|
Brian’s Blog
Special Order 40
17Apr2008
Wednesday Los Angeles Police
Chief Bratton announced that Special Order 40 has been widely
misunderstood and that he would issue a clarification in the next couple
of weeks. Special Order 40 is a
directive that forbids the Los Angeles
police from asking people whether they are in this country legally. I won’t go into why such a directive
exists, but it has been coming under increased criticism especially with
the death of Jamiel Shaw, Jr., a high school football star who was
allegedly killed by an illegal immigrant gang member.
I don’t think Special Order
40 has ever been misunderstood. I
think it does exactly what its proponents wanted it to do, give illegal
immigrants refuge in the city of Los Angeles. However, if the Chief of Police now
wants to say it was misunderstood, that’s fine with me, as long as he
changes that understanding so that when a person is arrested in Los
Angeles the police will now determine whether that person is in the
country legally and if not, hand them over to Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE).
What worries me is that
Chief Bratton may be playing a waiting game. He’s made his announcement, he’s asked
for a couple of weeks. I’m
concerned that he’s just waiting for the storm to blow over and somehow
he’ll just never get around to correcting that “misunderstanding” that
has been handcuffing our police.
So keep on top of Chief
Bratton. Ask him why he needs a
couple of weeks. How long does it
take to write a memo telling our police that Special Order 40 is only to
keep them from hassling people before they are put under arrest? Is there some reason it can’t be done
this afternoon so we’ll have a safer city this evening?
I am the man challenging
Jane Harman in the 36th Congressional District. The 36th CD includes San
Pedro, Wilmington, Harbor
City, Harbor Gateway, Playa
del Rey, Venice, Mar Vista, Mar
Vista Gardens,
Palms and West LA. The people of these Los
Angeles neighborhoods want to be protected from
gangsters whether home-grown or imported.
The federal government can’t solve all our problems, but part of
its job is to secure our borders.
Let’s use it to help keep our neighborhoods safe.
– Brian
• •• 4 – 4 – 4 – 4 – 4 – 4 – 4 – 4 – 4 – 4 – 4 – 4 – 4 – 4 – 4 – 4 – 4 – 4 – 4 •• • .
Some Common Sense on FISA
30Mar2008
“[The President] shall take care that the laws be faithfully
executed” – Constitution of the United
States, Article II, Section 3.
In 1978 in the aftermath of
Watergate the United States
enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to protect our
liberties from possible overreach by the executive branch.
In the years following 9/11
the executive branch made some requests for information from our
telecommunications carriers that did not comply with the process required
by FISA. Some carriers complied
with those requests. Others,
questioning the legality of the requests, did not. Those that complied are now the
defendants in a number of lawsuits.
Right now the House of
Representatives is sitting on a bill already passed by the Senate which
extends of the Patriot Act of 2007 and provides for expedited
interception of foreign intelligence.
The White House claims that by their failure to expeditiously
approve this important legislation grave damage is being done to our
intelligence gathering. Not
surprisingly the House Democrats blocking the bill dispute that
claim. But why are they holding up
this bill?
The principal controversy
that has the House Democrats balking is whether or not to provide
immunity to telecommunications companies that complied with executive
requests for information. The bill
before the house grants immunity from suit to the companies that complied
with the government requests. The
question that has shut down progress on this important legislation is
essentially whether we should allow phone companies to be sued for
complying with government wiretap requests concerning foreign terrorism.
The answer is No!
Nowhere in the Constitution
does it ever suggest that the responsibility for protecting the American
people should rest in telephone companies and they should be held liable
when they fall short in exercising that duty.
We want to be protected from
government eavesdropping. But we
also want the government to protect us from dangerous terrorists. Because of that we have granted the
government limited power under court supervision to monitor phone traffic
and even engage in wiretapping.
If in its zeal to fight
terrorism, the executive branch loses a proper respect for our liberties
and asks the phone companies to turn over information that it has no
right to obtain, that’s a big problem.
But it’s a big problem with the executive branch, not with the
phone companies. We really do want
the phone companies to salute and provide the information because when
these requests come down, they may be ultra-urgent. There may be a nuclear bomb steaming
into the port of Los
Angeles, and we don’t want a city to get
melted while phone company lawyers are checking to see whether the latest
government request complied with FISA.
If the executive branch
abuses power and issues unlawful orders, it is the executive branch that
should be held responsible.
Depending on the severity of the breach there could be censure,
firings, even impeachment if the President himself is failing in his
Constitutional responsibility to see that the laws are faithfully
executed. That is where the
responsibility lies and members of the executive branch, not the phone
companies, are the ones that need to pay if they step outside the law and
drag the phone companies with them.
I’m not going to let the
phone companies off the hook completely.
They have a moral if not a legal responsibility when asked to do
something of questionable legality, not simply to comply, but while doing
so to push back and let homeland security, the Justice Department,
Congress, and the FISA court know of their concerns.
It’s an extra mile, a moral
duty not a legal one. But that’s
what Americans do, that’s what Americans have always done. We do more than what is required by the
letter of the law because we love our country, we love are liberties, and
we take action to see that both are preserved.
It reminds me of port
security. No one requires the men
and women of the ILWU to monitor what goes through our ports. No one pays them to do that. But I sleep better at night knowing
that they take that as part of their responsibility. A lot of cargo goes through our local
ports and try as they might, the customs workers, homeland security, the
Coast Guard, the FDA and all the other agencies that try to monitor this
traffic don’t have the budget and the manpower to fully protect us. That’s why I’m so grateful that the
people that move the cargo itself keep their eyes open, and when
something isn’t quite right, they call the agencies in to do their
job. They are giving us an added
measure of protection in a dangerous world.
Congress might want to
facilitate a role for the communications companies in protecting our
personal liberties similar to the role the ILWU has assumed for
protecting our commerce security.
Congress might want to do that by creating the equivalent of a
district attorney to work with the FISA court and give the phone companies
a clear point of contact when they receive a questionable request.
But what we do not need is a
legal system that would lead any private party to hesitate to comply with
what purports to be a lawful request from the government.
When lives may hang in the
balance, we don’t want to wait while lawyers parse the law.
Am I missing something? Or is this just common sense?
– Brian
|
3920 Highland, MB 90266