Press Release (ePRNews.com) - WASHINGTON - Jun 05, 2017 - Responding to the London incident – Britain’s 3rd major terrorist attack in only 3 months, and the 13th in Western Europe since the beginning of 2015 – President Donald Trump has declared that the carnage will “only get worse,” and that “we must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people.”
So – especially if the Supreme Court prevents his temporary refugee and “Muslim ban” order from going into effect – he might consider using his existing statutory authority under 8 USC 1182(f) to follow the lead of Germany, France, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries to require at least some refugees and visitors from suspicious countries to wear GPS ankle trackers to permit effective monitoring.
In view of the growing concerns and seriousness of terrorist threats, and of the fact that so many other countries are using or seriously considering using GPS tracking devices to cope with potential terrorists, it seems that political correctness – concerns about offending Muslims and their supporters, seeming to discriminate on the basis of religion, etc. – is the major reason why Trump hasn’t already expanded the use of the same GPS ankle monitors already used by the thousands by ICE in the broader war on terrorism, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, whose proposals have been widely reported.
Here is what is happening in other countries which have acted, or are planning to act, despite concerns about political correctness.
In Germany – largely in response to the Berlin Christmas market killing, where the perpetrator had been identified as a terrorist threat months before the attack, but could not, in light of financial considerations, be put under effective surveillance – the upper house of parliament adopted a rule mandating electronic ankle bracelets for some terror suspects. This is especially significant because Germany is a country which boasts some of the world’s toughest privacy laws, yet it still took this far reaching action.
In France, the gunman who killed a police officer at the Champs-Elysees in April had been the subject of a counter terrorism investigation in March, but did not warrant the expense of continued monitoring. Apparently as a result of this preventable tragedy, the country now has a government policy which tags terrorism suspects.
In Israel, in the wake of the deadly arson attack in Duma, the security establishment has increased its use of administrative detention orders against Jewish extremists. Implementing the measure would require that Jewish terror suspects placed under administrative detention would also be subject to electronic surveillance.
Saudi Arabia has started attaching GPS-enabled electronic bracelets to “those who intended to join terrorist groups abroad,” in a bid to monitor their activities. Eisa Al-Ghaith, a member of the Shoura Council’s security committee, has said that government security agencies have begun implementing the system. “This covers people who have been arrested but cannot be held, including those who intended to join terrorist groups abroad. These people would be identified based on government investigations, their own confessions, and information provided by their families,” Al-Ghaith was quoted as saying.
Pakistan will also use GPS ankle trackers to monitor the movements of 1,600 terror suspects on the list of the Fourth Schedule – a “person who is concerned in terrorism or belongs to a proscribed organization” – in Punjab. Officials explained that “we cannot deploy cops outside the residence of each fourth scheduler to watch his activities. . . . We don’t have much evidence against the fourth schedulers. But certainly some of them are in contact with hard core terrorists and through these devices we will monitor their activities easily and reach the terrorists.”
It has also been reported that Norway, and perhaps additional countries, are also seriously considering using GPS ankle trackers to permit them to effectively monitor those who are believed to pose a serious threat of engaging in terrorist activities. Given the large number of persons whom anti-terrorist authorities believe should be monitored, and the fact that it takes a minimum of 6-person teams to monitor any one person around the clock, GPS trackers are the only effective way to do this, says Banzhaf.
Existing U.S. law, specifically 8 USC 1182(f), gives the president the authority to “impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”; a power not limited in any way by a Section 1152(a) bar on discrimination based upon nationality with was cited in some of the travel ban oral arguments. So, requiring the wearing of a GPS ankle monitor – which is much less of an imposition than being barred from entering the country – would not even arguably be prohibited by statute, notes Banzhaf.
Such a policy is less likely to be enjoined by the courts because it is much less intrusive and restrictive than barring people from entering the country entirely. Moreover, based upon the rulings of the courts regarding his travel ban, Trump would be wise to leave the drafting largely to subordinates with expertise in these areas, and to include within its purview at least a few countries which are not majority Muslim. For example, several war-torn African countries, such as South Sudan and the Central African Republic, have ineffective governments which, like some listed in the most recent travel ban, make effectively vetting their citizens difficult if not impossible, suggests Banzhaf.
http://banzhaf.net/ jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com @profbanzhaf
Public Interest Law Professor John Banzhaf