This was National Reviews stance on Clinton's anti terror bill....
However, the measures designed to combat domestic terrorism are dangerous.
All of them are terribly useful as weapons against domestic political enemies. The requirement for government access keys to private computer cryptography, the loosened guidelines for wiretapping individuals, the increased access to hotel, travel, and even bank records -- all this portends trouble.
snip
And if the Administration gets its way, the issuance of warrants for wiretapping, infiltration, search of bank and travel records, and physical searches will follow the precedent of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and be lodged in a court that holds secret, ex parte proceedings.
Have we seen this sort of thing before? Not quite. Until the 1960s the attorney general publicly listed Communist and other subversive organizations allied with foreign enemies. The U.S. Government excluded the members of these organizations from public employment, maintained surveillance on them, and warned other Americans away from them. Occasionally the FBI sowed discord among them. During this period the reasonable answer to civil libertarians' reasonable objections was that Communists had stepped outside the full protection of the laws by allying themselves with a foreign enemy. The existence of the Soviet Union imposed on us the necessity of criminalizing domestic Communism. After the Soviet Union's disappearance, however, it would be well-nigh impossible to square official discrimination against Communists with the American legal tradition. Recall that Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and violated property rights only when enemy armies were in control of 11 states.
President Clinton, however, is making a clean break with the American tradition. He is effectively re-establishing the attorney general's list. Moreover, the reach of law enforcement is so much broader and harsher than it was in the 1950s that what it can now do to people amounts to war. Today government makes so many rules with so many details (202 volumes, 132,000 pages) that almost anybody can be accused of some violation. ``We can indict a ham sandwich'' is the proud saying among some federal prosecutors. Add the words of informants, and it is possible to fabricate the basis of a warrant against anyone at any time.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court's general caution to the contrary notwithstanding, a search warrant today permits armed, masked agents to burst in with guns drawn, and to fire at the discretion of whoever is making the rules that day. And the practice of ``civil forfeiture'' allows officials to seize your computer, your cash, your house, or your farm's tractor without ever filing a charge. These are not ``paranoid fantasies.'' This is the legacy of almost thirty years of the federalization and militarization of American law enforcement.
What will happen if this panoply of weapons is put to the service of political passions and bureaucratic self-interest? President Clinton has brushed aside such considerations as impediments to the ``war on terrorism.'' But he is terribly mistaken. The first objective in any battle against domestic terrorism must be to seal it off from domestic politics as completely as possible. Whether or not those who set bombs or fires are connected to the great issues of the day, they are mere criminals and should be treated as such.
To move away from the principle that the only people responsible for a crime are the ones who committed it -- and to involve whole political parties and social categories as enemies in blood quarrels with the state -- is the first step down a well-worn path to civil war.
Republican relativism:
Congressional Republicans were against wiretapping, before they were for it. To posit that a president's power waxes and wanes according to his party affiliation is to engage in moral relativism, an immoral act that Conservatives in America have long claimed was only practised by the left-side of the Political BiPolarity.
Still, many of the same Republican legislators who defend Bush's rampant wiretapping, were adamantly opposed to any expansion of wiretapping during the the Clinton Presidency.
The following quotations are but a few of the total, taken from the 1996 Congressional Record, as a divided Congress ineffectually attempted to help the government stop acts of terrorism, after the first bombing of the World Trade Tower, and the Bombing in Oklahoma City.
Congressional Record: March 13, 1996 (House) - Pages H2129-H2190
Government Printing Office's Online Records: DOCID:cr13mr96-94]
Comprehensive Antiterrorism Act of 1995
Dan Burton (R-Ind): Mr. Chairman, this is one of our major concerns among the groups called the conservative action team in the House. I just want to make absolutely clear to all of our colleagues what the gentleman is saying right now, and I want them to understand it. This is going to expand the ability for people to be wiretapped way beyond where it is right now.
Mr. Barr: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
Dan Burton (R-Ind): So any citizen of the United States might be subject to this good-faith exception which would allow the Government to find something out about them inadvertently through a wiretap that could cause them unbelievable problems.
Mr. Barr: The gentleman is correct.
Dan Burton (R-Ind): I think my colleagues ought to think long and hard about that. One of the things we are concerned about is expanding the Government's ability to spy on or to find out everything about any individual in this country. Expanding this wiretap provision, I think, is something that is very, very disconcerting to me and many of my colleagues.
Congressional Record: April 18, 1996 (House) - Pages H3605-H3618
[Government Printing Office's Online Records: DOCID:cr18ap96-43]
Conference Report on s. 735, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
Dan Burton (R-Ind): If the Government of the United States can through, quote-unquote, good faith tap our phones and intrude into our lives, they violate our constitutional liberties, and that is something that we should not tolerate, and that is in section 305 and section 307. The FBI can gain access to individual phone billing records without a subpoena or a court order. Once again I believe that infringes upon our constitutional rights and liberties, and while we are trying to deal with terrorism, and we should, we should not violate our constitutional rights and liberties, and I believe this bill in its present form does. And that is why I think the Barr amendment is absolutely essential if we are going to pass something that will really deal with terrorism crime, but protect the liberties that we fought so hard for in the Revolutionary War.
Wayne Allard (R-Colo) Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report.
Today I am going to vote in favor of S. 735, the Terrorism Prevention Act conference report. As I stated throughout debate on the antiterrorism bill I have had concerns that the bill might be used as a vehicle to expand Federal power over law-abiding citizens. This was my reason for opposing the original House bill, I was concerned that a House-Senate conference would add a number of undesirable Senate provisions. A number of bad ideas were in play, including expansive Federal wiretapping authority, included in the Senate bill, excessive power for certain Federal law enforcement agencies, and excessive spending. I have followed the conference closely, and I am now satisfied that the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens are protected, and that Federal authority is appropriately restricted. The bill focuses on international terrorist organizations, a matter of Federal jurisdiction.
Congressional Record: April 17, 1996 (Senate) - Pages S3454-S3478
[DOCID:cr17ap96-153]
Terrorism prevention Act--Conference Report
Orrin Hatch: Mr. President, again, in the real world, in the case of the Unabomber or a terrorist where there is a real threat or an immediate concern, you do not need this provision to get an emergency wiretap. All the Senator's motion does is expand the number of crimes that would trigger the wiretap statute. This amendment was offered during the Senate debate. It was defeated. It was not a part of the Senate bill. It was not a part of the House bill. It is not a part of our conference report, and rightly so. I oppose this provision that could expand emergency wiretap authority to permit the Government to begin a wiretap prior to obtaining court approval in a greater range of cases than the law presently allows. I personally find this proposal troubling. I am concerned that this provision, if enacted, would unnecessarily broaden emergency wiretap authority. Under current law, such authority exists when life is in danger, when the national security is threatened, or when an organized crime conspiracy is involved. In the real world, we do not need this amendment to get emergency wiretap authority, and that is a fact.
Let me also say that this authority is constrained by a requirement that surveillance be approved by the Court within 48 hours, but that authority already exists in those areas I have addressed.
Congressional Record: August 2, 1996 (House) - Pages H9877-H9886
[DOCID:cr02au96-151]
Providing for Consideration of a Certain Motion to Suspend the Rules
Porter Goss (R-Fla): Mr. Speaker, this effort comes in the wake of three horrible tragedies: The bombing of a military installation in Saudi Arabia, the loss of TWA flight 800 out of New York's JFK Airport, and the recent pipe bomb explosion in Atlanta at the Olympics. While we haven't had time to thoroughly assess these tragedies and the effectiveness of the antiterrorism law Congress passed earlier this year, these attacks tell us that our society remains vulnerable to terrorism. Unfortunately, terrorism is a fact of life. In response to recent events, a series of proposals were offered to solve the problem--some with merit, and some that could cause more problems than they might solve by cutting deeply--and unnecessarily--into the constitutional freedoms of American citizens. I include in that category certain proposals for expanded wiretapping authority for Federal law enforcement. This is a dangerous proposition--and one that would be ceding victory to terrorists, whose goal is to disrupt our society, create anxiety and constrain our freedoms. That's the way terrorism attacks a free open society. Let me be clear, this bill does not--I repeat, does not--expand wiretapping authority. In fact, it goes the other direction, strengthening penalties for misuse of Government's existing authority. That's good news for all Americans--especially the many southwest Floridians who urged us not to succumb to the pressure to diminish our liberties. For this we owe our thanks to our able policy committee chairman, Chris Cox.
[. . .]
Charles Schumer (D-NY): Mr. Speaker, if we want to know why people are sick and fed up with Congress, look at this debate. On Sunday the President asked and all the law enforcement people asked for two things, the top two things they needed to fight terrorism. One, taggants. Identifiers in explosives, particularly black power and smokeless; and two, multipoint wiretaps. Neither are in this bill.
Neither are in this bill because the NRA did not want it. Neither are in this bill because forces on the extreme dictated what the Republican Party was going to put forward.
This bill is a sham. It does a few good things, but it does not give law enforcement what they want, plain and simple. We all know that.
All the other provisions are an elaborate smokescreen to hide what everyone in this Chamber knows: that the majority party is not doing what the FBI, the ATF and all the other law enforcement experts have asked for. Mr. Kallstrom, long before this conference, the FBI man in the lead at TWA, said please give us multipoint wiretaps. The majority says no.
Mr. Freeh, the head of the FBI, says please give us taggants so we can trace the kind of pipe bomb that blew up at the Olympics. The majority says no.
And last night, when we had agreement from the President, the Republican leaders of the Senate, the Democratic leaders of the Senate and the Democratic side of the House, only the Republican majority in the House refused to go along.
Members, this bill is what should make us ashamed of our inability to pull together and fight terrorism.
[. . .]
Joe Moakley (D-Mass): Over a year ago President Clinton started the whole process by coming up with an antiterrorism proposal and beginning discussions with Republicans. When negotiations broke down, House Republicans wrote this bill on their own, under cover of night, and they left out one of the most important parts of President Clinton's bill--the provisions granting wiretapping authority.
Because Mr. Speaker, rather than just punishing terrorists, we need to prevent terrorism. And the one thing law enforcement officers have asked for time and again, is wiretapping authority.
But my Republican colleagues refuse to give it to them.
Instead, Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues have decided to make even the issue of terrorism political.
I would at least expect my Republican colleagues to allow us to offer amendments to this bill, but apparently they will not.
Mr. Speaker, as today's Washington Post reports, this important antiterrorism legislation has been slowed down because of conservative Republicans' refusal to allow law enforcement officers the wiretapping capability they ask for and President Clinton and the Democrats are trying to give them.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to combating terrorism, we should give law enforcement officers any and every reasonable tool they need, including wiretapping authority.
[. . .]
Nita Lowey (D-NY): Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill, and on behalf of a constituent whose daughter was lost in TWA flight 800, because this bill is an outrage and a disgrace to that family, and an outrage and a disgrace to this body.
This bill should include both taggants and enhanced wiretapping provisions. Instead, it has neither. Law enforcement has repeatedly asked for these critical tools to combat terrorism. Yet this Congress has repeatedly denied them.
When, Mr. Speaker, when are we going to say enough is enough? How many bombs have to go off? How many daughters do we have to lose? How many Americans have to die before the GOP leadership will give us a tough antiterrorism bill?
Once again we had an opportunity today to protect Americans from terrorism, and once again the Republican leadership took its marching orders from the National Rifle Association and gutted the bill. The NRA opposes taggants because it says they will be placed in the types of gunpowder that hunters and marksmen use. Taggants will also be placed in the gunpowder that terrorists use in bombs like the ones that killed and injured more than 100 in Atlanta last weekend.
The taggants in these bombs will lead us to the terrorists who planted them. Today, this Congress has hoisted the white flag of surrender in the fight against terrorism. It is a repeat of the last time we considered terrorism legislation, when the Republican leadership talked tough and acted weak. Those responsible for weakening this bill yet again should be ashamed of themselves, because they have put Americans at risk.
Chris Cox (R-Calif.): The truth is that the administration wanted wiretapping language in this bill and, as the Washington Post points out in its editorial today, we have not included it because caution and deliberation are necessary on that topic. But we have included everything else that they wanted.
[. . .]
Chris Cox: of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.
What we just heard the gentleman from New York tell us is essentially true; that if we had included in this bill everything that is before us and one other thing, and that is multipoint and warrantless wiretaps, then there would have been agreement. And the truth is that because wiretaps are not in this bill, the gentleman is disappointed.
I have to say that this gentleman is disappointed because there is not a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule in this bill, something that would have helped us in the Oklahoma City prosecution. We passed it through this House five times. It ought to be acceptable to our body, but it was objected to by the Senate.
Now, imagine our predicament if we had brought this bill with everything in it; the only difference was it also had warrantless wiretaps and multipoint wiretaps. That is a very serious issue I think Members deserve more time to consider. And for that reason, above all, it is not put in a bill that is coming to us under a suspension of the rules that we have not had an opportunity to read.