警察英文 - 呂艾肯資料庫

【警察考試-警察英文-呂艾肯】

請參閱講義 國土安全篇 一起選讀

How to Spot a Terrorist  ——如何識別恐怖分子？   《紐約時報》網站

A young man walks into a Home Depot and buys a large quantity of acetone. Later, a young man walks into a beauty supply store and buys hydrogen peroxide. Still later, a young man is observed parked outside a nondescript federal building in a rented van, taking photographs. 
一個年輕人走進家得寶（Home Depot)買了大量的丙酮；稍後，一個年輕人走進美容用品店購買了過氧化氫（hydrogen peroxide）。再來，一個年輕人被目擊將車停在一處無明顯特徵的聯邦政府大樓外面，在租來的客貨車裡拍照。

No crime has been committed. But should any of these activities (acetone and hydrogen peroxide can be components for explosives) be reported to and evaluated by law enforcement officials? If they are reported, the government may infringe on privacy and civil liberties. If they are not, we might not know until it’s too late whether it was the same young man in each instance. We might miss the next Timothy McVeigh.
沒有犯罪行為發生。但是是否任何類似（丙酮和過氧化氫是爆炸物的主要成份）的行為都要報告給執法人員，由其對這些行為進行評估呢？如果報案，那聯邦政府就侵犯了個人隱私和公民自由。若不報案，當我們知道上面三種事件都是同一個人所為時，那就太晚了。我們將錯過下一個Timothy McVeigh

註:

Timothy McVeigh: 1996年4月19日的奧克拉荷馬市聯邦大樓爆炸案主謀。168人在該爆炸案中喪生，是911襲擊事件發生之前被認為是美國史上最大型及嚴重的本土恐怖主義襲擊。也是自1963年之後首位由美國聯邦政府處決的罪犯。

This dilemma was at the heart of hearings before the Senate Homeland Security Committee last week, in which several federal officials warned that “homegrown terrorists” represent the nation’s greatest emerging threat. According to the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller, Al Qaeda “has looked to recruit Americans or Westerners who are able to remain undetected by heightened security measures.” This reality has led Janet Napolitano, the secretary of Homeland Security, to conclude that “homeland security begins with hometown security.” And hometown security begins with locally based observations of “suspicious” activity. So, can we encourage such observation without also encouraging a disregard for privacy and constitutional rights?
報與不報的兩難是上周參議院（Senate）國土安全委員會（Homeland Security Committee）舉辦聽證會的討論核心，聽證會上幾名聯邦政府官員警告說，“國產的恐怖分子”（homegrown terrorists）已成為國家最大的新興威脅。據F.B.I.局長Robert Mueller表示，蓋達組織（Al Qaeda）“已留意招募那些不易被加強的安保措施所發現的美國人或西方人”。這個事實讓國土安全部（Homeland Security）的秘書Janet Napolitano做出“國土安全始於家園的安全”的結論。而家園的安全始於當地有組織的觀察”可疑的“活動。那麼，能在不鼓勵忽視個人隱私和憲法權利的同時又激勵這種觀察活動嗎？

We may get our answer from a project now being undertaken by the Justice Department called the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative. Federal, state and local law enforcement officials have set up “fusion centers” for the program in about a dozen cities, including Boston, Chicago and Houston, where reports of suspicious activities made by citizens and the local police are collected and analyzed for disturbing patterns.
我們也許能從由司法部（Justice Department）正負責的那個所謂”全國展開可疑活動報告倡議“（Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative）中得到答案。聯邦、州和地方的執法人員已為此專案在約12個城市設立了”情資整合中心“（fusion center），這其中包括波士頓（Boston）、芝加哥（Chicago）和休士頓（Houston）等城市。在這些城市，由市民和當地員警做的可疑活動報告被收集和分析恐慌的模式。

Suspicious Activity Reporting begins at the troubling intersection where law enforcement meets intelligence. Its premise is that if potential attacks are to be prevented, and not merely responded to, law enforcement must focus on precursor conduct — surveillance or “casing” of bridges or train stations, for instance — that may not itself be criminal, but may signal a coming attack.
可疑活動的報案一開始就處在執法與情資這個糾結的交叉點。它的前提是，如果潛在的攻擊被阻止了，且不僅是對其做出反映，執法部門必須將精力集中于“前兆的執行”（precursor conduct）——比如(罪犯)對橋樑或火車站進行監視或”踩點“（casing），那可能本身不是犯罪行為，但卻是即將到來的攻擊的信號。

case: 踩點：仔細檢查，如策劃一項犯罪時

 

One need only look to the events of the past year — the shootings at Fort Hood, Tx.; the attempted bombing of a jetliner on Christmas Day; the Times Square bombing attempt; the New York subway plot — to see the point. Each of these attacks and attempted attacks was preceded by “precursor conduct,” legally protected actions like chatting on the Internet or purchasing legal chemicals or applying for a visa, that combined with other information might have tipped off law enforcement agents to the intended act of terrorism.
德州（Tex.）的胡德堡（Fort Hood）槍殺案、耶誕節飛機爆炸未遂案、時代廣場（Times Square）爆炸未遂案、預謀襲擊紐約（New York）地鐵案，只要留意這些在過去幾年發生的事件就會明白，每次襲擊或試圖襲擊都發生在”前兆執行“之前。法律的保護像在互聯網上聊天、或購買合法的化學製品、或申請簽證這樣的活動，這些活動和其他資訊聯繫起來後可能會提示執法人員：這是蓄意的恐怖主義行為。

The Suspicious Activity Reporting program recognizes both the necessity for a focus on precursor conduct and the potential for abuse. It strikes a balance by establishing a uniform process for gathering and sharing information. It seeks to avoid racial profiling and other law enforcement excesses by requiring that the reports be based on the evidence of suspicious conduct, not on what the person looks like or where he comes from.
可疑活動報告程式認可將精力放在“前兆的執行”和潛在的濫用權力都是必要之惡，它通過建立統一收集和共用資訊的過程中在二者間保持平衡。為了避免種族面像 (歧視)和執法部門亂用職權，程式規定報告只能根據可疑行為的跡象，而不是人們長得像誰或來自何處。

* 種族面相/歸納（英語racial profiling），又譯為種族臉譜化，指執法機關在判斷某一類特定的犯罪或違法行為的犯罪嫌疑人身份將種族或族群特徵列入考慮範圍，進而可能導致在破案過程中更多地懷疑某一族群的作案嫌疑。

最有名的事件是2009年，哈佛大學講座教授亨利．路易士．蓋茲二世（Henry Louis Gates Jr.）是美國最有名的黑人學者，也是最有影響力的公共知識分子之一。他剛從中國大陸攝製兩禮拜紀錄片返美，計程車把他載到麻州劍橋哈佛廣場附近獨門獨戶自宅，卻發現門鎖壞了，打不開，他和司機一起用力把門推開。一個白人老太太對同為過路客的白人女子說，好像有人闖空門，叫她報警。這名女子即打九一一緊急電話給警察，但她並未說是兩個黑人。九一一即派白人警官傑姆斯．克勞利（James Crowley）趕至現場。

        四十二歲的克勞利對蓋茲說，他接獲消息說這裡發生搶案。蓋茲很不高興地回應，這是他家，他是哈佛教授。克勞利要他拿出證明，蓋茲即到廚房拿哈佛教授證給克勞利看，同時也要求克氏出示警證與警號，克氏拒絕。蓋茲即大聲對克氏說：「哦，因為你是白人，我是黑人，所以我才要證明我住在這裡。」局面從此逆轉，蓋茲動了氣，開始怒責克勞利，克氏要他到門外去。據克氏說，蓋茲吼道：「我就出去跟你老媽談談。」蓋茲說他沒說這句話。克勞利一面打電話要求支援，一面指控蓋茲「妨害治安」（disorderly conduct），用手銬銬上蓋茲。大批警察隨即趕到，並把行動不便的蓋茲帶至劍橋警局登記照相。蓋茲在警局打電話給他的好友、哈佛法學院黑人教授查爾斯．歐格屈（Charles L. Ogletree）請他到警局來處理此事。蓋茲在警局待了四個小時。五天後（即七月二十一日），劍橋警局撤銷對蓋茲的控罪。

        雪球開始滾了。七月二十二日晚上，歐巴馬主持以全民健保法案為主題的記者會，他熟識的一名《芝加哥太陽時報》的白人女記者提問最後一個問題，即蓋茲事件。記者會前，歐巴馬已和幕僚對這個問題做了沙盤推演，而他本人又是以謹言慎行著稱。但他在答覆問題時，卻無法控制自己，他沒辦法「小心翼翼」地講，因蓋茲是他的朋友（儘管去年大選蓋茲投希拉蕊一票），而歐巴馬年輕時亦曾多次被白人警察無緣無故攔住盤問，他當芝加哥州議員時更是為防止警察進行所謂「種族貌相」（racial profiling）而力促州議會立法禁止。歐巴馬情不自禁地批評克勞利明知蓋茲是那間房子的主人，還要用手銬銬他，「其做法是愚蠢的」（acted stupidly）。

        歐巴馬身為總統，使用「愚蠢」字眼評論劍橋警察的做法，似乎有點「超過」，無怪乎引起軒然大波。迫使他只好打電話向克勞利表示「遺憾」，再致電蓋茲，並邀請他們擇日到白宮喝啤酒聊聊。歐巴馬亦不得不第二次站出來收拾善後。歐巴馬在第一次記者會上以及幾天來美國媒體的報導與評論，都一再出現「種族貌相」（racial profiling）一詞，它和「種族歧視」（racial discrimination）的涵義完全不同，但美國華人媒體幾全把racial profiling譯成「種族歧視」。

        簡略而言，racial profiling是指警察以面貌和膚色來判定某人不是好人而加以攔下盤問。如黑人常在高速公路上被攔下，又如黑人住在高級住宅區或開豪華轎車，常會遭警察盤問。去年七月，《紐約時報》和ＣＢＳ聯合民調，百分之六十六的黑人都表示曾遭警察無緣無故地攔下。「種族歧視」是犯法的，只要有證據即可訴之於法；而「種族貌相」並未觸法，但卻是一樁嚴重的種族偏見與惡習。黑人和拉丁裔經常吃悶虧，這也是屢屢造成黑人和警察關係緊張的最大原因之一。難怪那一天歐巴馬一再提到「種族貌相」在今天的美國社會仍是大問題。

http://www.scanews.com/2010/05/s1029/102903/

The government consulted with civil liberties groups as it devised the initiative, and they secured changes in the program to assure that the threshold for criminal conduct would not be lowered and that individual privacy would not be violated by the willy-nilly entry of innuendo into a government record. As Michael German, the security policy counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union
and a former F.B.I. special agent, put it last year, “The revised guidelines for suspicious activity reporting establish that a reasonable connection to terrorism or other criminal activity is required before law enforcement may collect Americans’ personal information and share it.”
在策劃這項倡議時，政府已經和公民自由組織進行了磋商。他們向公民自由組織保證，既不降低對任何犯罪行為的門檻，也不會使個人隱私因隨意影射政府記錄的條款而被侵犯。因為美國公民自由聯合會（American Civil Liberties Union）的安全政策法律顧問Michael German（前F.B.I.特工）于去年提出”為可疑活動報告修改過的指導方針必須確保，在執法部門收集和共用美國人民個資之前，將這些資訊與恐怖主義或其他犯罪後動建立一個合理的聯繫是必須的”。

Nonetheless, the A.C.L.U. is now taking issue with the program, saying that it “increases the probability that innocent people will be stopped by police and have their personal information collected.” Mr. German worries that an effort like this “moves the police officer away from his core function, to enforce the law, into being an intelligence officer gathering information about people.”
但是，A.C.L.U.正在對這項計畫提出異議，它“增加了無辜公民被員警扣留並收集其個資的可能性“。Mr. German擔心的表示，像這樣的活動會使“警察遠離其核心職責——執法，而變成收集公民資訊的情報局”。

At bottom, whether the civil liberties risks posed by the reporting program are justified turns on whether the administration’s claims about the evolving threat are true. The attacks of the last year suggest that they are. As for the idea that it will bring police departments into new territory, surely police officers have always been on the lookout for precursor conduct — burglars casing a home or bank, for instance. The difference here is one of degree.
實際上，這個問題已經從由這個程式造成的公民自由風險是否合理，發展成為政府所謂的正在遭受威脅的聲明是否真實。去年發生的一些襲擊暗示他們是對的。關於”將把員警部門帶入一個新的領域“這個主意來說，只是某種程度上和現在的有區別，沒什麼大不了的，因為警察局確實一直在做尋找” 前兆的執法“——比如說竊賊在民宅或銀行踩點等。

Paradoxically, perhaps the biggest hurdle the initiative faces is not civil liberties worries but the age-old barrier between federal law enforcement and its state and local counterparts. The F.B.I. has raised concerns about sharing intelligence with state law enforcement because some states’ open public records laws might result in the bureau having to make public some of its data. And, in a time of shrinking budgets, turf battles between the fusion centers and federal law enforcement are a certainty.
荒謬的是，這項倡議面臨的最大障礙可能不是對公民自由的擔心，而是由來已久的存在於聯邦法律執行部門與州和地方執法部門之間的矛盾。F.B.I.已經對與州執法部門共用情報表示擔憂了，因為有些州的有關公開公共記錄的法律，可能導致該局不得不對其一些資料進行公開。並且，在預算收縮的時期，必須掩蓋聯合中心與聯邦執法部門之間爭奪預算的爭執。

Civil liberties and bureaucratic concerns are legitimate. But this initiative represents the administration’s first thoughtful steps in fulfilling President Obama’s commitment to defining a lasting rule of law for this brave new world. We must make it work.
公民自由和政府的擔心都是合情合理的。為履行歐巴馬總統做出”為這個勇敢的新世界制定一項長久的法律“承諾，這項倡議體現了政府為履行承諾而做出的第一個經過深思熟慮後的措施，只能成功不能失敗。

John Farmer Jr., a former senior counsel for the 9/11 commission, is the dean of the Rutgers School of Law-Newark and the author of “The Ground Truth.”

John Farmer Jr.（前美國9/11委員會高級法律顧問），紐華克法學院（Rutgers School of Law-Newark）院長，《不容忽視的真相：美國911襲擊未曾講述的故事》（The Ground Truth）一書的作者。