Wherein I praise the 26 House Republicans who voted with 122 Democrats to block an extension of especially egregious Patriot Act provisions

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The forces of freedom, even in the minority, triumphed earlier today in the House:

A measure to extend key provisions of the Patriot Act counterterrorism surveillance law through December failed the House Tuesday night, with more than two-dozen Republicans bucking their party to oppose the measure.

The House measure, which was sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and required a two-thirds majority for passage, failed on a 277-to-148 vote. Twenty-six Republicans voted with 122 Democrats to oppose the measure, while 67 Democrats voted with 210 Republicans to back it. Ten members did not vote.

The measure would have extended three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are set to expire on Monday, Feb. 28, unless Congress moves to reauthorize them. One of the provisions authorizes the FBI to continue using roving wiretaps on surveillance targets; the second allows the government to access "any tangible items," such as library records, in the course of surveillance; and the third is a "lone wolf" provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act that allows for the surveillance of targets who are not connected to an identified terrorist group.

The vote came as several tea party-aligned members of the new freshman class had been expressing doubts about the measure.

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who highlighted his opposition to the law during his upstart 2010 Senate campaign, signaled Monday that he may vote ultimately vote against an extension when the measure comes up in the Senate, likely later this month.

Look, I'm a proud Democrat, but where Republicans deserve praise I'll happily give it. And for this they -- or at least 26 of them -- do. (If that aligns me with Rand Paul, however much I may dislike him, so be it.)

And shame on the 67 Democrats who voted with the majority of Republicans.

And shame, too, on President Obama, who wants a three-year extension of these provisions. (Because, of course, he's enthusiastically keeping much of the Bush-Cheney national security state in place -- so much for all that change we thought we might be able to believe in. Think there would have been so much enthusiastic support for him if he's been clearer about his policy priorities?)

When Rand Paul and Tea Party House Republicans make you look bad, you know you're doing something horribly wrong. And Obama is doing just that.

**********

For some political perspective on the vote, see The Nation's John Nichols:

Most House Republicans -- including supposed defenders of the Constitution such as Michigan Congresswoman Michele Bachmann -- went along with their leadership. In so doing, they failed to address fundamental concerns, raised by conservatives and liberals, about Patriot Act abuses of the very Constitution that theyread aloud at the opening of the current Congress.

But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, led the vast majority of House Democrats in opposing any extension. In all, 122 Democrats -- roughly two-thirds of the party's House caucus -- voted "no" to extending surveillance authorities that the American Civil Liberties Union warns "give the government sweeping authority to spy on individuals inside the United States and, in some cases, without any suspicion of wrongdoing. All three should be allowed to expire if they are not amended to include privacy protections to protect personal information from government overreach."

Joining the Democrats in voting "no" were 26 Republicans, including Texas Congressman Ron Paul and a number of other senior Republicans with records of breaking with their party on civil liberties issues, such as Tennessee's John Duncan Jr. and South Carolina's Walter Jones Jr. Joining them were several new members of the GOP caucus, such as Illinois Congressman Randy Hultgren and Michigan Congressman Justin Amash.

The vote came Tuesday evening after a heated floor debate, which saw Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, call on members of both parties to obey their oaths to defend the Constitution.

"The PATRIOT Act is a destructive undermining of the Constitution," Kucinich told the House. "How about today we take a stand for the Constitution to say that all Americans should be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and to make certain that the attempt to reauthorize the Patriot Act is beat down."

Against the lobbying of the Obama administration and the determined efforts of House GOP leaders -- who kept what was supposed to be a 15 minute open for 25 minutes as they tried to corral the needed seven votes -- Kucinich's argument carried the day.

Very well done, Dennis. Though as this vote suggests, most Republicans and many Democrats are more than willing to disobey their oaths.

And when this extension comes up for a simple majority vote, the forces of freedom will lose. The Republican Party will make sure of that, and President Obama won't get in the way.

Glenn Greenwald and the "climate of fear"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Much of the political world has been talking about the Arizona shooting the past few days, but there remains a larger and more troubling development, namely, the U.S. government's manufacturing of a "climate of fear" that allows it to advance its interests both at home and abroad.

I highly recommend this essential post from Glenn Greenwald. Key passage:

So much of what the U.S. Government has done over the last decade has been devoted to creating and strengthening this climate of fear. Attacking Iraq under the terrorizing banner of "shock and awe"; disappearing people to secret prisons; abducting them and shipping them to what Newsweek's Jonathan Alter (when advocating this) euphemistically called "our less squeamish allies"; throwing them in cages for years without charges, dressed in orange jumpsuits and shackles; creating a worldwide torture regime; spying on Americans without warrants and asserting the power to arrest them on U.S. soil without charges: all of this had one overarching objective. It was designed to create a climate of repression and intimidation by signaling to the world -- and its own citizens -- that the U.S. was unconstrained by law, by conventions, by morality, or by anything else:  the government would do whatever it wanted to anyone it wanted, and those thinking about opposing the U.S. in any way, through means legitimate or illegitimate, should (and would) thus think twice, at least.

That a large percentage of those brutalized by this system turned out to be innocent -- knowingly innocent --  is a feature, not a bug:  that one can end up being subjected to these lawless horrors despite doing nothing wrong only intensifies the fear and makes it more effective. The power being asserted is not merely unlimited and tyrannical, but arbitrary. And now, the Obama administration's citizen-aimed, due-process-free assassination program, its orgies of drone attacks, its defense of radically broad interpretations of "material support" criminal statutes, and its disturbing targeting of American anti-war activists with subpoenas and armed police raids are all part of the same tactic. Those contemplating meaningful opposition to American action are meant to be frightened. The anguished, helpless cries of 18-year-old American Gulet Mohamed, after a week of being disappeared and brutalized by America's close ally, serves an important purpose.

Make sure to read the whole thing. You'll notice that Greenwald is not engaging in demagoguery and is not using violent rhetoric to whip his readers up into a mouth-frothing frenzy. He is simply doing what the media are not, which is reporting on what is actually going on in the world, including what the government is doing, and encouraging people to educate themselves and to demand that their democratically-elected government not engage in undemocratic and illiberal practices that violate America's purported principles and ideals:

There has been much talk over the last several days, in the wake of the Arizona shooting, about attempts by some citizens to instill physical fear in elected officials. That's a worthwhile and necessary topic, but the fear that government officials are attempting to instill in law-abiding, dissenting citizens is far more substantial and sustained, and deserves much more attention than it has received.

Indeed.

Joan Rivers, national security threat

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This is rather amusing. From Think Progress:

The New York Daily News reports that comedian Joan Rivers was among the many travelers to get snared in the heightened-security frenzy that overtook airports after the December 25th failed terrorist attack. Rivers wasn't allowed on her Newark-bound flight in Costa Rica this past weekend by a "jittery Continental Airlines gate agent" who thought the two names on her passport, which reads "Joan Rosenberg AKA Joan Rivers," seemed "fishy." Rivers wrote of her experience.

"If I were going to make up an alias, I wouldn't pick Rosenberg. I'd pick Jolie or Pitt... Do terrorists wear Manolo Blahniks? I can tell you Donna Karan does not make anything that hides a bomb... I tried the tears; they didn't work. I tried reasoning. I couldn't bribe because I didn't have any money. I said 'I'm going to have a heart attack over this,' so the woman called the paramedics."

Rivers, who comes across as a pretentious bitch -- sorry, but wearing Manolo Blahniks doesn't make you a special person -- ultimately made it to San Jose, Costa Rica's capital, where she caught a flight home. Now, sure, there's a lot of craziness over security these days, heightened against post-12/25, and I certainly think a more sensible approach is preferable to suspect-everyone paranoia and panic.

But I'd say the system seems to be working just fine, don't you? Rivers, after all, is a threat to good taste and common decency everywhere. I'm just surprised it's her name the gate agent found "fishy." Why not her lack of facial expression beyond the one that's frozen there? Why not that she looks like an unnatural freak? Why not that she calls herself a comedian but isn't, and has rarely ever been, even remotely funny?

All good questions. Maybe she should be sent to Yemen for questioning.

Nigeria upset over new U.S. security measures

By Michael J.W. Stickings

According to the AFP, Nigeria has "branded new security measures for passengers flying to the United States unfair and said they amounted to discrimination against its 150 million people." Nigeria, home of failed underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, is one of 14 countries from which all air travellers to the U.S. will be "subjected to extra checks including body pat-downs."

I tend to agree with Nigerian Information Minister Dora Akunyili that "Abdulmutallab's behaviour is not reflective of Nigerians and should therefore not be used as a yardstick to judge all Nigerians." After all, "[h]e was not influenced in Nigeria. He was not recruited or trained in Nigeria. He was not supported whatsoever in Nigeria."

Besides, if terrorists want to enter the U.S. by air, they just won't try to do so from one of those 14 countries. So, yes, this seems like fairly arbitrary discrimination. I understand that Nigeria is one of those "countries of interest" identified by the Transport Security Administration (TSA) -- as it isn't a state-sponsor of terrorism -- but whether it actually deserves to be is another matter, and it probably shouldn't be, unless the U.S. wants to broaden its definition of "countries of interest" to pretty much any non-western country. Although, again, given that Islamic terrorists have been active in countries like Spain and the U.K., where should the line be drawn? It seems to be that a more nuanced approach to fighting terrorism is preferable to broad vilifications of entire countries.

Then again, maybe the Nigerians should stop sending all those "you've won a billion dollars, send all your personal information" spam e-mails if they want to win some goodwill from Americans (and the rest of us).

And, while they're at it, maybe they should stop selling cat food to the prawns in exchange for weapons. That's really not helping.

Information sharing critical for airline security

Guest post by Jared Stancombe 

Jared Stancombe, a 2009 graduate of Indiana University, is currently an analyst for a U.S. government agency responsible for national security. He is also in the officer selection process for the U.S. Marine Corps. He lives in Washington, D.C. 

Ed. note: This is Jared's fourth guest post at The Reaction. His first three were on Afghanistan and the Afghan War. You can find them here, here, and here. -- MJWS

**********

Republicans are chomping at the bit to blame the latest terrorist incident on President Obama. They claim he let it happen because he has failed to take security seriously. However, I argue that it is much more complex than that. No one person is to blame here. This problem reaches into the depths of government bureaucracy.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was on a terrorist watch-list in the U.K. and his father called the U.S. State Department claiming his son had been radicalized and could possibly be a threat. Despite being on a terrorist watch-list, he was able to keep his visa and get on a plane.

This latest incident shows how the various processes responsible for protecting our nation have become outdated and insufficient. Information sharing between government agencies tasked with protecting our nation has become extremely difficult.

Databases with names of "known or suspected terrorists" [KSTs] have been neglected and are virtually impossible to query upon because bureaucrats with little or no technical skills manually input the data. Information systems are disjointed because of convenience and "ease of access" by senior government employees who have little incentive to actually learn how to use a computer. Some systems checks for these employees may take hours or days. Also, some bureaucrats may be unable to find the right information during an investigation or a data search because the data may be in another system or the data may be insufficient or too garbled to use. Bureaucratic "red tape" and politics may also prevent adequate information sharing as innovative techniques are dismissed because they do not fit into the bureaucratic framework.

These problems are not political problems -- they are technical, training, and performance management problems. Some of those who are in positions tasked with administrating the data, investigating leads, and notifying law enforcement when necessary simply do not have the tools -- intellectual or technical -- to do their jobs effectively.

For airlines to be truly safe, information must flow at the rate in which TSA employees can disseminate and analyze the data as passengers are screened. A cost-effective and mostly automated process that takes out of the equation the human factor should be created, such as a system that automatically checks various government databases when someone purchases a ticket and notifies TSA personnel if anything is flagged. Prevention should become the keyword of airline security.

Taking away people's pillows and preventing them from using the lavatory an hour before landing are not security policy, they are illusions of security. The Obama Administration has called for approximately $7.79 billion to be spent on airline security, but these funds are being spent on processes that rely too much on the screeners' ability to check baggage and items on the passenger's person. Potential terrorists can and will take advantage of any security hole, and information must be shared on who is a threat and who isn't and allow TSA personnel to make more informed decisions.

The key to airport security is multi-agency information sharing and training those across the agencies on how to maintain the integrity of the information and how to use it quickly. Having the correct information to make split-second decisions is critical in protecting airline security. With the correct information, TSA personnel can prevent attacks, rather than react to them. There is no excuse for a known or suspected terrorist to fly to or from anywhere in the United States.

Taking the mission to secure America to Copenhagen

Guest post by Jonathan Powers and Robert Diamond

Jon Powers is the Chief Operating Officer of the Truman National Security Project. He is a veteran of the Gulf War, serving as an officer in the United States Army, and the founder of War Kids Relief. He was previously Veterans Program Director at the Eleison Group, where he worked on outreach efforts by the progressive community to veterans and military families.

Rob Diamond, a Truman National Security Fellow, is a Senior Vice President at Realty Capital International LLC, a global real estate investment banking and advisory firm. He was previously a Vice President at Bear Stearns & Co. in the Structured Equity Products/Equity Finance group. Prior to his career in finance, he served as an officer in the United States Navy, completing deployments in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

Ed. note: This post was originally published at The Huffington Post. In September, we ran a post by Jon on "why the military is worried about climate change" -- you can find it here. We have also published a number of different posts from Operation Free -- see here. -- MJWS

**********

Next week we will board a flight with a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans to fly to Copenhagen and wage a battle that will help address a threat to our national security. Our plan of action does not involve the Danish military, but instead involves the negotiators who are gathered to develop an international agreement on addressing climate change. We are bringing to Copenhagen the voices of the veterans and national security experts from across the nation who are standing up as part of Operation Free to secure America with clean energy.

Watch this video of our fellow veterans who have been reaching out at events across America to talk about the risks that climate change poses to our national security:

The American people understand their security is at risk when we talk about:

• The absurdity of funding our enemies who hunt our troops in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. By sending $1 billion a day overseas to buy oil from other nations, many of whom have unfriendly regimes, we are endangering our own troops on battlefield.

• Climate change acting as a "threat multiplier," making the world less safe. When Americans see that the CIA, Pentagon, and the national intelligence apparatus are actively developing plans to address threats in climate-affected nations with already fragile governments, they understand this is a threat to our country. Climate change is a root cause of destabilization in countries around the world in which extremist groups will look to take advantage and gain a foothold.

• Our nation's dependence on dirty fossil fuels is causing carbon pollution that is making our climate unstable... and is affecting our security.

Operation Free was formed because we know it is our military that will have to address these threats. Instead of waiting for things to get worse or fights to break out, we believe the United States must begin to take decisive action now.

The security community agrees that these are unsustainable courses of action and that we must act urgently to reduce these threats. Here at home Congress is moving ahead with clean energy legislation, but Copenhagen provides us an opportunity to truly establish ourselves as a nation that leads by example.

Skeptics are calling on us to wait for China or India to take the lead, but why would we put our security in others' hands? Americans want us to take our security in our own hands, and that is why our leadership is so critical in Copenhagen.

It is American leadership that is necessary to provide a broad consensus towards an agreement that will:

• Reduce our dependence on oil;
• Promote clean energy incentives; and
  
• Get Americans back to work producing clean, domestic, and safe energy.

America must lead by example in Copenhagen. Our security depends on it!

Sign up for Live from Copenhagen articles next week.

Climate change is a real national security threat, even for a realist

Guest post by Michael Lieberman

Michael Lieberman, a Truman National Security Project fellow, is an associate at Steptoe & Johnson LLP in Washington D.C., where he works on international regulatory and compliance issues. He was previously a law consultant at The Asia Foundation. (The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Steptoe & Johnson LLP.)

In a recent piece, Stephen Walt takes a skeptical view of the U.S. government’s developing view of climate change as a national security issue, as detailed in a recent Department of Defense-funded think tank report by CNA and increasing interest by Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The calamities portended by droughts, famines, refugees, storms, and floods in far-flung places do not, Walt suggests, obviously or necessarily pose a danger to the United States. Consequently, the country ought not exaggerate the threat, nor think of the consequences in terms of security at all. Rather, any U.S. military action to respond to climate-related disasters should be considered humanitarian in nature. “Climate change might also foster instability in various ‘volatile areas,’” he continues, “but it does not immediately follow from that observation that U.S. interests will necessarily be affected in any significant way.”

Matt Yglesias is also nonplussed: “This talk of climate change as a national security threat has a bit of a whiff of hubristic imperialism about it as I don’t think it makes a ton of sense to look at every possible instance of drought, famine, mass migration, civil conflict, and human tragedy abroad as a ‘threat’ to the United States per se.” Yglesias offers little to respond to, aside from noting how much he must have relished concocting the term “hubristic imperialism” and how inapposite it is. His position is interesting, though, as an example of the left’s almost reactive aversion to viewing multifaceted and largely non-military issues through the lens of security at all. What else explains the exaggerated charge of hubris and empire at a problem that the left in general rightly and loudly champions?

Walt’s argument is more elaborate and compelling, and follows directly from his grounding in (and espousal of) “realist” foreign policy strategies. Before looking at his substantive points, though, we should address the extensive hedging surrounding his argument. It need not “immediately follow” that U.S. interests “will necessarily be affected” by global warming catastrophes for us to treat them as potentially dire national security threats. These straw men must be put to pasture. It is sufficient for a non-negligible risk of danger to the nation to arise from the consequences of climate change for national security planners to think about it seriously.

Walt’s major point — that we should not equate catastrophes abroad due to global warming with threats to the security of the nation — derives from his bare bones notion of national security. Walt’s definition seems to be limited to external, essentially man-made dangers affecting our homeland or our citizens. Indeed, this is in large part why he calls for the United States to curtail its global engagements, exercise restraint in its global leadership, and let its allies shoulder a greater burden of their own defense.

Such a definition of the U.S. role, in my view, is inordinately spare, but that issue need not detain us. For now we can adopt his view. Even if we limit our definition to real mortal threats directed at U.S. citizens in the homeland, the consequences of climate change ought to raise the alarm.

Let’s consider Walt’s recognition of “instability in ‘volatile’ areas” as an agreed-upon consequence of climate change, and an uncontroversial national security threat, terrorists who want to attack the U.S. or key interests abroad. Even Pakistan should qualify as a “volatile” area to Walt; it teems with Al Qaeda, Taliban, and other affiliated groups whose leaders have expressed their desire to repeat 9/11 on an even larger scale and in even more macabre ways.

Now think of Karachi, already a redoubt for Taliban and affiliated militants, and the swarms of young men that would willingly join their ranks in the event of mass catastrophe. This would inevitably displace and dispossess thousands of young men in that area and provoke a further weakening of the Pakistani state. Now, in addition to their long list of grievances against the West, these groups could add the crime of polluting the atmosphere and destroying their homes. Similar scenarios could play out in other areas of Pakistan as well, as the Himalayan glaciers melt precipitously, causing flooding inland, and as rising temperatures diminish agricultural production upon which so many poor Pakistanis rely (including many of the Taliban’s local foot soldiers).

Beyond bolstering the ranks of Islamic terrorists, entirely new anti-Western groups could arise in other hard-hit areas of the world that blame their predicament on the fact that the United States accounts for a quarter of the world’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions, and surely a much larger share (from which we have become fabulously wealthy) over time. Such groups could strike U.S. assets or citizens abroad, demanding compensation or resettlement, or merely out of revenge.

Nor can traditional interstate conflict be ruled out either, as China and India, or Syria and Israel, become thirstier and the value of water rises, making military conflict a more plausible mode of dispute settlement. Such fights may fall outside of Walt’s strict definition of national security, true, but there can be no question that such scenarios would rightly be viewed as a grave security development to the United States.

Walt and Yglesias ignore such routine observations, seemingly due to some vague notion that the CNA report and the Pentagon are hyping the threat in service to the military-industrial complex. While it goes without saying we must match our response to the threat, and not all climate change catastrophes will warrant a response as a matter of national security (not all military missions would constitute such a response, e.g., humanitarian operations), there can be little doubt that heightened global instability will lead to the creation or revitalization of groups that want to damage the United States or its people. It is not a sufficient response to attribute this well-founded fear to hype or to overly broad definitions of national security.

As general Anthony Zinni (ret.) states, “It’s not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability or climate change and terrorism.” Nor is it hard to make the connection between climate change and U.S. national security, however defined. Hopefully Walt, Yglesias, and others will see this linkage and lend their voices to crafting constructive responses rather than dismiss the real dangers we face.

(Cross-posted from Operation FREE.)