[IP] Bruce Schneier: Unchecked police and military power is a

[David Farber]

security threat
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618)
Reply-To: dave at farber.net

Bruce Schneier: Unchecked police and military power is a security threat

Bruce Schneier
June 24, 2004 SCHNEIER0624




As the U.S. Supreme Court decides three legal challenges to the Bush
administration's legal maneuverings against terrorism, it is important
to keep in mind how critical these cases are to our nation's security.
Security is multifaceted; there are many threats from many different
directions. It includes the security of people against terrorism, and
also the security of people against tyrannical government.


The three challenges are all similar, but vary slightly. In one case,
the families of 12 Kuwaiti and two Australian men imprisoned in
Guantanamo Bay argue that their detention is an illegal one under U.S.
law. In the other two cases, lawyers argue whether U.S. citizens -- one
captured in the United States and the other in Afghanistan -- can be
detained indefinitely without charge, trial or access to an attorney.


In all these cases, the administration argues that these detentions are
lawful, based on the current "war on terrorism." The complainants argue
that these people have rights under the U.S. Constitution, rights that
cannot be stripped away.


Legal details aside, I see very broad security issues at work here. The
Constitution and the Bill of Rights were designed to ensure the
security of people: American citizens and visitors. Their limitations
of governmental power are a security measure. Their enshrinement of
human rights is a security measure.


These measures were developed in response to colonial tyranny by
Britain, and have been extended in response to abuses of power in our
own country. Laws mandating speedy trial by jury, laws prohibiting
detention without charge, laws regulating police behavior -- these are
all laws that make us more secure. Without them, government and police
power remains unchecked.


The case of Jose Padilla is a good illustration. Arrested in Chicago in
May 2002, he has never been charged with a crime. John Ashcroft held a
press conference accusing him of trying to build a "dirty bomb," but no
court has ever seen any evidence to support this accusation. If he's
guilty, he deserves punishment; there's no doubt about that. But the
way to determine guilt or innocence is by a trial on a specific
indictment (charge or accusation of a crime). Without an indictment,
there can be no trial, and the prisoner is held in limbo.


Surely none of us wants to live under a government with the right to
arrest anyone at any time for any reason, and to hold them without
trial indefinitely.


The Bush administration has countered that it cannot try these people
in public because that would compromise its methods and intelligence.
Our government has made this claim before, and invariably it turned out
to be a red herring.


In 1985, retired Naval officer John Walker was caught spying for the
Soviet Union; the evidence given by the National Security Agency was
enough to convict him without giving away military secrets.


More recently, John Walker Lindh -- the "American Taliban" captured in
Afghanistan -- was processed by the justice system, and received a
20-year prison sentence. Even during World War II, German spies
captured in the United States were given attorneys and tried in public
court.


We need to carry on these principles of fair and open justice, both
because it is the right thing to do and because it makes us all more
secure.


The United States is admired throughout the world because of our
freedoms and our liberties. The very rights that are being discussed
within the halls of the Supreme Court are the rights that keep us all
safe and secure. The more our fight against terrorism is conducted
within the confines of law, the more it gives consideration to the
principles of fair and open trial, due process and "innocent until
proven guilty," the safer we all are.


Unchecked police and military power is a security threat -- just as
important a threat as unchecked terrorism. There is no reason to
sacrifice the former to obtain the latter, and there are very good
reasons not to.


Bruce Schneier, Minneapolis, is chief technology officer of Counterpane
Internet Security Inc. and the author of "Beyond Fear: Thinking
Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World."
<http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/4843840.html>

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as eugen at leitl.org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

----- End forwarded message -----
--
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]