Posted on 12/03/2004 9:35:08 AM PST by Ed Current
It could happen any day now: A U.S. military unit heads into an urban combat zone in Iraq's Sunni Triangle. Its members believe they know where Abu Musab Zarqawi is hiding. Their mission is to capture or kill the most murderous terrorist this side of Osama bin Laden.
Their chance of succeeding--and getting back alive--will be enhanced by accurate and timely intelligence fed to them from overhead satellites.
Question: Who should control those satellites?
Should it be the military commanders of the troops heading into combat? Or should it be a civilian bureaucrat--removed from the military chain of command--sitting in a velvet-draped office in Washington, D.C.?
Right now, the military controls the spy satellites that collect "tactical" intelligence for use in combat. Meanwhile, the Central Intelligence Agency uses these very same satellites for collecting "strategic" intelligence (about things like those suspected Iraqi weapons-of-mass-destruction stockpiles that the CIA--while relying on the satellites--did not recruit a single Iraqi spy to track down and verify on the ground).
Licensed Hijackers
The National Security Agency, which intercepts, decodes and translates communications, the National Reconaissance Office, which operates the surveillance satellites themselves, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which analyzes and integrates the data gathered into maps and other combat-usable applications, are all part of the Department of Defense. Their budget requests are generated by the military, and their chain of command runs from the commanders in the field, through the secretary of Defense, to the commander in chief in the White House.
Liberal Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, wants to take authority over these satellites away from the military commanders and give it to a newly minted civilian bureaucrat, known as the National Intelligence Director, who will have ultimate administrative authority over all intelligence operations both military and civilian. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D.-Conn.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, wants to do that, too.
House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter (R.-Calif.) is standing up for American warriors in the field by standing in the way of Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman.
Hunter is right. Collins and Lieberman are wrong. This is the main conflict that has held up the "intelligence reform" bill that Congress is currently considering in response to the report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
Now, consider another case. This one, sadly, already came to pass:
Nineteen al Qaeda terrorists board four U.S. jetliners. They identify themselves to the airlines using some of the 63 separate driver's licenses that had been issued to them by various U.S. states--and, in some instances, which they had secured with the help of illegal aliens who had already learned how to manipulate the lax practices of state departments of motor vehicles.
The terrorists hijack the jets and crash them into the twin towers at the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Northern Virginia, and a field in Western Pennsylvania. They murder more than 3,000 people.
In response to these attacks, thousands of U.S. troops are deployed to Afghanistan to root out the terrorist bosses of these calculated killers. A global war on terror is launched. Many billions of dollars are spent. Many brave, young U.S. fighters are killed or wounded in battle.
Almost three years after the September 11, 2001, attacks, a special federal commission set up to study why the U.S. was so vulnerable recommends that the federal government "set standards for the issuance of . . . driver's licenses."
Never mind that it took three years and a panel of muckity-mucks to arrive at this simple, commonsense application of the federal government's core constitutional function of securing the nation against foreign enemies and providing laws to regulate the immigration and naturalization of aliens. The fact is: The recommendation has not yet been implemented.
If another set of al Qaeda killers were to enter the United States this morning--this time walking illegally across the Mexican or Canadian border--many U.S. states would still give them driver's licenses.
This is another conflict holding up the bill in response to the commission's recommendations. House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R.-Wis.) is insisting that the bill actually carry out the commission's recommendation on setting national standards for driver's licenses. The House has proposed language that would effectively bar states from giving licenses to illegal aliens.
Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman are against this, too.
The majority of the Republicans in the House support the principled stand Hunter and Sensenbrenner have taken on the bill. House Speaker Dennis Hastert two weeks ago refused to bring a bill to a vote without the support of these two key chairmen. Liberals in the House, the Senate and the establishment press want to force Hunter and Sensenbrenner to surrender. But these two conservatives are standing up for America. President Bush should stand with them and insist that Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins surrender.
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
H.R. 2671, the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act of 2003 H.R. 2671
OCTOBER 1, 2003
New Section 114-The Issuance of Driver's Licenses to Illegal Aliens. As the Committee is no doubt aware, the issuance of driver's licenses to illegal aliens by some states jeopardizes immigration law enforcement, general law enforcement, and national security. The driver's license effectively serves as the basic identity document in America today. It is a de facto national identity card issued by more than 50 different jurisdictions. Driver's licenses allow illegal aliens to operate with ease in American society and escape the scrutiny that might otherwise occur in routine law enforcement encounters. On our northern border the driver's license operates as an effective substitute for a U.S. passport, allowing an alien who is persuasive in falsely asserting U.S. citizenship to cross the border freely.
Permitting illegal aliens to acquire driver's licenses also opens up opportunities for criminals, whether they be foreign nationals or U.S. citizens. States that allow illegal aliens to possess driver's licenses inevitably reduce the level of identity documentation that is required to obtain a license. The result is that criminals are able to use the lax standards to create false identities backed up by the imprimatur of a driver's license. Such false identities facilitate money laundering, credit card fraud, and check fraud. They also defeat the operation of the NCIC system, because criminals are able to evade arrest warrants by presenting fraudulently-obtained ''clean'' licenses during traffic encounters with local law enforcement officers. Worse, the driver's license becomes a useful tool in the hands of terrorists. Virginia issued licenses to eight of the 9/11 terrorists-licenses that likely were used to board the airplanes on that fateful day.
The most effective solution to this problem would be to make eligibility for federal highway funds contingent upon the states' denying driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Such funds should also be contingent upon states' setting expiration dates so that driver's licenses for legal aliens expire on the date that an alien's period of authorized stay terminates. The only documentation sufficient to qualify an alien for a driver's license should be a valid passport with a valid U.S. visa. This would allow state and local police officers to draw reasonable conclusions from an alien's possession of an unexpired driver's license.
"The author of a House bill that would give 600,000 state and local police officers the authority to enforce federal immigration law has called on immigrant-rights advocates who converged on Capitol Hill this week to 'stand up for immigrants, not criminals,'" the Washington Times writes. "While La Raza and that crowd storm the countryside to rail against the enforcement of immigration laws in this nation, the light of hope held by immigrants and others wanting to live in neighborhoods free from criminal aliens and their violent crimes just grew a little dimmer," said Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA).
WorldNetDaily: AG nominee member of La Raza
La Raza supports legislation such as the Civil Liberties Restoration Act, which would roll back policies adopted after Sept. 11 designed to protect national security. It supports the "DREAM Act," which would mandate states to offer in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens thus providing them with benefits not available to U.S. citizens from other states.
The group opposes the "Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act of 2003" and the "Homeland Security Enhancement Act" would give state and local police officers the authority to enforce federal immigration laws.
"While the safety and security of our communities and our country are of the utmost importance, new policies that would allow local police departments to enforce federal civil immigration law will hinder terrorist and other criminal investigations, and have a serious negative impact on Latino communities," La Raza explains.
The group also supports legislation to ensure illegal immigrants' ability to obtain driver's licenses.
National Council of La Raza: News: NCLR WELCOMES NOMINATION OF ...
Murguia also noted Gonzales ties to the Hispanic community throughout his career. "Alberto Gonzales served with distinction on the board of directors of one of NCLRs oldest and most respected affiliates, the Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans (AAMA) in Houston, Texas. Moreover, during his tenure as White House Counsel, he has been one of the most accessible members of the White House staff to NCLR and other Hispanic organizations," added Murguia.
Liberalism Implemented By Activist Judges
Arizona Republic) "A federal judge blocked the state of Arizona yesterday from implementing Proposition 200 at least for the next three weeks." Prop 187 all over again. "California judge David Bury granted a temporary restraining order after lawyers hired by The Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund argued that people will be harmed if the voter approved initiative is allowed to take effect. Attorney Hector Villagra said, 'Individuals are likely to be denied benefits to which they are legally entitled." This denies benefits to illegal immigrants just like Prop 187, exactly 187, an activist judge rolls in there and says, "The people don't know what they're talking about. They don't know what to do. Their vote was stupid." He didn't say it that way but that was the impending conclusion of his result, and so he threw it out. This has only been thrown out for three weeks. The state of Arizona responded that the will of the voters is entitled to be obeyed, but the judge, in his four-page ruling said the challenges have raised serious questions about the legality of the initiative.
The judge said, "It seems likely that if Proposition 200 were to become law it would have a dramatic chilling effect upon undocumented aliens who would otherwise be eligible for public benefits under federal law, even though the language of the initiative specifically exempts those programs mandated by federal law." This is the left for you, folks. This is judicial activism. This is how it happens. The people vote. It goes against the will of some liberal judge and the liberal judge throws it out saying, "It's unconstitutional," saying, "It will deny somebody benefits," as though the sole role of the federal government is to provide benefits to illegal immigrants in the country! Speaking of illegal immigrants, by the way, the new label has been coined by the people who hate labels. The left in this country who can't stand to be called "liberals" have come up with a new label: Anti-Immigrant.
President Bush to Nominate Ten Individuals to Serve as Members of ...
The Key Concepts of Transnational Progressivism
Until the borders are secured and the illegal aliens are deported; there will never be a successful "war on terrorism" and there definitely will never be "homeland security!"
Semper Fi,
Kelly
I can't agree with the writer concerning the drivers licenses. The following says it better than I can (plus it was easier to copy & paste than write the whole thing out):
From GOA:
You are correct.
I must say I have a problem with HOW Bush is trying to go about this...he is trying to force a Bill, without cleaning it up, and which includes some VERY BAD legislation -- which includes the driver's license issue with illegals. (still cannot believe he supports this madness)....
My opinion is that this is part of why Tom Ridge is quitting. He is not buying into a piece of crappy legistlation just to be getting it out. Bush is putting the big-time press on this to get it passed...not good.
The only person making logical sense is Sensenbrenner, et al. They ARE RIGHT --- just look at history. Every time the U.S. puts a major policy piece of legilation in place that is heavily flawed, it takes 30 to 40 years to get it rectified...we cannot afford that kind of time while illegals and other potential sources of terrorists and enemies have free reign to cross our borders, just to name ONE OF THE ISSUES IN THIS.
The bill is poorly engineered and contains an ungodly amount of MAJOR PORK... Washington is still drunk on tax money, spending like drunken sailors, and then complaining because we need "SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM" to replace the bucks THEY have stolen from same....Washington is out of control. Votes are more important than THE SECURITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE UNITED STATES...as well as protecting the significance of our laws, the significance of citizenship, our national security, our borders, and the inherent rights of legal, tax-paying citizens -- the one's who pay the overhead that Washington is.
The most effective solution to this problem would be to make eligibility for federal highway funds contingent upon the states' denying driver's licenses to illegal aliens.
Also, just out this article from NewsMax
Send FedEx Letters to Congress NOW!
You've probably heard that the 9/11 reform bill is being held up in Congress. Thanks to a determined group of conservative House members, the bill was stopped before it could be voted on, and a new "lame-duck" session of Congress is due to try again this coming week to get it passed.
But why did these conservative Congressmen stop the bill? According to Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, it's pretty simple: "The 9/11 reform bill is currently snagged by the Senate's refusal to address three critical issues: Should states continue to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens? Should we tighten our asylum system that terrorists exploited to such deadly effect? Have we ensured the military chain of command is not broken in our intelligence restructuring?"
This isn't a small matter. The military chain of command is a life-or-death issue for our war fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan. Getting this issue wrong, just so we can say we passed a 9/11 bill, could have DEADLY consequences. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), the House Armed Services Committee Chairman, and many military leaders have articulated a lot of the same concerns that Sensenbrenner shares about the current bill in this area.
Intelligence-reform efforts will be wasted if Congress fails to address other security loopholes that the 9/11 hijackers studied to hatch their deadly plans. Once the 19 hijackers arrived here, they were able to secure 63 validly issued driver's licenses. Using these licenses, they were able to blend in and eventually board U.S. planes. Learning from this, the 9/11 Commission Report -- which this legislation is based upon -- recommends that the federal government "set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and other sources of identification, such as driver's licenses. Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft." The House sought to implement this recommendation with tough security standards for driver's licenses. The Senate, so far, has largely rejected this approach.
What's so controversial about setting strong standards to stop another terrorist like Hani Hanjour from receiving a driver's license?
The House Republicans also sought to address asylum abuse, especially loopholes that terrorists use. The mastermind of the first World Trade Center attack, and an Egyptian immigrant who killed two people at the Los Angeles airport in 2002, both exploited our asylum system to remain in the U.S. Yet the Senate wants to "study" asylum abuse, and not take action!
Passing the current bill, which FAILS to comprehensively address the problems exposed by 9/11, will simply not do enough to prevent another 9/11. Congress CAN get a good bill -- one that addresses intelligence reform, terrorist asylum abuse and security for driver's licenses -- ONLY when the Senate decides it's willing to tackle these vital issues.
The fact is this -- the Senate is refusing to consider vital border security and immigration provisions in the 9/11 overhaul. The current bill is incomplete and needs work -- work that House Democrats and the Senate are refusing to do. Rep. Sensenbrenner is fighting for better security standards for drivers licenses, and he doesn't believe our national security is improved by issuing drivers licenses to illegal aliens.
That makes sense. Page 390 of the 9/11 Commission report states, "The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers licenses. Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft."
Sensenbrenner and many dedicated House Republicans are working for a comprehensive approach to preventing another 9/11, instead of a limp, scaled-back bill that focuses only on restructuring the intelligence bureaucracy. What good is better intelligence if we don't control our borders and issue drivers licenses to people whose real identity is suspect? Border security and immigration are an integral part of homeland security -- the Senate needs to address these issues NOW.
We must NOT let the GOP leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives push through a poor bill, just because we "need something now". We need something GOOD. We need to make our voices heard LOUD and CLEAR immediately, before these leaders make a serious mistake and ramrod this bad bill through.
As usual, you can also send a message at no charge to your own Congressman and Senators, telling them to vote for REAL 9/11 reform:
http://www.rightmarch.com/120204.htm
`snip`
www.newmax.com
contains an ungodly amount of MAJOR PORK... Washington is still drunk on tax money, spending like drunken sailors
There is a constituency for pork, known as the 'pork lobby.'
There is a constituency for the U.S. Constitution, known as the vocal minority.
Right!
>Maybe that would help us here in California.....
The Anti-USA crowd will fight that though.....________________________
by the Senate's refusal to address three critical issues: Should states continue to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens? Should we tighten our asylum system that terrorists exploited to such deadly effect? Have we ensured the military chain of command is not broken in our intelligence restructuring?"
Post card to Senate:
America is being invaded by aliens.
Wish you were here.
For your MI ping list. This is an attempt by the left wing and so called moderates to effectively kill any real military intel.
Question: Who should control those satellites?
Should it be the military commanders of the troops heading into combat? Or should it be a civilian bureaucrat--removed from the military chain of command--sitting in a velvet-draped office in Washington, D.C.?
Right now, the military controls the spy satellites that collect "tactical" intelligence for use in combat. Meanwhile, the Central Intelligence Agency uses these very same satellites for collecting "strategic" intelligence (about things like those suspected Iraqi weapons-of-mass-destruction stockpiles that the CIA--while relying on the satellites--did not recruit a single Iraqi spy to track down and verify on the ground).
Licensed Hijackers
The National Security Agency, which intercepts, decodes and translates communications, the National Reconaissance Office, which operates the surveillance satellites themselves, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which analyzes and integrates the data gathered into maps and other combat-usable applications, are all part of the Department of Defense. Their budget requests are generated by the military, and their chain of command runs from the commanders in the field, through the secretary of Defense, to the commander in chief in the White House.
Liberal Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, wants to take authority over these satellites away from the military commanders and give it to a newly minted civilian bureaucrat, known as the National Intelligence Director, who will have ultimate administrative authority over all intelligence operations both military and civilian. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D.-Conn.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, wants to do that, too.
House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter (R.-Calif.) is standing up for American warriors in the field by standing in the way of Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman.
Hunter is right. Collins and Lieberman are wrong. This is the main conflict that has held up the "intelligence reform" bill that Congress is currently considering in response to the report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
ya might want to ping our illustrious governor. LOL
Excellent info.....thank you.
Excellent summary!
I don't see a thing wrong with that method since that is and has been for many years the usual M.O. of the Federal Government when they want their laws (read: WILL) implemented and carried out by the states. In turn the State could use the same carrot and stick M.O. on their cities like so many are also prone to do today.
MI Ping
Hunter is right.
The effete mincers preening before their silvered mirrors in the inflated-ego Senate are wrong.
Shame on the Bush people for putting politics and a faulty Bill ahead of getting the proper Bill!
Hang tough, fellas! Get the Bill right, don't be put off by promises of "action" in the future. It will likely never come.
*Note to the GOP: You wanna win electoral mandates from the American People for the next generation? Support immigration reforms which halt the flood of illegals, stymies the terrorists, and protects our borders and jobs.
**2nd Note to the GOP: You wanna lose? Give this agenda to the Democrats on a silver platter and then get beat silly by these demogogues, who won't do anything about it either but will sure make lots of hay from it once they get the sound bites, the limelight and the media spin down pat as they falsely convince the American People they will!
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.