DHS Wants To Monitor the Web For Terrorists

clustro writes "Under the belief that terrorists are 'increasingly' recruiting US citizens, Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano says that increased government monitoring of the Internet is necessary to thwart them. It is believed that Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hassan and attempted Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad were inspired by radical Internet postings. Speaking at a meeting of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, Napolitano said, 'We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where tradeoffs are inevitable.'"

Comments

Disturbing

[Protoslo]

Apparently the speech focused on one of those situations where "tradeoffs are inevitable." If Hassan and Shahzad were "inspired" by radical internet posts, I cannot conceive of any further investigative tradeoff that could have been made while still maintaining constitutionality. Even if they had made radical internet posts, they would have to be inciting imminent lawless action or alluding to their participation in criminal plots/conspiracies/etc. to justify a search warrant. The FBI is already on the lookout for people who post such things on public online forums.

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.

I would hate to think that anyone liberal on civil rights would find these statements comforting...

"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."

Yes, I'm sure "liberals" will be relieved that Stewart Baker, former Assistant Secretary (nice research, AP) of the DHS for George W. Bush, approves of the Obama Administration's "security" policies. When Republican hawks talk about "mature" security policies, they mean the ones that Dick Cheney dreams about at night, the ones that Bush was trying to step back from in his final two years; they mean Obama's current policies.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Runaway1956]

Uhhh - how much have you actually read about Hassan? The man made treasonous statements in the presence of other commissioned officers. The only thing that held those officers back, it seems, is the liberal feel-good policies that would have branded them as racists, and/or intolerant religious bigots.

I wasn't an officer, but I reported less treasonous statements made by a little freak skinhead who worked for me. Nazi, neo-nazi, skinhead, whatever you care to call it, the freak drew swastikas everywhere he could draw them, and praised Hitler and his policies. His attitude toward blacks was disgusting, and his attitude toward our flag was little better. I don't know how the little freak ever got into the service.

Hassan? Same thing.

If you've read very much of what I post around here, or elsewhere, I am NOT EVER "politically correct", and I'd have reported Hassan again and again, even if I had to send letters to BuPers, the Pentagon, the White House, and to congress. No man in uniform should ever run at the mouth like Hassan did. Most certainly not a commissioned officer.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[linzeal]

This has little to do with international terrorist groups and more to do with domestic right wing militias and left-wing anarchists. If you think even 50% of the money allocated for investigating terrorism is used for over seas operations and groups, you are sadly mistaken. Even groups like Greenpeace who albeit may stage some rather spectacular displays of non-violent protect by hoisting banners up the sides of buildings have been routinely investigated under the auspices of these new anti-terrorism laws. In fact, I would say these laws, as a tool, are mostly ineffectual against international groups, mostly because of the sheer amount of translation and intelligence analysis that would need to be done to catch a single potential terrorist act is of a vast amount more than abusing these same powers to silence unwanted protest from mostly non-violent protesters. NYC spent millions of dollars tracking, documenting and arresting many of the groups who protested last years RNC convention.