Journal muddies surveillance issue

Iranian authorities are using Interpol to reach into America and block a broadcaster's bank account on grounds of purported terrorism.

Shahram Homayoun, who runs a Los Angeles-based television outfit that beams pro-democracy broadcasts into Iran via satellite, found that Interpol had, at the instance of Iranian authorities, issued a "red notice" that requires he be arrested and extradited to Iran.

Hamayoun says he fears for his life, since extradition is tantamount to a death warrant.

The Hamayoun case is covered in the Washington Times.

The Wall Street Journal throws a curve ball on the Shahzad surveillance issue. A long editorial today, "Surveillance and Shahzad," focuses on post-Risen surveillance rules that allegedly restricted the feds from keeping a closer eye on Shahzad prior to the bungled Times Square attack.

But this is either a case of a jaundiced editor unable to think clearly, or a case of someone who is trying hard to confuse the issue that I brought up: How could the feds have so easily "lost" the suspect in a Connecticut supermarket? That would imply low-tech, low-manpower surveillance.

The Journal however is focusing on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rules and the allegedly bad consequences of James Risen blowing the whistle on warrantless wiretaps.

I can't believe federal agents, trying to nail a high-profile terrorism suspect, would have thought that somehow Justice Dept. rules forbade them from using the heavy duty surveillance methods available: laser-driven TV and audio monitoring at a distance -- including inside buildings -- and swarms of operatives, in cars and on foot, in the vicinity. It's impossible, given the nature of the event, that a judge would have forbidden such surveillance.

The Star-Ledger's Bob Braun sticks up for the little guy whose libel suit actually strengthened press shields in New Jersey. Thomas John Salzano was a young artist who sued the Record of Hackensack for libel, claiming his reputation and employability had been destroyed when the Record published a lawsuit's claims. The headline writer's use of the word "steal" as a substitute for "misappropriate" didn't help any.

Braun praised the young man for being able to act as his own lawyer, carrying his case all the way to the state Supreme Court. In fact, the closely divided court only barely upheld the Record's position. Salzano had the libel law on his side, citing a dusty provision that provided an exception to press shields for initial filings of lawsuits. The court in effect overturned that exception.

An angry group of young people -- presumably Muslim -- silenced Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks as he tried to speak on free speech at a university. Google will fetch the story. Here's a good photo.

Freedom of speech and religion is vehemently opposed by some, who are all too easily offended. This sort of hostility is likely to spur reaction by predominantly non-Muslim populaces, including calls for exclusion of Muslims from admission to non-Muslim countries.

I wouldn't be surprised if university authorities institute disciplinary proceedings against aggressive students nor if civil authorities looked into the possibility of revoking visas of some of the more menacing youths.

James Woolsey, a former top spook, was named in a 2009 Infowars account of muzzling New York City police and firefighters concerning their knowledge of events of 9/11.

You may think Infowars is not terribly credible. Yet, actually the reported gag rule seems highly plausible. A number of New York City firefighters and police officers reported loud blasts that day that many took for detonated explosives, as I reported after reviewing Port Authority police records.

Woolsey is a former head of the CIA who signed a neocon manifesto demanding action against Iraq long before 9/11. Woolsey was appointed to head New York City counterterror efforts by the incoming mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who has done nothing to look into the holes in the federal government claims about 9/11. Woolsey seems to have stood by while the tangible evidence was made to vanish.

There certainly are grounds to suspect that Woolsey silenced police and firefighters as part of a conspiracy, abetted by the New York press, to bamboozle the public.

The Shin Bet may have lifted a press gag order concerning its arrests of two Arab activists on espionage charges. But it has continued to exercise its prerogative of preventing the detainees access to lawyers. This may be legal in Israel, but such a measure doesn't show a strong commitment to democratic methods.

One reason for barring lawyers is to prevent them from telling clients to remain silent. Another is to prevent them from witnessing "enhanced interrogations."

In a related matter, the Obama administration is considering a move to revoke the necessity of informing a terrorism suspect of his or her right, under the 5th Amendment, against saying anything that would incriminate himself or herself. The reason for the notification requirement was that the authorities habitually took advantage of the ignorance of suspects about that basic American right.