Shooting Ourselves in the Foot

The U.S. military and all of our intelligence services are facing a shortage of Arabic linguists - and have been for some time. In 2003, for example (two years after September 11th, for the math impaired), the State Department had only 60 employees fluent in Arabic and only five with skills sufficient to go on Middle Eastern news and talk television programs.

This shortage very well may have contributed to the tragedies of September 11th happening at all. On September 10th, the NSA intercepted two messages from known al Qaeda operatives who were considered "high priority" - "Tomorrow is zero hour," said one; "The match is about to begin," was the other. Because these messages were from high priority targets, they were shunted into the translator's queue to be translated...which, due to the high volume of messages and the low number of translators, took two days. Until September 12th.

Clearly, a reasonable and effective defense strategy would be for our government to actually know what people from the Middle East (including those who mean us harm, those who may be trying to prevent harm, and those who want to engage in an ongoing dialogue about how we can improve international relationships and work together on safety threats) are saying to them and be able to talk back.

Yet despite all the talk of aggressive recruitment of linguists, signing and re-enlistment incentives, and stop-loss measures, our government seems intent on shooting itself in the foot when it comes to developing and employing a pool of desperately-needed Arabic language talent.

First, it rejects the already-established talent of men and women who very much want to use their skills on behalf of their country. Just one year after September 11th, the military discharged six Arabic linguists (along with three additional linguists in other critical languages) solely because they had been found to be gay. These "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" discharges have continued up to the present, including the highly-publicized firing of fluent Arabic speaker and West Point graduate Lt. Dan Choi last year.

Then, it harasses a young college student who is studying Arabic, detaining, handcuffing, and aggressively questioning him over the course of a four-hour ordeal as he tried to make his way back to school in California, because of the Arabic-language flashcards he had in his pocket. Among the questions Nick George was asked was whether he knew what language Osama bin Laden spoke. So now our government has made it suspicious behavior not only to speak a language that hundreds of millions of people around the world speak, but to develop language skills that are in painfully short supply and are needed for defense measures that are significantly more effective than violating the Constitutional rights of airline passengers who pose no threat to flight safety.

Maybe it's just me, but perhaps we need some better strategies.

Becca in Harrisburg

"They failed freedom. We're suing."

I spent about two hours last night perusing the internet about the FISA bill. The reaction to the ACLU's announcement that we will go to court to stop this law has been swift and overwhelmingly positive, so I'd like to share the email sent last night to national's listserv.

Dear Andy,

Today, elected officials in Washington sold out the Constitution -- again.

Cowed by the Bush administration’s pre-election scare tactics, the Senate passed privacy-stealing FISA legislation undermining your Fourth Amendment rights.

This is not a “compromise,” as some in Congress would have us believe. The only thing they compromised is your freedom. Donate to the ACLU, and stand up for your rights.

The FISA Amendments Act allows for mass, untargeted and warrantless surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States. And to top it off, it hands immunity to telecom companies for their role in domestic spying. This means your phone calls can be tapped and emails read with virtually no proof of threat, and there's no chance to learn how the telecoms invaded your privacy.

It’s outrageous, unconstitutional and un-American. That’s why the ACLU is prepared to challenge this unconstitutional law the moment President Bush signs it -- and you can rest assured they’ll be meeting our lawyers in court.

Help the ACLU protect your privacy. Donate now to the ACLU to defend your rights.

In one fell swoop, Congress has not only legalized the Bush administration’s secret NSA spying program, it has given the government even more power to listen to our phone calls and read our emails than even the Bush administration illegally claimed for itself under its secret program. And, by granting telecoms immunity, it greatly harmed the chances of ever learning the extent of the administration’s lawless actions.

Stand with the ACLU in defending your rights. Support the ACLU’s lawsuit and all of our other critical work defending the Constitution.

While politicians lack resolve, the ACLU and its supporters do not. Stand with the ACLU by making a gift today.

In defense of freedom,

Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
ACLU

Andy in Harrisburg

Virtual strip search machines, coming to an airport near you

Another brick in the building of a surveillance society. The USA Today reports today that 10 airports will install or have installed body scanning machines that show images underneath a person's clothing. You can see what it looks like here.

In our region, airports on the list include Baltimore-Washington International- a popular airport among folks here in south central PA-, JFK in New York, and National in Washington. I've been flying out of Harrisburg International Airport a lot lately, and it is suddenly looking all the more inviting. I can see that next marketing scheme: "HIA: Where we don't ask to look under your clothes!"

The ACLU responded:

The TSA effort could encourage scanners' use in rail stations, arenas and office buildings, the American Civil Liberties Union said. "This may well set a precedent that others will follow," said Barry Steinhardt, head of the ACLU technology project...

Steinhardt of the ACLU said passengers would be alarmed if they saw the image of their body. "It all seems very clinical and non-threatening — you go through this portal and don't have any idea what's at the other end," he said.

Passengers in line at these airports should recite the Fourth Amendment while waiting for screening: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

Andy in Harrisburg

The infrastructure for a police state

When my sister-in-law recently told me about the Global Positioning System in her new vehicle, I kiddingly harassed her and said that I would never get a GPS because it is a part of the infrastructure of a police state. Her husband stopped me dead in my righteous tracks and reminded me that our cell phones are easily tracked. I mumbled something like, "Yeah, but I like my phone."

Today The Washington Post reports that federal agents are using cell phones to track suspects. This is no surprise. They should be tracking suspected criminals by any lawful means possible.

The disturbing aspect of the Post story is that judges are issuing warrants without requiring that the agents meet the constitutional standard of probable cause.

In some cases, judges have granted the requests without requiring the government to demonstrate that there is probable cause to believe that a crime is taking place or that the inquiry will yield evidence of a crime. Privacy advocates fear such a practice may expose average Americans to a new level of government scrutiny of their daily lives.

Such requests run counter to the Justice Department's internal recommendation that federal prosecutors seek warrants based on probable cause to obtain precise location data in private areas.

That second paragraph is particularly troubling. Here's a piece from later in the article.

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said field attorneys should follow the department's policy. "We strongly recommend that prosecutors in the field obtain a warrant based on probable cause" to get location data "in a private area not accessible to the public," he said. "When we become aware of situations where this has not occurred, we contact the field office and discuss the matter."

When did following the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution become a "recommendation"?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

For more on this issue, visit the ACLU's Privacy & Technology page.

Andy in Harrisburg