Posted on 04/13/2003 6:32:28 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
Conservatives, liberals fear broader anti-terror powers
Sides unite to protest Justice's push to widen Patriot Act's reach
04/13/2003
WASHINGTON – Fearful that the Bush administration is poised to ask Congress for greater anti-terrorism powers, including the right to strip Americans of their citizenship, liberals and conservatives are joining forces to block what they view as dangerous encroachments on civil liberties.
The loose-knit coalition was on display last week when conservative activists who otherwise are close administration allies joined the American Civil Liberties Union to decry the Justice Department's impending push for powers that could reach well beyond the USA Patriot Act that Congress raced to adopt in the dark, chaotic weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The possible outlines of what the Justice Department is seeking in a bill dubbed "Son of Patriot" or "Patriot 2" has had privacy and civil libertarian groups across the political spectrum in an uproar since a draft was leaked in February.
Although Justice Department officials insist the 86-page bill is a preliminary draft that bears little resemblance to what ultimately will be requested, some fear it's a clear sign of things to come.
"Based on past history of various administrations, when draft legislation such as the 'Son of Patriot' that we've been now seeing are first denied and then they surface, where there's smoke there's fire," said former Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, a conservative Republican who is now an ACLU consultant. "We are very worried that it will surface in some way relatively quickly."
Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats have argued that the Justice Department should work with Congress to draft new anti-terrorism legislation rather than write it in secret.
The leaked draft, stamped "Confidential – Not for Distribution," would grant federal law enforcement sweeping new power to wiretap, detain and punish suspected terrorists while limiting court review and cloaking certain information from the public. Among the most criticized proposals: the right to strip the citizenship of Americans who provide "material" support to organizations designated terrorist groups.
"Everyone is concerned with protecting our people and our society and our homeland," said American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene. "But everyone should be equally concerned at the potential costs to our society and its very nature if we adopt measures that in retrospect would be viewed as unwise."
Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo declined to discuss which parts of the leaked draft have been discarded and which remain viable.
"We're not going to discuss things that are being deliberated right now," he said. He dismissed criticism that lawmakers are being cut out of the loop, saying Congress ultimately will decide whether to accept, reject or amend the package that will be sent to Capitol Hill later this year.
The Patriot Act has been "an invaluable tool" for terrorism prevention, Mr. Corallo said, adding that he thinks critics have misunderstood the law, which expanded wiretapping and spying authority; lowered prohibitions on the sharing of intelligence with criminal investigators; and imposed restraints on the public release of information.
"The Patriot Act actually strengthened constitutional protections," he said.
That view is far from universally shared.
Librarians in some cities are hastening their routine shredding of patrons' records because of Patriot Act provisions that allow the FBI to review records at libraries, bookstores and other businesses. A California dive shop owner objected when the FBI sought lists of clients at his and other dive shops around the country, citing the possibility that a terrorist diver could launch an attack by slipping unseen into a U.S. port.
And now, groups such as the Eagle Forum and American Conservative Union are setting aside historic policy differences with liberal-leaning organizations such as the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation to tackle a range of post-Sept. 11 actions they view as threats to freedoms.
"We've given up some civil liberties since 9-11, there is no doubt about it," said Lori Waters, the Eagle Forum's executive director.
Conservative groups historically have left the defense of civil liberties to the ACLU, conservative activist Grover Norquist said. But, he added, "I'm not sure given the Republican control of the House and the Senate and the government that we can count on our left-of-center friends to look out for some of these issues."
The Patriot Act and its possible successor aren't the liberal and conservative groups' only concerns. They fret about a data-mining program known as Total Information Awareness being developed within the Pentagon; an airline passenger profiling system that could roll out later this year; and other proposals.
Ms. Waters and others are voicing particular dismay at reports that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, with administration backing, wants to make permanent Patriot Act provisions that expire in 2005.
"I am very concerned at the idea of getting rid of the sunsets," Mr. Norquist said.
Mr. Barr, the former congressman, said he viewed the Hatch bid, which apparently has been shelved for now, as an "end-run."
"This is particularly troubling because we have not yet had nearly the full opportunity that we ought to have to see how the Patriot Act is working," Mr. Barr said. "This is a very, very complex piece of legislation."
E-mail mmittelstadt@dallasnews.com
I find it highly unusual that you've been here as long as you have and nobody knows you. No activism, no fellowship, no pic ...nothing but an oddball aganda on an internet forum. Wake me up when you do something besides just giving everyone your stupid opinions on everything.
Every time I confront you on this you run to the mods and have my post pulled. I don't trust oddball strangers so everything you say is irrelavent.... to me anyway.
It's not just you.
You confuse ending ineffective enforcement with "availability." All of those drugs are already available to their target markets. Ecstacy, for example, is a popular club drug because it is easier to get, and conceal the use of, than alcohol. Better to lower the drinking age.
You also make the mistake of thinking that legalizing drugs would lead to an expansion of the market for hard drugs. Heroin and other more dangerous drugs have a self-limiting market. Heroin was not widely used before the Drug War, and it has not become less widely used. Similarly LSD is easy to make, easy to hide, almost impossible to interdict, and yet, ourside of the Phish tour, not widely used. Crank is a biker/redneck drug, impossible to stop, but it doesn't find much use outside that culture.
In general, you are confusing stated intentions with actual effects. Tell me which government program actually does what it says:
EPA?
The Civil Rights Commission?
OSHA?
Dept. of Ed.?
Etc. About the only competent function of the FedGov is the military, and even there you would have to make an exception for domestic projects of the Corps of Engineers, which is one of the biggest blobs of pork fat in the budget.
So when I say end the EPA, I don't mean pollute everything. Who would even accuse me of being anti-education for wanting to end the Dept. of Ed.? However, you find it very easy to call me "pro drug" when I want to get rid of $70B in spending that doesn't do what it says it should do.
The Drug War is just like every other failed government program. And Patriot II will become a dangerous tool in the hands of a less good man than Dubya.
It SOUNDS good, but look under the covers. If a local cop arrested someone for any other federal violation, the feds would be there in minutes. Except for immigration.
The problem is not local enforcement, it is that INS blows off local enforcement that has illegals in custody.
I am all for stronger border security. If we had good border security we would have much less reason for the governent to ask for generalized warrant-free domestic surveillance.
So let me ask you again.
Forget cinFLA---he doesn't have the backbone to answer a straightforward question.
I don't know. Of course, anything coming from either of those 2 should be held suspect (guilty until proven innocent! lol!)
I think my most honest reply would be to repost my #24 from this thread.
To: AAABEST
That MeeknMing must be a terrorist, huh? He should be scared ! . . .Just kidding.
Hey, I'm not an expert on all this stuff, seriously. And I'm not as guarded as I probably should be on stuff I post on the Internet, either. I mean, I post my name sometimes and folks are SHOCKED that I would do that. Anyway . . .
24 posted on 04/13/2003 11:34 AM CDT by MeeknMing (Bu-bye Saddam! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
It seems that one of them stumbles on a thread of serious political discussion and then lights up the Bat-Signal to bring in the rest of the gang.
LOL!
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.