Response Classmate Operational Intelligence

Response Classmate Operational Intelligence
Reply to the following classmate discussion questions separately. I have attached my discussion questions and responses so that you can respond accordingly of how I felt. Please see uploaded document
Each response should be at least 200 words each.
The first discussion question is from classmate Andreaa. Here is here response.
Please response like:
Hi Andreaa,
I like your post! And began to respond to her post.
Here is here post.
Andreea Patterson
Unit 4: Primary Posts
COLLAPSE
Discussion Question 1
The letter from William E. Moschella addressed to Pat Roberts was very persuasive to me. The 9/11 attack was all to knew for the president, for the American people, and for the CIA and FBI. In the Prize case the “President has independent authority to repel aggresive acts by third parties even without specific congressional, and courts may not review the level of force selected” (Dycus, 610). Homegrown terrorism was on the rise and difficult for the National Security Agency to detect any terrorist threats, so by implementing electronic surveillance on citizens phone at the time was reasonable and detrimental to our national security. The President’s authorization of targeted electronic surveillance by the NSA was consistent with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (Dycus, 611). President’s actions on Al Qaeda was consistent with NSA and the Fourth Amendment procedure on search and seizure. “The NSA aactivities described by the President are also consistent with the Fourth Amendment and the protection of civil liberties” (D

ycus, 612). Also the Supreme Court held that in special circumstances or clear and present danger situations, such as 9/11 attack, the President has the authorization on “intercepting communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to Al Qaeda in order to detect and prevent a catastrophic attack is clearly reasonable” (Dycus, 613). In Matthew 5: 38-39, “you have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you do not resist the one who is evil. But, if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

The second discussion question is from classmate Charyce. Make sure the word count response is at least 200 words.
Start the response with
Hi Charyce,
Great Post. Then continue to comment on the post. Please be sure to look at what I posted in my original post in the attachment.
Charyce Rushing
Unit 4 – Question 2 – Charyce Rushing
COLLAPSE
Question 2 Review Farag v. United States and the ensuing notes. Should race be permitted to be used as a factor in national security investigations, like airport screening?
Yes, I agree that race should be permitted to be used as a factor in national security investigations and airport screenings. In the wake and response to the 9/11 catastrophic, devastating, historical terrorist attack on the United State of America, government-sponsored ethnic and racial profiling (computerized or behavioral) screening initiatives should be performed in American airports to protect its citizens and to keep public transportation running smoothly and safely. Former President Bush signed into law on October 26, 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act) which was used on January 1. 2009, a Muslim family of nine boarded and were seated on AirTran Airways, when someone overheard one party in their group say something that was believed as “inappropriate” and then decided to act on it by informing official on the airline. The Muslim family were discussing what an issue about the “safest seat” on the airline, which passengers nearby who overheard their discussion. However, all of the members of the family were removed from the flight. Later, the airlines found out that family posed no danger and were offered refunds. The spokesperson for AirTran Airways agreed that the incident was the result of a misunderstanding and affirmed that “it is better safe than sorry.” I agree. This was a legitimate security concern.
In regards to the equal protection clause, it is not intended to provide equality among individuals or classes, but equal application of the laws. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is necessary the protect the rights of citizens and their civil rights. However, issues with the equal protection clause arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity and denies other individuals the same right, yet it has a rational basis to a legitimate state purpose. The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases.
What does the Court in Farag say? Do you agree with the court’s reasoning, legally and politically? Yes, I agree with the Court reasoning, legally and politically in Faraq v. United States.
According to this case, Farag v. United States, a federal judge ruled that the United States government could not use ethnicity as justification for detaining two Egyptian-born men who were questioned for four hours after a cross-country flight in 2004. The two men, Tarik Farag, a former New York City police officer, and Amro Elmasry, who were working in Egypt for General Electric, sued the government, saying the questioning was unjustified. The government said that the men were arrested but not charged with any crime, acted strangely during their flight. However, the counterterrorism officials observed the men switching seats, checking their watches often and speaking in Arabic. The Court stated that the men’s ethnicity was a factor in deciding to detain them, and arguedthat it was an acceptable factor. Yet, in my opinion various races will be scrutinized more due to the 9/11 terrorist attack and other attacks made by foreigners in the United States.
What if the TSA adopted a program whereby law enforcement officials were permitted to use behavioral factors—like pacing, failing to make eye contact, overly protective of one’s luggage, etc.—combined with racial and ethnic factors–to make a probable cause determination for an arrest at an airport? Would this program be constitutional? Biblical?
Yes, it is rational for TSA officials if they were permitted to use behavioral factor combined with racial and ethical factors to make arrest at airports as long as it is done for a legitimate purpose, it should be legal and an acceptable. Again, it is better to be safe than sorry.
——————————————————
HERE ARE THE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS ARE MY RESPONSES. PLEASE READ THEM AND REPLY TO MY CLASSMATES.
Discussion question 1: Review the letter from William E. Moschella, Assistant Attorney General, to the Honorable Pat Roberts, Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence et al. beginning on page 609. Discuss whether you are persuaded by the legal arguments made in the letter and whether the President should be able to take this action; then comment on whether the nature of Al Qaeda cuts for or against such Presidential action. Include Biblical arguments to support your answer. (200 words minimum)

I am higly persuaded into believing that the legal arguments made in the letter are for the best. In the letter, it says that under Article II of the Constitution the President has all authority to fulfill his duty which is to protect the nation from further attacks (Corey, 2006). In the preamble to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), Congress acknowledged that the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States (Dycus, Berney, Banks & Raven-Hansen, 2013).This authority includes being able to order warrantless surveillance within the United States. I believe the President should utilize this privilege as it is in his power and part of his responsibility.
The nature of Al Qaeda is against all Presidential actions. In the letter, it says, “Any ambiguity as to whether the AUMF is a statute that satisfies the requirements of FISA and allows electronic surveillance in the conflict with Al Qaeda without complying with FISA procedures must be resolved in favour of an interpretation that is consistent with the President’s long-standing authority” (Dycus, Banks, & Raven-Hansen, 2007, p.160).
From a Biblical point of view, it is apparent that God advocates for justice, and maintains that any individual must do the right thing so that those that do not hold on this virtue must be corrected accordingly. I believe that the President is doing just that, to the best of his ability. I believe every President should, “Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.” (Isaiah 1:17).

Discussion Question 2: Review Farag v. United States and the ensuing notes. Should race be permitted to be used as a factor in national security investigations, like airport screening?
Factors are being used in national security investigations, for example, airport screening. Factors such as a person’s overall behavior, is he acting suspiciously? Is he getting startled easily? Does his purpose of travel coincide with whatever his plans/destination ends?
For example, if a suspect says he is in the country just to visit yet he has no relatives or friends in the country who can account for his visit. The factor of race should never be used for a reason whether to screen someone or not. “It is beyond question that perceived ethnicity alone cannot give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause.” (Robbins, 2008, par.14))

What does the Court in Farag say?
The court ruled on the Farag v U.S. case that the government could not use ethnicity as a reason for detaining Tarik Farag and Amro Elmasry. It was agreed that the occurrence of 9/11 should not be used as a justification to arrest people of a given ethnicity.

“All residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land. Yet they are primarily and necessarily a part of the new and distinct civilization of the United States. They must accordingly be treated at all times as the heirs of the American experiment and as entitled to all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution” (Dycus, Berney, Banks, & Raven-Hansen, 2013, p.702).
Do you agree with the court’s reasoning, legally and politically?
I agree with the court’s ruling both politically and legally. Not every Arab/Muslim, who lives in the United States, is part of a terrorist affiliation or planning to attack Americans. Some are just people who have come to the country for a better way of living, and even some were actually born here. The 9/11 attack should just teach us to be more alert, and to report anything suspicious. Racial profiling should decease, but in reality we know that it will not. Politically, I am inclined to believe if a truce was called between Arabic and American people it may open vast opportunities, may even improve the country economically. (This is only based off my slighted view of watching the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, and how our relationship with their country prior to 9/11 economically was assisting in us staying afloat.)

What if the TSA adopted a program whereby law enforcement officials were permitted to use behavioral factors—like pacing, failing to make eye contact, overly protective of one’s luggage, etc.—combined with racial and ethnic factors–to make a probable cause determination for an arrest at an airport? Would this program be constitutional?

If the TSA were to adopt a program where law enforcement officials were permitted to use behavioral factors to make a probable arrest in the airport, it would increase discrimination. This would heightened the already intense security at the airport and bring on a greater fear that could be deemed as unnecessary. One may ask could we really consider not making eye contact a probable cause factor for arrest. If these simple factors can be implemented as probable cause, we would be essentially saying that anyone in the airport could be arrested. This program would be very unconstitutional as it would discriminate against individuals based on race, gender, and so on in which would be a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Biblical? (250 words minimum) Looking at this issue from a Biblical standpoint, I think we should turn to John to find clarity. ”A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love another”, John 13:34. If we simply could live by this verse a lot of issues would dissolve quickly. Truly there is no other way to live than to treat your neighbor the same way you would want to be treated.

Discussion Question 3: What did the Courts hold in Reid, Verdugo, and El-Hage? That is, generally how does the U.S. Constitution apply outside our borders according to these cases?
In the Reid v. Covert case, the Courts held that various constitutional limitations apply to the government when it acts outside the continental United States. While it has been suggested that only those constitutional rights which are ‘fundamental’ protect Americans abroad, we can find no warrant in logic or otherwise for picking and choosing among the remarkable collection of the Federal Government by the Constitution and its Amendments (Dycus, Berney, Banks & Raven-Hansen, 2013, p.710).
In the United States v. Verdugo Urquisez the Courts held that “no violation of the Fourth Amendment occurred” Dycus, Berney, Banks & Raven-Hansen, 2013, p.716), because the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the search and seizure by United States Agents of Property that is owned by a non-resident alien and is located in a foreign country (Dycus, Berney, Banks & Raven-Hansen, 2013, p.716).
In the El Hage case, the Courts held that the search of El Hage’s Nairobi residence was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment (Dycus, Berney, Banks & Raven-Hansen, 2013, p.723).
Are these cases consistent?
The U.S. constitution follows the bill of rights which states that it has extraterritorial application, to the conduct abroad of federal agents directed against United States citizens. The Fourth Amendment also applies to searches conducted by the United States government against United States citizens abroad. The Fourth Amendment warrant requirements does not govern searches conducted abroad by U.S. agents; such searches of U.S. citizens need only satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonableness.
These cases are consistent with the Fourth Amendment as they apply to United States citizens such as El Hage who was in Kenya at the moment of his search. In the case of Verdugo the Fourth Amendment did not apply to him as he was not an American citizen. In the Reid Case, the Fourth Amendment also applied.

Do their holdings reflect a textual, formal view of the Constitution or a more practical, malleable view of the Constitution?
The holdings reflect a malleable view of the Constitution. As much as the Constitution is being applied to the American citizens, there are loopholes in it which cause it to be easily conformed to suit the case at hand. The idea of reasonableness of the Fourth Amendment shows that it can easily be contorted/maneuvered/manipulated to prove a given point such as the case of El Hage and the warrant that was never ordered by the courts.

How should the Constitution apply outside our borders? (Minimum 250 words).
The Constitution should be applied outside the U.S. boarders in a way that will safeguard the rights of the American citizens despite their location.

References
Corey M. (2006). Searches and Seizures of Americans Abroad: Re-Examining the Fourth
Amendment’s Warrant Clause and the Foreign Intelligence Exception Five Years after
United States V. Bin Laden. Duke Law Journal
Dycus, S., Berney, A. L., Banks, W. C., & Raven-Hansen, P. (2013). National security law (5th ed.). New York: Aspen Publishers.
Dycus, S., Banks, W. C., & Raven-Hansen, P. (2007). Counterterrorism law. New York: Aspen Publishers.
Robbinson, L. (2008, November 24). Judge Rules That Suspects Cannot Be Detained Because of Ethnicity. The New York Times [New York].