents won’t be able to read our emails, listen to our phone calls, and monitor our financial transactions without warrants.  We face grave peril!  The Times’ headline could just as easily have read that the delay will restore Constitutional liberties. 
But possibly, just possibly, the pendulum will begin to swing back.  If it does, it appears this will require an unusual coalition of libertarian politicians on left and right to fight the establishments of both parties.

Taking some time to understand what’s happening in Congress now—and to support debate about the Patriot Act—can only help.  Maybe someday this blot on our Constitution will actually be repealed.

Another war on terror outrage: asylum denied

Did anyone else know about this additional outrageous consequence of the “war on terror”? You may have to be a subscriber to see this note from The Nation, September 20?

Deborah Amos’s Eclipse of the Sunnis: Power, Exile, and Upheaval in the Middle East (PublicAffairs; $25.95) is a harrowing account of the pain and anguish suffered by the Iraqi Sunni diaspora in the Middle East. Especially perverse is a legal hurdle faced by exiles seeking asylum in the United States. Amos reports that Iraqis who have “paid ransom for the release of a loved one who had been kidnapped by a militia or criminal gang” have been barred from relocating to the United States by the Patriot Act, which considers “the paying of ransom in such cases—regardless of the circumstances—as constituting ‘material support’ for terrorists.” Iraq’s exiles have been left stranded by their putative liberators between a decimated past and a future not yet born.

I searched around and found an item from May in the NY Review of Books noting that Congress granted the State Department and DHS the right to waive the “material support” limit when it involved payments “under duress.” However, the authors claim that 1000s of potential refugees and asylum-seekers continue to be denied entry into the US because of anti-terror laws.

© 2019 Duck of Minerva

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑