Nat'l Security v. Free Speech

Balancing free speech and national security has long been an issue for the United States Government. The socialist and anti-war beliefs of Eugene V. Debs opposed Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy stand; his dissidence alone caused him to be arrested, along with nearly 2,000 others. A few years later, the case of Gitlow v. New York in 1925 ended in a Supreme Court decision that restrictions can be placed on free speech if certain words involve “danger to the public peace and to the security of the state.” A couple of decades later in the 1940s and 1950s, there was a fear that the Communists might overthrow and destroy the government. The Smith Act of 1940 punished the advocacy of overthrowing the government, limiting the speech of leftists in exchange for national security. In the 1957 Yates v. United States case, a modification was placed on the Smith Act that distinguished between a written statement of an idea and the advocacy that a certain action be taken.

Since September 11, the issue of national security and free speech has been thoroughly examined, especially after the passage of the Patriot Act. Protecting citizens from terrorism has taken the form of limiting free speech and 1^st Amendment rights. FBI agents are allowed to read e-mails and listen into private phone calls. Keeping that in mind, people are fearful of saying the wrong thing, which itself is a limit of free speech. Also, the government can deem people associated with certain political groups terrorists if it feels that they are a threat to national security. Speeches, letters to the editor, or any comment about the government and its actions that undermines its anti-terrorism efforts can be potentially silenced under the Patriot Act. While maintaining a certain level of national security is very important, violating the 1^st Amendment is never acceptable. In fact, a government that takes away our speech is a government that should be overthrown.

Watch Out For...

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Leftwing_Extremist_Threat.pdf

I previously (in error) thought the Obama Administration was a one-sided offender, but I guess not.

Watch Out For...

Right Wing Extremism

Tierney Votes "Yes" On H.R 1617

Department of Homeland Security Component Privacy Officer Act of 2009 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate a full-time privacy official for each of the following Department of Homeland Security (DHS) components: (1) the Transportation Security Administration (TSA); (2) the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS); (3) Customs and Border Protection (CBP); (4) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); (5) the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); (6) the Coast Guard; (7) the Directorate of Science and Technology; (8) the Office of Intelligence and Analysis; and (9) the Directorate for National Protection and Programs. Grants each component's privacy official primary responsibility for implementing the privacy policy for DHS established by DHS's privacy officer.

Increasing the size of the bureaucracy = not good. Our Representative John F. Tierney was among the 412 people in the Congress who voted "Yes." Dr. Ron "No" Paul lived up to his name and Constitutional values via his vote.

"Homeland Security" Bill Introduced

H.R 645

• • (a) In General- In accordance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.
• • (b) Purpose of National Emergency Centers- The purpose of a national emergency center shall be to use existing infrastructure--
  • • (1) to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;
  • • (2) to provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of Federal, State, and local first responders;
  • • (3) to provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations; and
  • • (4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

(4) looks real specific.

Military To Bolster Homeland Security

The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.

The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.

There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement. - Washington Post

Homeland insecurity as Chris would say. Count me in as one of those critics.

Travelers Laptops To Be Seized

Federal agents may take a traveler's laptop or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed.

Also, officials may share copies of the laptop's contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"The policies . . . are truly alarming," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who is probing the government's border search practices. He said he intends to introduce legislation soon that would require reasonable suspicion for border searches, as well as prohibit profiling on race, religion or national origin.

DHS officials said that the newly disclosed policies -- which apply to anyone entering the country, including U.S. citizens -- are reasonable and necessary to prevent terrorism. Officials said such procedures have long been in place but were disclosed last month because of public interest in the matter. - Washington Post

This is tricky because the DHS is just trying to do its job. If security is too tight then people start to cry out that their liberties are being taken away, but if there is no security people become worried that their government isn't doing its job. It's a zero sum game.

U.S To Enter POHA In August

Government officials have been quietly stepping up counterterror efforts out of a growing concern that al Qaeda or similar organizations might try to capitalize on the spate of extremely high-profile events in the coming months, sources tell ABC News.

Security experts point to next month's Olympics as evidence that high-profile events attract threats of terrorism, like the one issued this past weekend by a Chinese Muslim minority group that warned of its intent to attack the Games.

Anti-terror officials in the U.S. cite this summer and fall's lineup of two major political parties' conventions, November's general election and months of transition into a new presidential administration as cause for heightened awareness and action.

This is what the Department of Homeland Security is quietly declaring a Period of Heightened Alert, or POHA, a time frame when terrorists may have more incentive to attack.

According to drafts of government memos described to ABC News, the period would run roughly from this August through July 2009. - ABC News

Get scared, America!

Picking the President: Homeland Security

Hillary Clinton

Support 9/11 Commission Reforms	YES
Reauthorize Patriot Act	YES
Surveillance Without Warrant	NO
Close Guantanamo Bay	YES
Military Draft	NO
National Service Program	YES

John McCain

Support 9/11 Commission Reforms	YES
Reauthorize Patriot Act	YES
Surveillance Without Warrant	YES
Close Guantanamo Bay	YES
Military Draft	NO
National Service Program	NO

Barack Obama

Support 9/11Commission Reforms	YES
Reauthorize Patriot Act	YES
Surveillance Without Warrant	NO
Close Guantanamo Bay	YES
Military Draft	NO
National Service Program	YES

Points to the Democrats. The Constitution implies a right to privacy, which unwarranted surveillance would violate. A National Service Program can get more people involved in helping the community instead of pretending to on their "community-serving blogs".

A Little Bit of Homeland Security

McALLEN, Texas -- The federal government and a south Texas county have finalized an agreement to build a combination of levees and border fence, a project aimed at addressing national security concerns and local flood-control needs at the same time.

The agreement announced Monday calls for the federal government to pay about $65.7 million of the $113.9 million project along 22 miles of the Rio Grande. It also puts Hidalgo County's long-awaited levee improvements on a fast-track to finish in less than a year.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced the plan in February, hailing it as a rare compromise in the contentious fight between local and federal government on the border fence. - Los Angeles Times

Two things at the same time? Nice!