Charlie Rose on security after 9/11
The Hillsborough County League of Women Voterâ€™s held a forum today to discuss the ongoing controversy surrounding the reduction of terror threats at the cost of diminished personal freedom.
Professor Charlie Rose of Stetson University, a law professor and former Judge Advocate General in the service gave his views on the current situation.
In post 9/11 America, there was a widely accepted view that terrorism threats needed to be reduced at all costs, including the cost of reduced human rights. Several pieces of legislation were passed post 9/11 that shifted focus from traditional foundational human rights issues to attempting to reduce terror threats.
Rose contends that several serious problems have been caused by these pieces of legislation that reduce fundamental human rights in an effort to reduce terrorism threats and that there is a fundamental inability to provide security without underlying freedom.
The Patriot Act was passed 10/01 and renewed in 3/06, and included provisions aimed at both international and domestic terrorism threats. Rose contends that the real effect of the Patriot act was on crime reduction versus terrorism reduction.
The Military Commissions Act passed 10/06; it was intended to clarify processes and procedures used by the government in the conduct of the war on terror. Professor Rose assets that stresses between the military legal network and the Bush administration were profound and destructive. Rose also asserted that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld went too far in his interpretation of the legislation. Rose said U.S. contractors based in Iraq have operated above the law in general, creating destabilization.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Restore act was passed in 11/07 renewing the original act of 1978. Rose also asserted that President Bush has covertly pardoned telecom executives involved in providing surveillance data.comments powered by Disqus