Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Skeletor Chertoff Mouths More Nonsense

He's back and he's whack! I may have to make this a regular series on this page if he keeps up this pace. Election season is truly terror season.

The Boston Globe has recorded the following comments from the US Department of Homeland [In]Security chief, Michael Chertoff:

Homeland security chief Michael Chertoff called yesterday for a review of domestic antiterrorism laws, saying the United States might benefit from the more aggressive surveillance and arrest powers used by British authorities last week to thwart an alleged plot to bomb airliners.

Let's review those extra powers the British used on super-secret-background to such wonderful effect.

As Glenn Greenwald explains, the surveillance leading to the recent arrests in Britain was authorized by warrant as REQUIRED under British law.

And how did British authorities know who to target with their legally authorized cracker-jack surveillance powers? Was it a government program to designed to target the entire citizenr in total secrecy? Did they sift through every citizens garbage and conduct secret physical searches until they found this diabolical plot? Did the covertly read read everyones credit card receipts, library records, interent communications. Did they tap each and every land line, cell phone, tin cup and string in the United Kingdom? Mmmmmm, not exactly.

It all began with a tip: In the aftermath of the July 7, 2005, suicide bombings on London's transit system, British authorities received a call from a worried member of the Muslim community, reporting general suspicions about an acquaintance.

That's right. There was no investigation at all, no hint, not a clue until the suspects Muslim neighbors approached British authorities and told them what was going on. So the question that now begs to be asked is, "Don't our law enforcement officials already have the power to receive tips from concerned citizens?"

Maybe Chertoff means we should bring these particular Muslims over and buy them houses in every city. We may never know for sure. What we do know is that this hardly seems like a reasonable example to cite in order justify giving the the government even greater power to act without checks and balances. In fact, it seem to have quite the opposite effect from where I'm standing. It makes one wonder why it is necessary for Americans abandon our civil rights and our checks and balances while the British can catch terrorists without that sacrifice. Aren't we supposed to more free than they are?