February 10, 2004

The Bush administration says that its "War on Terrorism" is an ongoing success. It claims that such successes are due to various laws and programs implemented since 9/11. While I don't disagree that 9/11 served as a catalyst for the passage of several laws and the institution of several programs, and I don't even argue that a terrorist or two may have been caught in the law enforcement net of one of these programs, I will say this: I believe that the measures taken by the Bush administration in the name of preventing terrorism are less about stopping terrorists than they are about asserting an ironclad authority over American citizens.

Some of the most well known laws and programs having directly to do with alleged terrorist interdiction are the USA PATRIOT Act, CAPPS II, and MATRIX. None of these have had particularly smooth sailing, due in large part to their inherent unconstitutionality and extreme invasiveness. All, unfortunately, are either in effect or gearing up for implementation. The latest status of each offers little hope for those who love liberty:

Despite ongoing criticism and escalating defiance by local governments of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Bush administration continues to defend the law as "necessary" to prevent terrorist attacks on American soil. In fact, the White House has let it be known that if Congress takes any action to repeal or mitigate any portion of the PATRIOT Act, President Bush will veto the legislation. Officials are also working to expand the Act.

A strong public backlash against Delta Airlines caused it to pull out of testing for the federal government's CAPPS II (Civilian Air Passenger Profiling System) program, and it wasn't too much later that JetBlue Airlines suffered a similar fate after it was learned the airline had given passenger data to a Pentagon contractor for "testing" purposes (in fact, the JetBlue incident was serious enough that the company is now the subject of a Congressional investigation). Airlines in general have now refused to participate in the program.

The MATRIX (Multi-state Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange) program was originally to have been tested using the data from some thirteen states. Initially begun with virtually no publicity, the news eventually got out and now widespread criticism of the database, its over broad anticipated contents and the likelihood of erroneous data, the developer's shady background, and fears for privacy have (to date) winnowed the testing states down to six.

And now, in the midst of claiming that terror prevention is of paramount importance, President Bush is proposing an immigration plan that he says will reform and make more compassionate existing law. While his plan has been endorsed by some business owners and (somewhat reluctantly) by Mexican President Vicente Fox, immigration reform groups, migrant groups, conservatives, and the majority of Americans in general, do not support the plan (objections are, in some cases, from opposite sides of the concept). In fact, conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage has gone so far as to suggest the president be impeached for the plan which he considers a threat to national security.

Obviously, although the administration is nowhere near throwing in the towel on these and many other programs, protests and criticism are having some effect. And the government's attempts to assuage fears or convince the public of the programs' efficiencies and benefits, are going largely unaccepted.

Consider, for example, the two biggest news stories concerning the PATRIOT Act. Neither is a particularly convincing point in favor of the law. One involves an investigation in Las Vegas that was wholly unrelated to terrorism (despite government assurance that the Act's provisions would be used only for terrorism investigations), essentially making the case a better argument against the PATRIOT Act than in favor of it. And there's an ongoing case in Florida [] where the information gathered in criminal and terrorism investigations have been combined under provision of the PATRIOT Act that permit previously prohibited communication between various agencies. That sounds a little better until you know that, although it's rarely pointed out, both investigations were proceeding apace - and with success - long prior to any invocation of the PATRIOT Act.

MATRIX, meanwhile, claims to offer only information already publicly available or on law enforcement databases. The program, backers say, simply merges such data and provides authorities with a quick way to efficiently mine the information. But the same man who created MATRIX was also intimately involved in the company and computer programming that was charged with "scrubbing" Florida's voter records of criminals ineligible to vote. The program did its scrubbing, but it wiped out thousands who were not criminals and who were thus denied their right to vote in the 2000 presidential elections. Computer databases inherently contain errors; computer programs always contain bugs that may or may not show up depending on an endless variety of possible data combinations. That may be acceptable for a word processor or a web browser, but it's not okay when such mistakes - whether human or machine generated - will cause innocents to be labeled as criminals and the guilty to be given a free pass (you can find various links to MATRIX-related stories here).

Take a look as well at the case of a 21 year-old college student who was stopped from boarding a plane over the holidays because she was on a list of suspected terrorists. She had no idea what might have prompted the designation, and insisted it had to be a mistake. Eventually, the Department of Homeland Security did admit there'd been an error and that it was taking steps to correct it (the woman is now suing DHS). Now imagine the repercussions of data multiplied by millions of bits of information, and know that the error rate percentage invariably holds steady. Once CAPPS II goes into effect, literally thousands of innocent Americans will be forbidden the convenience of air travel, and the refusal of officials to discuss determining data points means they'll never even know why. Meanwhile, anyone with a few pieces of fraudulent ID and a little falsified background information will move freely through the jetways and onto planes loaded with unsuspecting passengers. Despite the obvious flaws, the administration has determined that, rather than scrap or modify the program, it will simply force unwilling airlines across the board to participate against their will.

Even his immigration plan's general unpopularity has not stopped President Bush from continuing to tout his idea of reform as being compassionate, and risking the alienation of a respectable number of his Republican supporters. Whether he is doing this in tacit acknowledgment that immigration authorities are unable to deal with an estimated 8 to 12 million illegal aliens already in the country, in an attempt to curry the favor of a significant Hispanic voting block, or for some other more subtle reason is immaterial to the probable devastating effects - on many levels - of the implementation of such a plan. Already, illegal entries into the country have risen by 15% in reaction to the administration's plan.

All of these laws and programs are being described as "necessary" and "important." While their necessity and importance is arguable, certainly their value in comparison to their cost, inefficiency, and danger to civil liberties shows precisely where the administration places its concentration: on itself and on its own powers. Not convinced? Well, if the administration is truly concerned about terrorism, and if it genuinely believes in liberty, before it institutes expensive and freedom-foiling programs, why doesn't it consider some relatively cheap, far less invasive, and significantly more efficient ideas?

If we want to prevent any more airplanes from being used as missiles, why aren't pilots armed so that they can shoot anyone attempting to illegally enter the cockpit? Oh, the Transportation Security Administration does claim to have a program to do just that. Unfortunately, the TSA is hindering volunteer pilots at virtually every step, including a recently revealed memo many consider an active threat against pilots who try to participate. An armed pilot program is inexpensive; efficient; and offers a very real deterrent. But the government agency charged with implementing the program is actively working to see that the program never (pardon the pun) gets off the ground. Why?

If we're looking for likely hijackers, why are we conducting random searches at airports in the name of political correctness rather than using our knowledge to profile likely candidates? Some people will cry "racism" at the first appearance of such profiling, but the bottom line is simple enough: If I report to the police that an Asian man robbed me or that a black man raped me, is it racist when police don't bother to question any white men? To date, I'm unaware of a single terrorist attack conducted by a little old lady or a kindergarten student. No one has mentioned to me a family accompanied by young children attempting to board a plan with bombs hidden in a teddy bear. Yet stories abound of people just like these being searched while young Arab men move through security with only a cursory glance. And if we want real security for public air transportation, is there a reason we'd rely on an all-too-fallible database system when we can simply use existing security measures which are both more reliable (I'm aware that there are obvious loopholes to be addressed, but I'm talking about systems as a whole, here) and less expensive?

If police are truly sworn to uphold the law, why are they so anxious to circumvent it by relying on error-prone databases rather than doing the thorough work investigators used to be justifiably proud of doing? (If they don't have time to handle the many cases on their desk with that kind of care, then perhaps we're spending too much time prosecuting things that shouldn't be called crimes...) And if law enforcement agents are remotely interested in protecting the Constitutional rights of innocent Americans, how come they're seeking still more exceptions to Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections in a supposed effort to make catching the bad guys easier?

If the federal government really wants to stop terrorists from coming into the country where they can roam freely and wreak havoc at a location of their choice, why aren't authorities appreciative of the help in maintaining the integrity of our borders offered by local citizens' militia groups? Along the same lines, why isn't the government significantly beefing up its own border patrols? And why would the administration propose a plan that offers all of those already here illegally a de facto amnesty? (The White House doesn't like to use the word "amnesty," but that's pretty much what the plan entails even if it does preclude a direct path to citizenship.) Why are states worried about providing all of the extra funding they need to maintain social services for illegal aliens when it would be both cheaper and closer to the actual law if they put them on buses or planes back to wherever it was they came from instead? (To be fair, several states - Arizona, California, and Colorado - are floating bills to prohibit all but emergency services to illegals.)

I don't debate the need to protect ourselves against terrorist attack. It just seems to me that there are plenty of things that could and should be done that would be reasonably effective, cost-efficient, and which would not represent threats to liberty. And then there are those things which are expensive, inefficient, and invasive of civil rights in the extreme. And the fact that our government has chosen the latter rather than the former makes the conclusion - the one with which I started this essay and the one with which I'll finish it - an easy one to draw: The measures taken by the Bush administration in the name of preventing terrorism are less about stopping terrorists than they are about asserting an ironclad authority over American citizens.

Lady Liberty is the pseudonym of the Internet political activist behind the Lady Liberty’s Constitution Clearing House web site. Through her web site, her goal is to educate and motivate others to activism by offering Action Alerts, current news and original commentary, and a significant listing of online resources for activists.

Lady Liberty was a part of the highly successful Boycott Delta Internet campaign last year, and is currently working with the online effort to stop the CAPPS II and MATRIX programs. Lady Liberty is one of the first signed members of the web-centered Free State Project, and has produced various print advertising and marketing pieces for the group; she is also affiliated with the Free State Wyoming Project. She is currently a featured editorial columnist for Internet publications Opinion Editorials, The Price of Liberty, and The Sierra Times.

Lady Liberty has a degree in communications, and she worked as a radio news journalist before gaining certifications in various Internet disciplines. She is a member of several political action groups including The Planetary Society, National Space Society, National Rifle Association, and the Second Amendment Sisters. She now works as a graphic and web designer in the Midwest.

E-mail Lady Liberty at ladylibrty@ladylibrty.com

Archives

We Hardly Knew Ye

Winners and Losers

Springtime in New England

An Interview with Matthew Bracken

The Frontlines of Freedom

Rights and What's Right

East is East..

The Constitution Con

Thanks and Giving

Life, Death, and the Arbitrary Line Between

History Lessons

Rises and Falls

I Have a Dream

Trolling for Government Programs

Warning Signs

Hunter for Justice

An Ounce of Prevention

Who's Scary Now?

Smoke and Mirrors?