Limitations on freedom forges unique coalition of liberals and conservatives .

[FlamingoBlue]

U.S.Attorney General John Ashcroft, (a conservative former senator) has proposed an array of new measures to deal with terrorism. Interestingly, his proposals have been greeted with caution and dismay by diverse political groups who see the inherent danger of proceeding too quickly to place limits on our rights.

House Majority Leader,Rep. Dick Armey, has said that Ashcroft's suggestions raise questions about keeping track of the "bad guys" without snooping on us, too. Sen. Patrick Leahy has said that if we shred the constitution to deal with terrorism. the terrorists have won. Thankfully, contrary to Mr. Ashcroft's desire to obtain immediate implementation of his proposals, there will be an opportunity for reflection and debate before our civi liberties are impinged upon.

I believe, war or not, that our freedoms should not be limited unless there is a showing that we would be safer, as a result. I also believe that once our rights have been infringed that there is little liklihood that they will ever be restored to us.

We all appear to be ready to sacrifice certain of our rights in order to obtain victory over world wide terrorism, but we have to delicately balance our goal to do so against our goal to retain a true democracy in the U.S. This will be a very interesting debate!

blue

 

[shadowsource]

Yes, it is -

Bob Barr and Pat Leahy saving us from state hysteria. I can appreciate it! A year or two ago, a right-wing fueled Congressional drive nearly curbed the property seizures of the drug war, but somehow it was crushed. People should pay attention to this one, and should contact their representatives. I remain surprised not to have heard much about this from the avowed libertarians on the board. Shocked, more like it. Guru instantly posted something about the threat to our liberties on 9/11, when the airwaves were full of people who somehow knew that we had to give up our freedoms. When the FBI lets Watch List members board jets under their own names, we need changes alright, but not in the Constitution or fundamental law.

 

[xwizard4]

That is exactly what the attack on 9/11 was intended to do. Scare us into believing that we need to give up our rights in exchange for "security" from terrorist attacks. Problem: attacks on our country(orchestrated by our own gov't.) Reaction: We're scared,we're angry,we want revenge(fueled by the corporate-controlled media,also in on the scam). Solution: so long Constitution. Only us taking control of our own lives and demanding the truth about the attack on our country will save our freedoms.

 

[sigh]

hmmm...what a difference a day makes...i was whacked down repeatedly just last evening for making similar (though admittedly less tactful) comments (seems a few didn't like my goose-step remark, among others)...now i see other cautious minds arising

in the wake of "the speech" people are now asking questions, and there's nothing wrong with that...at least not until we give up the first ten amendments in the name of homeland security

long live dissenting views and questioning minds...they are the truest expression of america...we're all rebels at heart, which is something i don't think the rest of the world fully understand...it's our greatest strength, one we can never give up

and yes, dear friends...i love this country...let there be no mistake on that count

 

[shadowsource]

Privacy URLS

I subscribe regularly to the Privacy Foundation, which is very good: http://www.privacyfoundation.org

And Morton Halperin has a new group, the Working Group on Privacy, which is working very hard in Washington to help shape a sensible response to the attacks: http://vees.net/freedom/

 

[shadowsource]

It was your crack that inflamed them -

hmmm...what a difference a day makes...i was whacked down repeatedly just last evening for making similar (though admittedly less tactful) comments (seems a few didn't like my goose-step remark, among others)...now i see other cautious minds arising

We've been here all along. I posted the Working Group's URL days ago, when I first learned of it. But the flag-wavers here are off on a bender, like a little tsunami of testosterone and whatever else, and it's wise not to call them Nazis so casually. Though that death to non-flagwavers shit was odious, it tends to render its own sender ridiculous. I personally hate groupthink of any kind.

 

[miles]

Easy there, boys

Can someone tell me what he proposed? It might be helpful to hear the facts before everyone goes ballsitic.

Are you guys having group PMS?

 

[sigh]

group pms? lol...perhaps that's it after all

you live dangerously miles...i like that

and ss? sorry, didn't mean to suggest i was the only one having those concerns...of course you (and others) were here all along (most likely longer, since i'm a relative newbie)...it just seemed lonely last night with the world seemingly deep under the spell of "the speech"

i'm not really a liberal, by the way...i'm just really, really concerned...and getting really, really scared too

 

[shadowsource]

Re: Easy there, boys

Can someone tell me what he proposed? It might be helpful to hear the facts before everyone goes ballsitic.

Are you guys having group PMS?

I'm surprised you're not aware, Miles. Isn't the AJC covering this? Here's a Washington Post article from a couple of days ago:
(I've since deleted the stuff that didn't pertain to the legal issue - it's a lonnnnnnng media piece)

Big Brother No Longer So Scary
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 19, 2001; 9:30 AM


The clash was all but inevitable.

For decades, they have shadow-boxed their way through all manner of policy disputes, the champions of more aggressive law enforcement and the guardians of civil liberties.

The FBI wants to wiretap more phones or intercept e-mail communications? Civil libertarians complain about the loss of privacy. One administration or another wants to pare down the rights of accused criminals, junk Miranda warnings or allow the use of improperly seized evidence? The ACLU-types attack the proposals as unconstitutional. The battles are fought in Congress, in the Supreme Court, in the court of public opinion.

Sometimes the reformers have the upper hand, such as when the CIA runs amok and public sentiment supports new restrictions. Sometimes the prosecutors get their way, such as when there's a public clamor for a crackdown on lawlessness.

From the moment terrorists attacked New York and Washington, it was clear that this age-old battle would be waged on a global scale. And there's little question that momentum is on the side of those who want spies and investigators to have a stronger hand to hunt down those who are, or might be, involved in terror.

In short, Big Brother may no longer have such a menacing image. And the White House, not surprisingly, is seizing the moment.

"The Bush administration today announced a major expansion of its power to detain immigrants suspected of crimes," says the New York Times, "including new rules prompted by last week's terrorist attacks that would allow legal immigrants to be detained indefinitely during a national emergency.

"Citing the new powers, the Justice Department said it would continue to hold 75 immigrants arrested in connection with the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Previously, the department faced a 24-hour deadline on whether to release detained immigrants or charge them with a crime, or with violating the terms of their visa.

"The new detention powers drew statements of concern from civil liberties advocates and immigration lawyers. While the pressure on the administration and Congress to act is immense in the wake of the terrorist attacks, there is rising concern on the left and the right that the rush to respond could erode basic constitutional freedoms.

"The administration, which had the authority to rewrite the detention regulations on its own, is also expected within days to present Congress with a broad package of anti-terrorism legislation. Civil liberties and privacy groups are pleading with Congress not to act hastily on the package.

"A draft bill circulating today on Capitol Hill, apparently reflecting the administration's views, would give new authority to the Justice Department to arrest immigrants suspected of terrorism, accelerate the process of deporting them and curtail court appeals. . . .

"Jeanne A. Butterfield of the American Immigration Lawyers Association said that in the midst of the crisis created by last week's terrorism, the new rules 'may be reasonable, but no one wants to see this lead to some kind of indefinite detention.'"

The Wall Street Journal checks out the opposition: "National civil-liberties groups have quietly joined to form a single coalition, to be announced tomorrow, to urge that Congress and the White House take more time to weigh the Justice Department's requests. Representatives of dozens of these groups met here late last week to draft a statement of principles. The groups include the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Free Congress Foundation, as well as immigration, Arab-American and church groups.

"The proposals include 'things that are subject to abuse, that will be abused,' said Morton H. Halperin, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'We're going to try to slow down the process, so that these things are done in an orderly and public way.'

"'Policy makers are being careful figuring out who to target in the Middle East,' added Jerry Berman, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology. 'They should be just as careful to figure out what to target in the Constitution, so we don't experience collateral damage.'"

The Washington Post takes a broader look at the shifting political terrain: "The post-Sept. 11 agenda has prompted a detente between business and labor. It has strengthened the hand of the energy industry and weakened, at least momentarily, the environmental movement. And it has forced civil libertarians on both the left and the right into a united defensive posture in the face of calls for the expansion of government surveillance, search and arrest powers. . . .

"The new alliance between business and labor is unlike any since the prosperous days of the 1960s, when corporate America and the large industrial unions sought to share the growing economic bounty with a minimum of strife. . . .

"The calls for an expansion of government surveillance and search powers have united elements of the left and right in opposition. The Senate has already passed legislation making warrants for electronic computer searches easier to obtain, and the administration is preparing a package of proposals that could include encryption restrictions, extended use of facial recognition technology, and facilitated search warrants in terrorism investigations and other matters.

"The liberal Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union and such conservative groups as the Free Congress Foundation and the Gun Owners of America are expected to hold a news conference tomorrow to declare their concerns that increased surveillance initiatives would invade privacy.

"Separately, the Coalition for Constitutional Liberties, an alliance of 99 conservative groups from right-to-life organizations to property rights groups, warned in a statement: 'Our most basic and fundamental freedoms are under attack unlike any time since the Revolutionary Era.' Among the issues the coalition will engage: wiretapping, encryption, biometric identification technology, government surveillance and the development of national databases."

 

[shadowsource]

This is more specific -

Don't forget that this is the Justice Dept. that has imprisoned a Texas writer for agreeing only to share some of her notes, but not everything she dug up, and not her sources, in an investigation of a politically sensitive criminal case. And the same Justice Department that scarfed up an AP reporter's phone logs while he was on vacation - a violation of procedures in place for 30 years - in order to catch ONE OF THE DOJ's OWN EMPLOYEES leaking info on the probe into Sen. Torricelli's activities.


Civil Liberties Under Law Enforcement Onslaught - EFF

By David McGuire, Newsbytes
WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A.,
17 Sep 2001, 3:51 PM CST

In the wake of last week's terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, civil libertarians nationwide are watching nervously as federal law enforcement officials prepare to mount a massive legislative push that could rewrite constitutional protections online.
"We're extremely concerned with what's going on legislatively," Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Executive Director Shari Steele said today. "I would caution Congress to slow down a bit."

Earlier today, Attorney General John Ashcroft told reporters that he would, this week, ask lawmakers to pass a "comprehensive package" of legislation aimed at expanding the electronic surveillance and intelligence-gathering powers of U.S. law enforcers.

Ashcroft's comments came just days after the Senate approved a measure that would expand the ability of authorities to track the movements of suspected criminals and terrorists online.

Steele and other civil liberties advocates said that in the wake of last Tuesday's attacks, U.S. citizens and lawmakers will be more willing to cede some personal freedoms in favor of increasing national security.

Melissa Cole, an assistant professor at St. Louis University of Law, speculated that, despite the threats of Draconian legislative efforts, even some supporters of civil liberties protections could drop their guard following Tuesday's attacks. "It is a danger that most people aren't in an emotional condition to (understand) right now," she said.

In that environment, law enforcers will have a narrow window to pass a bevy of measures that had long been stalled amid constitutional concerns, Steele said.

"There is an opportunity for them to get legislation that they've wanted because it makes their jobs easier," Steele said.

The legislation approved by the Senate on Thursday may be the first example of that phenomenon, observers said.

Passed as an amendment to the massive Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill, the last-minute measure, proposed by Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., would extend long-standing phone surveillance laws to cover the Internet.

Among other things, the legislation would broaden "pen-register" and "trap-and-trace" laws - which allow law enforcers to obtain the phone records of suspected criminals - to allow authorities to obtain Internet records in the same way.

In the past when law enforcement officials have proposed similar measures, a coalition of congressional conservatives and liberals have blocked their efforts, arguing that expanding trap-and-trace rules would make it too easy for the government to spy on law-abiding citizens.

The evidentiary standard for obtaining a trap-and-trace order is far lower than the standard for obtaining a wiretap order, in large part because trap-and-trace ability only allows law enforcers to obtain simple numerical information (phone numbers).

Civil liberties advocates say that if trap and trace is extended to the Internet, law enforcers will easily be able to obtain a vast amount of private information about virtually any Internet surfer suspected of committing a crime.

Whereas in the context of phone communication, trap-and-trace and pen-register records only include phone numbers, similarly configured Internet records would give law enforcers access to far more explicit information, Center for Democracy and Technology Associate Director Alan Davidson said last week following the Senate vote.

E-mail addresses, Web sites and even the terms that users entered in search engines could be easily obtained by law enforcers if the legislation is approved, Davidson said.

And Ashcroft signaled today the Senate bill would be just one item on a long laundry list of legislative proposals sought by the Justice Department.

Among other things, the Justice Department intends to ask Congress to expand the department's electronic surveillance powers, reduce obstacles to obtaining wiretap orders and remove legal fetters on intelligence gathering.

Ashcroft said the Justice Department would submit its full list of requests in the next few days.

Steele predicted that as the emotional trauma surrounding last week's attacks lessens somewhat, Americans would "push back" at legislative encroachments on their personal freedoms. But she and Cole said that such a resistance might come too late.

"These laws are permanent until revoked and it's not easy to revoke a law," Cole said.

Reported by Newsbytes.com, http://www.newsbytes.com .

 

[FlamingoBlue]

To answr your question, Miles....

Ashcroft's proposals include:
1. No due process hearing for an immigrant "identified" as a terrorist.
2. New "roving" wiretap rules including all communication devices used by an individual, anywhere in th U.S.
3. Greater access to telephone communication and computer records.(voice mail, email, credit card and bank records would now be included).
3. Removal of a ban on release of educational records.
4. Sharing of evidence by federal poice agencies and U.S. intelligence agencie, contrary to current ban.
5. Forced cooperation between any communication company and the government would be required.

Visions of "Big Brother" loom in our future if we are not careful.

blue

*** This list is only intended as a very general overview. For more details check the web or your local newspaper.

 

[FlamingoBlue]

Where are the Libertarians.....

when you need them?? People, let's not get steamrolled in the nameof national security.

blue

 

[miles]

Proposals....didn't we have a recent thread about the military "proposing" nukes as an option against the terrorists. Quite honestly I haven't read much of the above and probably won't. I'd rather get the information on my own and know its origin.

Believe me, if our civil rights are threatened, I'll be yelling as loud as anyone.

 

[WriterDom]

Re: To answr your question, Miles....

Ashcroft's proposals include:

2. New "roving" wiretap rules including all communication devices used by an individual, anywhere in th U.S.

I don't have a problem with wire tapping a person WITH a court order. As it stands now, you can only tap a specific number. If a terrorist thinks his phone is tapped, he can go to the drug store and pick a cell phone up for $50. Laws need to be updated with the new technologies. It's not 1955 anymore.

 

[shadowsource]

Ashcroft said he wanted the bill passed THIS WEEK!

Proposals....didn't we have a recent thread about the military "proposing" nukes as an option against the terrorists. Quite honestly I haven't read much of the above and probably won't. I'd rather get the information on my own and know its origin. Believe me, if our civil rights are threatened, I'll be yelling as loud as anyone.

maybe you should read a newspaper, or the posts above. This is a bill in Congress that Ashcroft said he wanted passed by tonight. They are rushing it through with as little comment as possible. Had Jeffords not bolted, Lott would have gotten it passed by now. And WD is only addressing one of the clauses.
Windy libertarians indeed. You don't even follow what's happening. Whoever said you just use the L word as a cool cover for conservatism was correct. The next time I hear of your sterling concern for our fundamental rights, I shall barf in your statist direction.

 

[Never]

Now if Todd did that people would be howling for blood.

 

[FlamingoBlue]

This is important stuff, folks....

Look out for the freedom grabbers.

blue

 

[miles]

shadowsource

Right

 

[shadowsource]

The coalition kicked ass today!

In the House Judiciary Committe, that left-right coalition faced Ashcroft down and demanded more time to write up a proper bill - as Sen. Pat Leahy and others are attempting to doing in the Senate.
But when a number of conservative and liberal groups showed up to testify about their concerns for civil liberties, most of the Republican members decided to leave, calling it a "briefing" and not a committee session. The media were even told by a GOP staffer to leave, as a "briefing" wasn't public. Of course it was public, but no one watched or heard about it because of such tricks. That's how badly some of our elected representatives want to hear our views. That's why we need to stand up and tell them to preserve our freedoms as they deliberate.