Why does it seem that no one is worried about what Ashcroft is doing in the US ?

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
I´v just been reading alot about what this, sorry, nutcase is doing. Here is the newest example.

Published on Saturday, December 1, 2001 in the New York Times
Going Backwards
Ashcroft Seeks Looser Limits on FBI Spying
U.S. religious, political groups may lose civil liberties safeguards

by David Johnston and Don Van Natta Jr.

ASHINGTON, Nov. 30 ? Attorney General John Ashcroft is considering a plan to relax restrictions on the F.B.I.'s spying on religious and political organizations in the United States, senior government officials said today.
The proposal would loosen one of the most fundamental restrictions on the conduct of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and would be another step by the Bush administration to modify civil-liberties protections as a means of defending the country against terrorists, the senior officials said.

The attorney general's surveillance guidelines were imposed on the F.B.I. in the 1970's after the death of J. Edgar Hoover and the disclosures that the F.B.I. had run a widespread domestic surveillance program, called Cointelpro, to monitor antiwar militants, the Ku Klux Klan, the Black Panthers and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., among others, while Mr. Hoover was director.

Since then, the guidelines have defined the F.B.I.'s operational conduct in investigations of domestic and overseas groups that operate in the United States.

Some officials who oppose the change said the rules had largely kept the F.B.I. out of politically motivated investigations, protecting the bureau from embarrassment and lawsuits. But others, including senior Justice Department officials, said the rules were outmoded and geared to obsolete investigative methods and had at times hobbled F.B.I. counterterrorism efforts.

Mr. Ashcroft and the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, favor the change, the officials said. Most of the opposition comes from career officials at the F.B.I. and the Justice Department.

A Justice Department spokeswoman said today that no final decision had been reached on the revised guidelines.

"As part of the attorney general's reorganization," said Susan Dryden, the spokeswoman, "we are conducting a comprehensive review of all guidelines, policies and procedures. All of these are still under review."

An F.B.I. spokesman said the bureau's approach to terrorism was also under review.

"Director Mueller's view is that everything should be on the table for review," the spokesman, John Collingwood, said. "He is more than willing to embrace change when doing so makes us a more effective component. A healthy review process doesn't come at the expense of the historic protections inherent in our system."

The attorney general is free to revise the guidelines, but Justice Department officials said it was unclear how heavily they would be revised. There are two sets of guidelines, for domestic and foreign groups, and most of the discussion has centered on the largely classified rules for investigations of foreign groups.

The relaxation of the guidelines would follow administration measures to establish military tribunals to try foreigners accused of terrorism; to seek out and question 5,000 immigrants, most of them Muslims, who have entered the United States since January 2000; and to arrest more than 1,200 people, nearly all of whom are unconnected to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, and hold hundreds of them in jail.

Today, Mr. Ashcroft defended his initiatives in an impassioned speech to United States attorneys.

"Our efforts have been deliberate, they've been coordinated, they've been carefully crafted to not only protect America but to respect the Constitution and the rights enshrined therein," Mr. Ashcroft said.

"Still," he added, "there have been a few voices who have criticized. Some have sought to condemn us with faulty facts or without facts at all. Others have simply rushed to judgment, almost eagerly assuming the worst of their government before they've had a chance to understand it at its best."

Under the current surveillance guidelines, the F.B.I. cannot send undercover agents to investigate groups that gather at places like mosques or churches unless investigators first find probable cause, or evidence leading them to believe that someone in the group may have broken the law. Full investigations of this sort cannot take place without the attorney general's consent.

Since Sept. 11, investigators have said, Islamic militants have sometimes met at mosques ? apparently knowing that the religious institutions are usually off limits to F.B.I. surveillance squads. Some officials are now saying they need broader authority to conduct surveillance of potential terrorists, no matter where they are.

Senior career F.B.I. officials complained that they had not been consulted about the proposed change ? a criticism they have expressed about other Bush administration counterterrorism measures. When the Justice Department decided to use military tribunals to try accused terrorists, and to interview thousands of Muslim men in the United States, the officials said they were not consulted.

Justice Department officials noted that Mr. Mueller had endorsed the administration's proposals, adding that the complaints were largely from older F.B.I. officials who were resistant to change and unwilling to take the aggressive steps needed to root out terror in the United States. Other officials said the Justice Department had consulted with F.B.I. lawyers and some operational managers about the change.

But in a series of recent interviews, several senior career officials at the F.B.I. said it would be a serious mistake to weaken the guidelines, and they were upset that the department had not clearly described the proposed changes.

"People are furious right now ? very, very angry," one of them said. "They just assume they know everything. When you don't consult with anybody, it sends the message that you assume you know everything. And they don't know everything."

Still, some complaints seem to stem from the F.B.I.'s shifting status under Mr. Ashcroft. Weakened by a series of problems that predated the Sept. 11 attacks, the F.B.I. has been forced to follow orders from the Justice Department ? a change that many law enforcement experts thought was long overdue. In the past, the bureau leadership had far more independence and authority to make its own decisions.

Several senior officials are leaving the F.B.I., including Thomas J. Pickard, the deputy director. He was the senior official in charge of the investigation of the attacks and was among top F.B.I. officials who were opposed to another decision of the Bush administration, the public announcements of Oct. 12 and Oct. 29 that placed the country on the highest state of alert in response to vague but credible threats of a possible second terrorist attack. Mr. Pickard is said to have been opposed to publicizing threats that were too vague to provide any precautionary advice.

Many F.B.I. officials regard the administration's plan to establish military tribunals as an extreme step that diminishes the F.B.I.'s role because it creates a separate prosecutorial system run by the military.

"The only thing I have seen about the tribunals is what I have seen in the newspapers," a senior official complained.

Another official said many senior law enforcement officials shared his concern about the tribunals. "I believe in the rule of law, and I believe if we have a case to make against someone, we should make it in a federal courtroom in the United States," he said.

Several senior F.B.I. officials said the tribunal system should be reserved for senior Al Qaeda members apprehended by the military in Afghanistan or other foreign countries.

Few were involved in deliberations that led to the directive Mr. Ashcroft issued this month to interview immigrant men living legally in the United States. F.B.I. officials have complained that the interview plan was begun before its ramifications were fully understood.

"None of this was thought through, a senior official said. "They just announced it, and left it to others to figure out how to do it."

The arrests and detentions of more than 1,200 people since Sept. 11 have also aroused concerns at the F.B.I. Officials noted that the investigations had found no conspirators in the United States who aided the hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks and only a handful of people who were considered Al Qaeda members.

"This came out of the White House, and Ashcroft's office," a senior official said. "There are tons of things coming out of there these days where there is absolutely no consultation with the bureau."

Some at the F.B.I. have been openly skeptical about claims that some of the 1,200 people arrested were Al Qaeda members and that the strategy of making widespread arrests had disrupted or thwarted planned attacks.

"It's just not the case," an official said. "We have 10 or 12 people we think are Al Qaeda people, and that's it. And for some of them, it's based only on conjecture and suspicion."

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company




 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
bah, 10-1 we are already doing this, just not legally. The gov't can and will do whatever the hell it wants,
"guidelines" be dammed.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Maybe but what about this then.


Published on Saturday, December 1, 2001 in the New York Times
It Can Happen Here
by Anthony Lewis

BOSTON -- On the basis of secret evidence, the government accuses a non-citizen of connections to terrorism, and holds him in prison for three years. Then a judge conducts a full trial and rejects the terrorism charges. He releases the prisoner. A year later government agents rearrest the man, hold him in solitary confinement and state as facts the terrorism charges that the judge found untrue.
Could that happen in America? In John Ashcroft's America it has happened.

Mazen Al-Najjar, a Palestinian, came to the United States in 1984 as a graduate student and stayed to teach at a university. The Immigration Service moved to deport him for overstaying his visa ? and asked an immigration judge, R. Kevin McHugh, to imprison him. Secret evidence, the government lawyers said, showed that Mr. Al-Najjar had raised funds for a terrorist organization, Palestinian Islamic Jihad. In June 1997 Judge McHugh issued the detention order.

Mr. Al-Najjar's lawyers went to federal court and challenged the use of secret evidence against him. The court held that he must at least be told enough about the evidence to have a fair chance of responding to it.

Judge McHugh then reopened the case in his immigration court. In a two-week trial the government's lead witness, an Immigration agent, admitted that there was no evidence of Mr. Al-Najjar contributing to a terrorist organization or ever advocating terrorism. At the end Judge McHugh found that there were no "bona fide reasons to conclude that [Mr. Al- Najjar] is a threat to national security."

Judge McHugh, a former U.S. marine, wrote a 56-page decision that evidently carried much legal weight. The Board of Immigration Appeals rejected a government appeal. And Attorney General Janet Reno, who had the right to step in, refused to do so. A year ago Mr. Al-Najjar rejoined his wife and three daughters.

Last Saturday immigration agents arrested Mr. Al-Najjar again. The Justice Department issued a triumphant press release saying that the case "underscores the department's commitment to address terrorism by using all legal authorities available." Mr. Al-Najjar, it said, "had established ties to terrorist organizations."

That flat, conclusory statement was in direct contradiction to the findings made by Judge McHugh after a full trial. And the department did not claim, this time, to be relying on undisclosed information. It said the detention was "not based on classified evidence."

It seems to me shocking that the United States Department of Justice should state as a fact something that a judge has found to be untrue. The whole press release had the ring not of law but of political propaganda. That is not the department of respected lawyers that I have known over many years.

Mr. Al-Najjar is not only back in prison, he is being treated with exceptional severity, indeed cruelty. He is in solitary confinement 23 hours a day. He is not allowed to make telephone calls, and he may not see his family. Only his lawyer is permitted to visit him.

Because Mr. Al-Najjar is stateless and no country will accept him, he probably cannot be deported. So if the Justice Department view that he is a security risk prevails ? in the teeth of the judge's finding ? he could spend the rest of his life in prison.

Why is Attorney General Ashcroft using his office to punish this man so severely? At a time of national anxiety about Arabs and Muslims, Mr. Al-Najjar is a useful target: a Palestinian Muslim. More broadly, Mr. Ashcroft has claimed power to detain non-citizens even when immigration judges order them released.

It could be, too, that Mr. Ashcroft wants to use this case to establish the right to use secret evidence against aliens. The practice had been all but abandoned by the Justice Department after several judges frowned on it and more than 100 members of the House co-sponsored legislation to prohibit it.

With all the extreme measures taken by the administration in recent days ? detaining hundreds of people, ordering thousands questioned, establishing military tribunals ? Mr. Ashcroft and President Bush have assured the country that they will enforce the measures with care, and with concern for civil liberties. Their motto is, "Trust us."

The Al-Najjar case shows that there is no basis for trust.

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company

 

ToBeMe

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2000
5,711
0
0
Czar..........I don't agree with all of the things going on either, but.......you better keep a close eye on events in your own country as well...................;) LOL! Don't find yourself associated with terrorists.........;):)



<< The Fight Against Terrorism University Of Iceland November 27th, 2001 >>



  • Iceland is very much playing its part in the international efforts against terrorism. The government of Iceland immediately and without reservation expressed its solidarity and support for the United States in responding to the September 11 attacks. There was no hesitation or qualification in the statements made by the prime minister and foreign minister.

    Within NATO, Iceland joined the other Allies to endorse Secretary General Robertson's recommendation that Article 5 of the NATO treaty be invoked on behalf of the United States. As many of you know, Article 5 is the cornerstone of the Alliance. It provides that an attack on one Ally should be considered an attack on them all. This is the first time in NATO history that Article 5 has ever been used. One result of this step is that there are now five NATO AWACS planes performing air surveillance over the United States. Iceland, along with other NATO allies, also agreed to provide blanket over flight and landing clearance for U.S. and Allied military aircraft.

    In an effort that is finding its parallel in many other nations, Iceland has taken steps to implement all the relevant UN conventions and Security Council resolutions against terrorism. Iceland has signed and ratified six of the 12 major counter terrorism conventions and is on track to have three more in force by year's end, including the two most recent conventions: one on suppression of terrorist bombings and the other on the suppression of financing of terrorism. Iceland has just recently published a notice in the government gazette, which immediately implements UN Security Council resolution 1373. 1373 is probably the most important counter terrorism UN resolution passed since September 11 because it seeks to cut terrorism off from the money that enables action. Among other things, 1373 requires countries to criminalize terrorist fund-raising and to freeze the assets of those involved, directly or indirectly, in committing acts of terrorism.

    On the ground here in Iceland, law enforcement officials have been diligent in checking individuals and groups associated with terrorist activities on UN-sanctioned lists and any that have bank accounts or other financial assets in the country. We are confident that the government will move quickly to seize all assets of such individuals or groups. The government of Iceland has also established an interagency committee to address terrorism and related issues. This will be critical for the long-term success of our joint efforts against terrorism.

    Terrorism has cast a shadow across the globe, and strives to plunge us into darkness, confusion and contention. The agenda of al-Qaida is to overthrow existing governments in Moslem countries, to institute regimes of extreme religious fundamentalism like the Taliban, and to use these as power bases to attack all who do not share their beliefs. But the global resolve to defeat it has never been greater, and the prospects for international cooperation across a broad range of issues remain bright. The weeks since September 11 have demonstrated remarkable cooperation and solidarity in many places. We will not let terrorism hijack our lives, our shared values, or our agenda of promoting peace and prosperity for the world's people
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
ToBeMe,
Yes they are checking the 2 possible terorists here or something. But this is not the issue on this thread. And these "laws" that apply here are just to cut money from terrorist organisations. What Ashcroft is doing is compromising civilian freedom.

Now on with the issue here


Published on Saturday, January 27, 2001 in the New York Times
What Ashcroft Did
by Anthony Lewis

BOSTON -- Even some conservatives are embarrassed now by the way Senator John Ashcroft killed the nomination of Ronnie White to be a federal judge. He told his Republican colleagues that Judge White, of the Missouri Supreme Court, had shown "a tremendous bent toward criminal activity." It was a baseless smear.
But it was not just dirty politics. It was dangerous, in a way that casts doubt on Senator Ashcroft's fitness to be attorney general.

Judge White was attacked by Senator Ashcroft because, in 59 capital cases before the Missouri court, he had voted 18 times to reverse the death sentence. In 10 of those 18 the court was unanimously for reversal. Senator Ashcroft hit at cases in which Judge White dissented.

For appraisal of Judge White's record in those cases I rely on Stuart Taylor Jr. of The National Journal, a conservative who is widely respected as a legal analyst. He wrote: "The two dissents most directly assailed by Ashcroft in fact exude moderation and care in dealing with the tension between crime-fighting and civil liberties."

One of the dissents was in a horrifying murder case ? the murder, among others, of a sheriff. Mr. Taylor wrote that Judge White's "conclusion was plausible, debatable, highly unpopular (especially among police) and (for that reason) courageous. For John Ashcroft to call it `pro-criminal' was obscene."

In short, a judge who wrote a thoughtful, reasoned dissent in a murder case was told that it disqualified him for a federal judgeship. Think about what that means for our constitutional system.

Judicial independence has been a fundamental feature of the American system for 200 years and more. We rely on judges to enforce the Constitution: to protect our liberties. But a judge who does so in a controversial case is on notice from John Ashcroft that he may be punished. The judge must reject the constitutional claim, however meritorious, or face a malicious smear.

There is a slimy feel to Senator Ashcroft's behavior with Judge White. One of the Republicans who voted against the judge at Senator Ashcroft's urging, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, told Judge White the other day, "The Senate owes you an apology." Commentators have urged Senator Ashcroft to apologize, but he has refused.

That same sense of slipperiness is evident in another matter: Senator Ashcroft's role in blocking the nomination of James Hormel to be ambassador to Luxembourg in 1998. Mr. Hormel is gay. Senator Ashcroft, explaining his opposition, said Mr. Hormel "has been a leader in promoting a lifestyle," and that was "likely to be offensive" in Luxembourg.

But 10 days ago, when Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat of Vermont, asked whether he had opposed Mr. Hormel because he is gay, Senator Ashcroft replied, "I did not." Why, then, had he opposed the nomination? Senator Leahy asked.

"Well frankly," Senator Ashcroft replied, "I had known Mr. Hormel for a long time. He had recruited me, when I was a student in college, to go to the University of Chicago Law School [where Mr. Hormel was then an assistant dean]. . . . I made a judgment that it would be ill advised to make him an ambassador based on the totality of the record."

After that testimony, Mr. Hormel wrote Senator Leahy that he had not "recruited" Mr. Ashcroft or anyone to Chicago, which needed no recruiting; that he could recall no personal conversation with Mr. Ashcroft then and had not seen him for nearly 34 years. He added that he had asked to talk with Senator Ashcroft in 1998 about the Luxembourg nomination but had gotten no response.

Trying now to appear as someone who will act equitably to all, Senator Ashcroft was not man enough to admit that he had opposed Mr. Hormel because of his sexual orientation. He resorted instead to the false suggestion that he was well acquainted with Mr. Hormel over decades and his "record" was bad.

Supporters of Senator Ashcroft say it is improper to object to him because of his ideology ? a president should be free to have cabinet members of whatever ideology he chooses. Even with the greatest latitude for the cabinet, Senator Ashcroft's extreme- right politics make him a dubious choice for attorney general. But what makes him, finally, unfit for the job is that, in Stuart Taylor's words, "A character assassin should not be attorney general."

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company




 

Wallydraigle

Banned
Nov 27, 2000
10,754
1
0


<< Why does it seem that no one is worried about what Ashcroft is doing in the US ? >>



Americans really, really dislike anthrax and falling buildings?
 

Ronstang

Lifer
Jul 8, 2000
12,493
18
81
I was born in the US, as were my parents, I am a citizen, and I am not a criminal or involved in anything illegal or suspicious so I have absolutely nothing to worry about. It's about time we get serious in this country about dealing with criminals.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Notice this


<< "It's just not the case," an official said. "We have 10 or 12 people we think are Al Qaeda people, and that's it. And for some of them, it's based only on conjecture and suspicion." >>


and then this


<< Some at the F.B.I. have been openly skeptical about claims that some of the 1,200 people arrested were Al Qaeda members and that the strategy of making widespread arrests had disrupted or thwarted planned attacks. >>


A week ago or two Ashcroft stop telling how many people had been arrested. So there are at least over 1188 innocent people in custody.
 

ToBeMe

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2000
5,711
0
0


<< looks like ronnie white will not go away...
Is this new news or old news rehashed?
>>


It's old news rehashed!;) What people fail to see in both instances pointed out by Czar are his other voting records in favor of African Americans and Homosexuals, or the fact that he signed several laws in MO while Gov. in favor of both!;)

I also agree that Americans seem to be fully in favor of what he's doing by show of numerous polls, but, I have thought myself that things are becoming extreme..............:(

Any room there in Iceland Czar just incase............;) LOL!:) j/k;)
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Czar,

last week ashcroft had a press conference and announced there were about 600 people in custody. Most of those were in the US illegally or their visas had expired. Eitherway, they are not US citizens and very ripe for deportation.

I would be very disturbing if US citizens or people that were here legally in the US were being held so long, but such people have been questioned and released.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
ToBeMe,
plenty room ;) just have to be able to tolerate the weather, the stupid government and the currency going fuct then you will love it here :)


and more


Published on Tuesday, November 20, 2001 in the Minneapolis Star Tribune
Rule of Law, or Rule of Ashcroft?
by Robyn Blumner

"Coy" is the best way to describe Attorney General John Ashcroft's performance at his Senate confirmation hearing in January.
The former one-term senator from Missouri, whose religion forbids him from smoking, drinking or dancing, arabesqued around his record as an opponent of school desegregation, an avowed gay-basher, a staunch opponent of abortion rights, and someone who has so little respect for the U.S. Supreme Court that he called the more liberal members and one middle-of-the-roader "five ruffians in robes."

For those senators on the Judiciary Committee who were skeptical of his asserted metamorphosis, Ashcroft promised -- not promised, swore -- that he would not allow his personal beliefs to interfere with the objective enforcement of the law.

"I pledge to you that strict enforcement of the rule of law will be the cornerstone of justice," Ashcroft told the committee. "As a man of faith, I take my word and my integrity seriously. So when I swear to uphold the law, I will keep my oath, so help me God."

But what Ashcroft failed to mention was the asterisk in his head -- that to a great extent the attorney general decides what the rule of law is and how it is interpreted. As Patrick Leahy, Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in opposing Ashcroft for the post: "While the Supreme Court has the last word in what our law means, the attorney general, more importantly, has the first word."

Or, as Ashcroft might think of it: the word.

Take, for instance, Ashcroft's recent decision to interfere with Oregon's doctor-assisted suicide law -- a voter-passed initiative that allows terminally ill patients who are fully mentally competent to have a doctor prescribe medicine that allows them to choose a death with dignity. Until he was stopped by court injunction, Ashcroft had threatened any doctor who assists patients in this way with the revocation of prescription-writing privileges.

It's funny. Before becoming attorney general, Ashcroft made the federal government's intrusion into "state's rights" a frequent target of attack. After the Supreme Court struck down an initiative passed by Arkansas voters to impose term limits for congressional seats, Ashcroft said the justices "stole the right of self-determination from the people." But the long reach of the federal government didn't bother him a whit when the power was in his hands and he could use it to further a religious conservative agenda.

Could there also be a connection between Ashcroft's legendary anti-abortion activism and his wholesale disinterest in the hundreds of anthrax threat letters (so far all hoaxes) received by abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood offices since Sept. 11? Despite requests by these groups for a personal meeting or a public statement expressing concern for abortion-clinic workers, Ashcroft has offered neither -- a quintessential deafening silence.

And where is Ashcroft's "so help me God" commitment to the rule of law for the 1,200 or so people the Justice Department has detained since the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks? Those people have disappeared into a justice system that is refusing to account for them. Last month, seven members of Congress sent Ashcroft a letter asking basic questions of constitutional import, such as the names of the people being held and the charges against them. But even after a follow-up letter, Ashcroft has not furnished any answers.

His rule of law must include not being accountable to Congress.

Now comes the announcement of FBI sweeps. Ashcroft has ordered the questioning of 5,000 immigrant men between the ages of 18 and 33 from Middle Eastern nations -- men from places where the idea of being interrogated by police is terrorizing.

During the confirmation hearing, Ashcroft claimed to be appalled by the specter of racial profiling. "No American should fear being stopped by police just because of skin color," he declared.

Now we know that the rest of the thought was: "but if you're brown and from another country, start shaking."

It is actually hard to keep up with the almost daily constitutional transgressions that are passing as policy in the Justice Department. One day a summary rule is announced that the attorney general, at his sole discretion, will allow the monitoring of certain attorney-client conversations -- trouncing the Sixth Amendment's guarantees of a right to counsel. The next, the department renews efforts to jail immigrants on secret evidence.

The rule of law has become the rule of Ashcroft. And the Justice Department is a misnomer once again.

© Copyright 2001 Star Tribune
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
"Why does it seem that no one is worried about what Ashcroft is doing in the US?"

I'd be MORE worried and hearing a LOT more grumbling if they weren't doing SOMETHING! I suppose your suggestion would be to sit on our hands and/or cross our fingers and hope for the best, eh? If not, let's see your list of 'better' ideas...
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0


<< "Why does it seem that no one is worried about what Ashcroft is doing in the US?"

I'd be MORE worried and hearing a LOT more grumbling if they weren't doing SOMETHING! I suppose your suggestion would be to sit on our hands and/or cross our fingers and hope for the best, eh? If not, let's see your list of 'better' ideas...
>>


Hell no, I´m just worried about this guy and how he is cutting of freedom, I´m expecialy worried about the new "Patriot Act" which bypasses the constitution

one more of these pointless posts of mine and then I´m off outside to dig some snow from my doorway.

Published on Friday, October 19, 2001
Attack on the Bill of Rights
by Marty Jezer

The two houses of Congress are now negotiating the details of an anti-terrorism bill that would severely compromise the Bill of Rights, especially the first amendment rights of free speech, petition, and public assembly, and the forth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The bills are known in the Senate as the Uniting and Strengthening America Act (USA Act) and in the House as the PATRIOT Act. A more accurate title would be the "J. Edgar Hoover Memorial Trash the Bill of Rights And Silence The Opposition Act." This title is apt because the legislation harks back to the political repression of past eras rather than to the present situation of high-tech global terrorism and digital internet communications.

The bills are based on a draft submitted by Attorney-General John Ashcroft within days of the September 11th disaster. The Bush Administration wanted ?- and had in preparation -- the legal means to intimidate its political opponents. Opportunistically, they?ve used the September 11th tragedy to ram their bill through Congress.

An unprecedented coalition of Republican libertarians and Democratic liberals initially joined forces to fight the Ashcroft bill. As Brad Johnson of the conservative Free Congress Foundation told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "We know that we have to be happy with whatever rules we put in place for when Ted Kennedy is the attorney-general." Fair enough. The genius of the Bill of Rights is that it compels political factions to agree: "I won?t put you in jail for your political ideas when I?m in power if you won?t put me in jail for my political ideas when you?re in power." The Bush Administration wants to break that historic consensus.

Alas, this left-right coalition buckled. Few politicians have the guts to stand up for principle in an emotionally frightening war-time situation. Vermont?s Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a critic of the Senate bill?s questionable provisions, joined 95 other Senators in supporting the bill, leaving Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold to stand alone in opposition.

Leahy had hoped to improve the bill when it reached the House/Senate conference committee. Initially there was hope of this possibility. On October 3rd, Republicans and Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee had unanimously approved a bill that gutted the provisions in Ashcroft?s draft that undermined civil liberties. But House GOP leaders ignored their vote and imposed a bill more to Ashcroft?s liking and akin to the Senate version. This passed the House 337 to 79 with three Republicans and Independent Bernie Sanders joining 75 Democrats in opposition. The success of the GOP maneuver in the House leaves little room for Leahy to influence the conference committee.

The twin bills tackle two subjects. The important area dealing with real issues of safety and security demand creative thinking and careful scrutiny by law enforcement and public health officials, constitutional scholars, and experts in high technology. We not only need to know why our intelligence was so bad leading up the attack of 9/11, but how we can best protect ourselves in this new era of global terror. In its haste to do something, Congress gave short-shrift to these issues. Congress also kowtowed to special interests. Provisions to track money-laundering by tightening oversight of banks and other financial institutions were passed by the Senate and the House Judiciary Committee over the opposition of the Bush Administration. Then lobbyists for the banking industry went to work. Important investigatory tools that would have enabled law enforcement agents to track terrorists by their financial dealings were deleted from the House bill.

Among the other flaws of the bill, as detailed by the ACLU , are "Sneak and Peak Searches," which allow the government to obtain secret warrants to enter homes, offices and places of business and download computer files without first informing the subjects of the search, and "Forum Shopping," which allow police to obtain a search warrant from any jurisdiction in the country regardless of where the search is to take place. If a judge in Vermont won?t provide a warrant to search a home in Vermont, the police can go to Texas or anywhere else to obtain the warrant.

The most dangerous part of the bill is Section 803 of the Senate Bill which creates a new crime, that of "domestic terrorism." Domestic terrorism is defined vaguely as to include the intention to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population" and to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." Any political demonstration can be deemed coercive and intimidating, as can speech or writing. A demonstrator (or an undercover police agent) who throws a rock or damages property (already illegal under existing law) could provide the government with the pretext to charge demonstrators with an act of terrorism. Moreover, any person who provides assistance to the demonstrators would also be liable for prosecution as a terrorist. The provisions regarding "domestic terrorism" are not meant to protect the country from real terrorists. They are, instead, an intimidating and coercive threat to free speech and public assembly.

There is no doubt that we need to improve our law enforcement procedures to guard against terrorism and to prosecute those who attempt to carry out terrorist acts. But there?s a difference between giving up conveniences and privileges for the sake of public safety and giving up rights and freedoms to impose conformity and create an illusion of popular support for political programs. The bills in Congress were too hastily written to deal with the essential issues or safety and security. As written, they are repressive and politically motivated.

"There is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists...," Feingold said in a speech to Congress. "But that wouldn't be a country in which we would want to live.... That country wouldn't be America." One of the goals of the 9/11 terrorists was to undermine our freedoms by fomenting political hysteria. With the so-called anti-terrorist bill now being negotiated in Congress, the terrorists are succeeding in that goal.

Marty Jezer writes from Brattleboro, Vermont. His books include Abbie Hoffman: American Rebel. He welcomes comments at mjez@sover.net.

Copyright © 2001 by Marty Jezer


 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
Hell no, eh? Well then where's your list of better ways to handle this? Lead, follow or get out of the way. These guys are DOING something about the situation. We've got way to many people trying to hamstring them in their efforts. If those people don't have a better plan, then I suggest they STFU!
 
Aug 10, 2001
10,420
2
0
And after a suitcase nuke is detonated in a major metropolitan area, everyone will be complaining that Ashcroft didn't do enough. :disgust:
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Hey, we should turn Ashcroft loose on those who are suspected terrorists. However, we also should keep a sword in hand to sever his head from his shoulders the moment he steps out of bounds. He could turn out as bad a Joseph McCarthy if left to his own volition.
 

Helpless

Banned
Jul 26, 2000
2,285
0
0


<< Czar, why the worries?
you are in Iceland right?
>>




Yea, he's been spewing his anti-American policy for 2 years now :) When Free Willie isn;t in the Icelander Times, he has nothing more to talk about on his little island.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
Fortunantly Red, I don't think we have to worry about the likes of Ashcroft or his party going after our "swords and guns", which would give me cause for concern!
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0


<<

<< Czar, why the worries?
you are in Iceland right?
>>




Yea, he's been spewing his anti-American policy for 2 years now :) When Free Willie isn;t in the Icelander Times, he has nothing more to talk about on his little island.
>>



Not anti american, I´m just conserned about the world, call me a hippy or something but I´m not anti american. If everyone who disagrees with what the US gov does is anti american then I guess the democrats are anti american when the republicans are in control and the republicans are anti american when democrats are in control.

edit, and just to add, Keiko (aka, free willie) should either be eaten or set free, there is to much money being spent on iceland's "biggest" hollywood star :p
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0


<< Hell no, eh? Well then where's your list of better ways to handle this? Lead, follow or get out of the way. These guys are DOING something about the situation. We've got way to many people trying to hamstring them in their efforts. If those people don't have a better plan, then I suggest they STFU! >>




As if one can unilaterally unseat ashcroft and "lead" just by tapping their shoes three times? FWIW, when the anti-terror bill was being debated, I was intensely involved in a campaign against the inlcusion of a ban against online gambling in the bill. I wrote, called, emailed my political representatives (and the ones who were sponsoring the bill), emailed and posted on forums across the net warning of the dangerous precedent it could set, and raised awareness so that others could contact their representatives.

And it worked. I didnt do it alone, but it worked. The ban was deleted before the bill was passed. I cant spearhead the entire campaign against terrorism, I neither have the know-how or the will to do so. (and Im not old enough.) However, I will put forth efforts where I can and where I have sufficient clout. And I will bitch about other injustices that ashcroft continues to carry out-Its my right to do so. If I think I have solutions to those injustices, then I will point them out. However, no one has the insight to see all the problems AND fix them.


It's funny. Before becoming attorney general, Ashcroft made the federal government's intrusion into "state's rights" a frequent target of attack. After the Supreme Court struck down an initiative passed by Arkansas voters to impose term limits for congressional seats, Ashcroft said the justices "stole the right of self-determination from the people." But the long reach of the federal government didn't bother him a whit when the power was in his hands and he could use it to further a religious conservative agenda.


Good point there from that article. A bit hypocritical, eh? :|

Thanks for the posts Czar.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0


<< czar,

You only complain about the US on these forums here.
>>


Want me to complain about others... would you care?
most people dont give a rats ass if someone complains about what some other government is doing except when it consernes them directly.