Posted on 12/20/2005 5:07:08 AM PST by conservativecorner
Bush Submits His Laws for War
By Declan McCullagh 10:15 AM Sep. 20, 2001 PT
WASHINGTON — President Bush sent his anti-terrorism bill to Congress late Wednesday, launching an emotional debate that will force U.S. politicians to choose between continued freedom for Americans or greater security.
Created in response to last week’s bloody attacks, the draft "Mobilization Against Terrorism Act" (MATA) rewrites laws dealing with wiretapping, eavesdropping and immigration. The draft, intended to increase prosecutors’ courtroom authority, also unleashes the government’s Echelon and Carnivore spy systems.
"We will call upon the Congress of the United States to enact these important anti-terrorism measures," Attorney General John Ashcroft said this week. "We need these tools to fight the terrorism threat which exists in the United States, and we must meet that growing threat."
Although Ashcroft has said he hopes Congress will approve MATA by Saturday, Capitol Hill appears to be taking a more cautious approach. The House Judiciary committee has pledged a speedy but careful consideration, and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) has his own legislation he’ll highlight at a hearing next Tuesday.
At a press conference Thursday in Washington, scores of organizations from across the political spectrum urged politicians to tread carefully and protect civil liberties during wartime. The In Defense of Freedom coalition says it hopes to prevent a repetition of earlier wars that heralded greater government powers and sharply curtailed freedoms.
During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, interfered with freedom of speech and of the press and ordered that suspected political criminals be tried before military tribunals. After declaring war in 1917, Congress banned using the U.S. mail to send any material urging "treason, insurrection or forcible resistance to any law."
President Wilson asked Congress to go even further: His draft of the Espionage Act included a $10,000 fine and 10 years imprisonment for anyone publishing information that could be useful to the enemy. The House of Representatives narrowly defeated it by a vote of 184-144.
This is the inevitable result of war: In national emergencies, even in liberal democracies, the uneasy relationship between freedom and order edges toward greater government power and control.
"There is no reason to think that future wartime presidents will act differently from Lincoln, Wilson or Roosevelt, or that future justices of the Supreme Court will decide questions differently from their predecessors," William Rehnquist, chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote in a book published in 1998.
"It is neither desirable nor is it remotely likely that civil liberty will occupy as favored a position in wartime as it does in peacetime," Rehnquist wrote in All the Laws But One.
This time, there seems to be little interest in enacting laws against free expression — but the draft version of MATA would curtail privacy in hopes of thwarting future terrorist attacks. It says:
Police wiretap powers would be expanded, and Carnivore’s utility increased. Any U.S. attorney or state attorney general could order the installation of the FBI’s Carnivore Net-surveillance system in emergency situations without obtaining a court order first. Voicemail messages would be easier for law enforcement investigators to obtain. A search warrant would be required, instead of a wiretap order that brings with it a higher level of court scrutiny. Wiretapping would become easier. Currently, police are required to perform "normal investigative procedures" before tapping, a requirement that would no longer apply. Echelon, the National Security Agency’s shadowy data collection system operated in conjunction with friendly nations, could be used against Americans. Information gathered from Echelon and other electronic surveillance by foreign governments could be used against Americans "even if the collection would have violated the Fourth Amendment," according to the Justice Department’s analysis of MATA. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a law that created a secret court to approve spy investigations, would be broadened and made more powerful. Searches and surveillance under FISA would become permissible for one year, instead of the current limit of 45 to 90 days. Using this new version of FISA, prosecutors could look through the records of any business, credit card company or Internet provider with an "administrative subpoena" that does not require a judge’s approval. A non-U.S. citizen suspected of being a terrorist could be detained immediately by federal authorities without a court order. The statute of limitations for terrorism-related crimes would be eliminated. Nobody would be able to possess certain chemicals or biological agents unless they can prove they have a "peaceful purpose" for doing so. State bar associations’ ethics rules — that may limit the ability of Justice Department attorneys to approve undercover investigations — would no longer apply. DNA samples would be taken from all convicted felons.
In a statement, the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation said that this "broad legislation would radically tip the United States’ system of checks and balances, giving the government unprecedented authority to surveil American citizens with little judicial or other oversight."
The American Civil Liberties Union said Wednesday: "Under the proposed legislation, legal and non-legal immigrants alike would be denied a hearing or any way to contest the accusations against them. This is an unprecedented move inconsistent with the pledge of our leaders not to respond to the terrorist attacks in a way that degrades our system of justice."
And low and behold, those jackbooted fascists in the Bush regime even sent out a press release — which I guess the New York Times deemed unworthy of their attention at the time:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AG
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 (202) 616-2777
TDD (202) 514-1888
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT OUTLINES
MOBILIZATION AGAINST TERRORISM ACT
WASHINGTON, D.C. Attorney General John Ashcroft today presented the Mobilization Against Terrorism Act to Congress. Appearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Ashcroft outlined the comprehensive legislative initiative which will redefine the antiterrorism effort while protecting civil liberties. The purpose of the legislation is to provide the President and the Department of Justice with the tools and resources necessary to disrupt, weaken, thwart, and eliminate the infrastructure of terrorist organizations, to prevent or thwart terrorist attacks, and to punish perpetrators of terrorist acts.
"The danger that darkened the United States of America and the civilized world on September 11 did not pass with the atrocities committed that day," said Ashcroft. "It requires that we provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to identify, dismantle, disrupt and punish terrorist organizations before they strike again. Terrorism is a clear and present danger to American’s today."
The proposed legislation seeks to combat terrorist activity on several fronts. Title I enhances the Department’s capacity to gather intelligence necessary to combat terrorist organizations who increasingly employ sophisticated modes of global communications. Existing wiretap authority and procedures have not kept pace with the development of modern technology or the mode of operations of international terrorist organizations. Since current wiretap authority is often restricted to specific property as opposed to allowing law enforcement to follow suspects, current authority is inadequate for investigative personnel to monitor terrorist agents and associates. These proposals update the law to the technology. Terrorist offenses necessitate and justify comprehensive intelligence gathering.
Title II enhances the authority of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to detain and remove suspected terrorists by expanding the definition of terrorists to include those who lend support to terrorist organizations. The ability of terrorists to enter the United States and operate within the country is the obvious prerequisite to their capacity to inflict damage on citizens and facilities. These proposals protect the integrity of the United States borders without sacrificing the ability to welcome law-abiding visitors and legal immigrants.
Title III proposes changes to enhance prosecutors’ ability to disable terrorists organizations through the legal process. The proposal amends current law to encourage investigation and prosecution prior to successful completion of a devastating terrorist attack. Terrorism should be considered no less than murder and the elimination of the statute of limitations on terrorist acts is reflective of these sentiments. In addition, this legislation provides for alternative maximum sentences, up to life, for the commission of terrorist acts, giving judges the ability to punish terrorists commensurate to their crimes. A number of other proposals are designed to punish or deter those who would assist terrorists and their organizations through concealment of their activities or their members. The lending of support that works to further terrorist organizations and to perpetuate terrorist attacks is expressly criminalized. In these specific changes to the law of crimes and criminal procedure, the constitutional rights of the accused are respected.
Title IV aims at the financial infrastructure of terrorist organizations whose sophisticated operations require substantial financial resources. Often such resources are provided by those not directly responsible for terrorist acts. These proposals will cripple the capacity of terrorist organizations to finance their illegal activities through criminal and civil forfeiture of resources. In addition, criminal liability is specifically imposed on those who knowingly engage in financial transactions involving the proceeds of these acts.
Title V authorizes emergency operations in response to the September 11 attacks and assists the Attorney General in providing support and relief to the victims. These proposals provide the Attorney General greater discretion and authority to disburse funds with regard to rewards to be offered in connection with crimes of terrorism.
So the obvious question becomes, why did our one party media decide to trot this story out again? You may well ask why these same "watchdogs" thought it was important to regurgitate the "CIA prisons" stories that were first reported last May.
But you know why. The DNC/MSM cannot allow the good news coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan to be reported.
They have to throw up something to keep their defeat America agenda on-track. That is job number one.
This article details the law that governs warrantless wiretapping of US citizens.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20621
Thanks much for the link. These people hate America, and would gladly quicken our defeat if only they could.
So, can we then assume that those who support warrantless tapping hate freedom, and would gladly give it up for a false sense of security? I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a constitutional scholar like our president, but it has always been my impression that any part of the Constitution--in this case the Fourth Amendment--can only be repealed by passing another amendment.
I have a question: Should the president be granted carte blanche when it comes to wiretaps? What wouldn't you allow him to do to "protect the country"? How much liberty are you willing to give up in order to feel safe? In the name of "national security," would you be willing to submit to a full cavity search everytime you boarded a plane, train or bus? Should every person in the nation be made to wear a tracking device so the government can monitor our every move? If you say "No," then we can only assume that you have something to hide.
Most beautiful chart I have seen all year. Let the slide continue BUMP! The RSI has to look like a train wreck!
This chart is another early Christmas gift to republicans.
There.
I fixed it.
Their stockholders must have a financial death wish.
Fortunately, there are enough basements and attics in the United States to deal with idiot relatives that must be kept out of sight...
You don't know your history regarding various actions by Presidents in our nations history during times of war. Do some reading, maybe ask for some books for Christmas, before you make wild claims of loosing any of our freedoms. SHEESH!!!!!!
Start with this, and then do additional digging for a clue!
No Crime in Bush's Spying
By Washington Times
Washington Times | December 20, 2005
Below is the Washington Times' editorial on the issue of spying on terrorists. Our only quibble: The National Security Agency's Echelon project spied on "trillions" of American citizens' conversations during the Clinton administration. Otherwise, the editorial is spot-on. -- The Editors.
Should the National Security Agency secretly eavesdrop on the telephone conversations of suspicious persons in the United States calling al-Qaeda operatives overseas? We might be more shocked if the Bush administration hadn't authorized such surveillance, provided it was done within the law. NSA's substantial resources, like those of the CIA and the military, should be properly and legally harnessed to fight the al-Qaeda threat wherever it appears.
Questions have been raised whether President Bush can do this without violating the law. He thinks he can: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows it, with congressional oversight and checks on executive authority, as well as presidential war powers. The guardians of civil liberties who object may be mistaking precedent -- that the NSA didn't engage in domestic spying activities until late 2001 or early 2002 -- for a nonexistent law saying that it can't.
Mr. Bush answered questions yesterday with unusual passion: that terrorists and their collaborators are agents of a foreign power on whom the government should be allowed to spy because such spying protects and preserves American lives. He had said in his Saturday radio address: "Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to al-Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here until it was too late." Listening to their conversations -- both were aliens, one here illegally, one legally -- could have prevented tragedy.
The voices of outrage misread the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Title 50 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802, "Electronic surveillance authorization without court order," reads: "[T]he President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year," provided a series of conditions are met. Surveillance must be directed only at agents of foreign powers; there can be no likely surveillance of a "U.S. person" (more on this term below); and there must be strict congressional oversight in the intelligence committees. Mr. Bush says he has complied with these laws.
The critics ignore the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force, enacted by Congress shortly after September 11, which can be viewed as a congressional declaration of war on the terrorists and a stamp of approval for the president's wartime actions.
And if the NSA ends up spying on a U.S. citizen? The "U.S. person" definition "does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power," according to the same law. An "agent of a foreign power" is anyone, citizen or otherwise, who "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power." Which means that people who do not help al-Qaeda or other terrorists are safe from surveillance. Anyone who does, however, forfeits his rights and can be targeted for eavesdropping.
There is little novel about the domestic-spying revelations, only that Mr. Bush has chosen to break precedent by harnessing the NSA's substantial resources. Any government intrusion into private lives should make us all uneasy, but given the givens, given NSA's capabilities and above all the fearsome magnitude of the threat, we think the president's arguments persuasive.
Mr. Bush has not flinched from the criticism, and we applaud him for that. Congress could clear the confusion with an unmistakeable formal declaration of war on radical Islamist terrorism. Congressmen who sit on the intelligence committee could detail just how much they know and how long they've known it; it seems clear that several of the critics had prior knowledge of the program. In an era of airport searches and bomb-sniffing dogs, should a suspicious telephone call to Iran or Algeria be exempt from the war on terror?
I hear "Pinch" is going to work in disguise to avoid unwanted attention.
Please take a few minutes and send e-letters to three Senators, more if you have the time; due to the Anthrax scare, you will have to fill out forms - please do so - I have sent five to senators other than my own and not just to Republicans. Include these two sites:
(ECHELON)
“Bush Spying Story” Is Four Years Old
(Old spy story)
Media Bias is misinforming with down right lies. Please let the United States Senate know We The People are not stupid, urge them to support President Bush on the Patriot Act.
FGS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.