Ivo Skoric on Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:45:01 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] Giant step forward... |
>>WASHINGTON--A secretive federal court on Monday granted police broad authority to monitor Internet usage, record keystrokes and employ other surveillance methods against terror and espionage suspects. In an unexpected and near-complete victory for law enforcement, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review overturned a lower court's decision and said that Attorney General John Ashcroft's request for new powers was reasonable. The 56-page ruling [http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/newsroom/02-001.pdf] removes procedural barriers for federal agents conducting surveillance under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/ch36.html] (FISA). The law, enacted as part of post-Watergate reforms, permits sweeping electronic surveillance, telephone eavesdropping and surreptitious searches of residences and offices. At a press conference Monday afternoon, Ashcroft applauded the ruling, characterizing it as a "victory for liberty, safety and the security of the American people." Ashcroft said the ruling marks a new era of collaboration between police and intelligence agencies such as the CIA and the National Security Agency. "This decision allows law enforcement officials to learn from intelligence officials, and vice versa, as a means of sort of allowing the information to flow from one community to another," Ashcroft said. "This will greatly enhance our ability to put pieces together that different agencies have. I believe this is a giant step forward." << I guess, we should expect Ashcroft to tell us about the three truths, now, that he adopted the jargon of Chinese Communist Party aparatchiks, talking in giant steps. Only, I don't see a step, that grants more authority to government over the people, necessarily a step forward. Not in terms of democracy, civil and human rights, at least. On the other hand, if the attorney general agrees that "the ruling marks a new era of collaboration between police and intelligence agencies" - the kind of collaboration foreseen by the 484 pages Homeland Security Bill, why does his government still insists on that Bill? Isn't this bureaucratic redundancy? Indeed, the Homeland Security Bill is a GIANT step, actually the biggest change in federal government since the Declaration of Independence. I think that every American should have a chance to read what is written in those 484 pages before they become a law. How else would this still be the country of "We, the people..."? Therefore, I tend to agree with one of the last remaining true giants of the New Rome, senator Robert Byrd, in his insistence on debate. "In this effeminate age it is instructive to read of courage. There are members of the U.S. Senate and House who are terrified apparently if the president of the United States tells them, urges them, to vote a certain way that may be against their belief." - he said. Land of the free, home of the brave is a Hollywood myth. In reality this is becoming the land of enslaved, home of the scared. ivo _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold