Posted on 06/11/2003 4:16:26 PM PDT by optimistically_conservative
WASHINGTON -- Membership in the American Civil Liberties Union is soaring and its leaders attribute the growth to one of their chief opponents: Attorney General John Ashcroft.
The ACLU has seen its membership increase more than 30 percent to 400,000 since the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001. That far surpasses any membership increase in the organization's 83-year-old history.
"The more people find out about the policies of John Ashcroft, the more concerned people get," said Laura W. Murphy, director of the organization's legislative office in Washington. "He has made himself the poster child for why we are losing our civil liberties."
Seeking to capitalize on its growth in membership, the ACLU is opening its first national conference for members on Wednesday. The agenda is dominated by discussions on the impact of legislation Ashcroft ushered through Congress following the Sept. 11 attacks.
Commonly known as the Patriot Act, the legislation gave the Justice Department broad powers to detain suspected terrorists and monitor telephone and computer activity. Civil liberties groups like the ACLU fear that Ashcroft plans to seek even more authority to hunt down terrorists.
Mark Corallo, a spokesperson for the Justice Department, takes issue with the view that there is widespread disenchantment with the attorney general and the Patriot Act.
Recent polls have shown that the public strongly supports Ashcroft and his policies to protect the public from another attack, Corallo said.
"We hear a lot of rhetoric about the supposed loss of civil liberties," Corallo said. "Not only do we disagree, but we challenge the critics to name a single civil liberty that has been infringed upon."
But other organizations -- nonpartisan, conservative and liberal -- say that John Ashcroft and the effects of the Patriot Act are sparking a grass roots opposition in the form of phone calls, letters and new membership.
"It has sparked great concern among our members," said Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the Washington office of the American Library Association. It's not just the association's 64,000 members who have expressed concern about the Patriot Act, she said.
"Libraries are very local and we're hearing about this every day. People don't want the government snooping on them," Sheketoff said. "People understand when their rights are being thrown away and they aren't going to stand for it."
More than 500 librarians walked the halls of Congress last month urging lawmakers to sign legislation that would protect libraries and book sellers from having to turn over records to federal investigators without a court order. Investigators had been required to obtain such an order before the the Patriot Act was passed in the fall of 2001.
Sheketoff is concerned that by the time "John Ashcroft is through there will be little left of the Constitution."
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said her organization has been inundated with calls and concerns from the general public about the Patriot Act.
"They want to know what on earth is happening," Dalglish said. "Basic civil liberties issues are hitting a nerve with the public."
Dalglish has noticed that public opinion about the Patriot Act is shifting.
Immediately following the terrorist attacks, she faced a fury of critics when she delivered speeches highlighting how the Justice Department was limiting public information and detaining hundreds of immigrants as suspected terrorists.
Now the response is different. A recent forum in North Dakota drew 160 people instead of the three dozen that organizers expected. Her speech at a Denver bookstore also drew a large crowd. At each event, people were overwhelmingly concerned about civil liberties and access to information, she said.
"Nobody's able to show that secrecy equals safety," she said.
Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia, agrees that the Patriot Act has gone too far.
The federal government is "reaching too broadly and gaining too much power," said Barr, who now chairs the civil liberties committee at the American Conservative Union, the nation's oldest grass roots conservative lobby.
"Privacy, what little we have left, is at stake with the Patriot Act and other laws being considered," Barr said. Barr, who is now a hired consultant for the ACLU, will be speaking at the four-day conference.
The ACLU has launched an ad campaign aimed at waking up conservatives and liberals alike to the changes that Ashcroft is proposing. A full page ad that ran in the New York Times recently likened Ashcroft's proposal to a movie sequel. "Patriot ACT II" blares the headline of the advertisement. Underneath, the ACLU's leaders wrote, "Like most sequels, this one's even worse than the original."
But Justice Department officials contend that there is little evidence that civil liberties are being turned back. Corallo cited a recent report from the department's inspector general that criticized the way the department treated hundreds of foreigners detained after the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes.
While the ACLU hailed the report as evidence that that foreigners had been unfairly detained, Corallo noted that the department was well within the law. All of the 762 immigrants who were arrested during the terrorism investigation were charged with immigration violations, Corallo said.
The ACLU and others also criticize the Justice Department for is extensive surveillance of suspected terrorists. But Corallo defended the department, noting that every surveillance has been approved by a secret federal court that approves the use of wiretaps in the case of terrorism and spy cases.
"The notion that John Ashcroft and the Justice Department is a threat to civil liberties is preposterous and not based on facts," Corallo said. "The facts show that we have gone to great lengths to preserve civil liberties. We think outside the box, but not outside the Constitution."
Mark Tapscott, director of the conservative Heritage Foundation's Center for Media and Public Policy, said he is not hearing from as many members of the public as he would hope given the controversy over the Patriot Act. But, he said, he has seen a shift in recent years in the willingness of the government to release information.
"I think that there's no doubt that things have been tightened, and with good reason in many respects," Tapscott said. "In other respects, the tightening has been excessive."
Tapscott said media and advocacy groups are often too quick to attribute problems with getting access to information entirely to Ashcroft and the Bush administration. Most of the information requests are handled by career bureaucrats, he said, not political appointees.
"The problems with the (Freedom of Information Act) far outdate the Bush Administration," Tapscott said. It's not politics but "an overabundance of caution" in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks that has led more bureaucrats to deny requests, he said.
Amazing... a headline that is more accurate than the article!
I've never seen that in all my years on free Republic!
Yes, the ACLU doesn't care how much it lies about the Patriot Act- the more lies the more money.
And those lies are repeated over and over as long as they bring in the bucks from the gullible.
Mostly lies repeated by Libertarians.
The justice department's role is to enforce the laws that Congress enacts and the President signs.
The threat to our civil liberties via the Patriot Act is laid at the door step of the RINO Congress, President, and members of this forum.
If you do not believe that the Patriot Act violates your civil liberties, then you do not understand the 4th amendment, the 5th amendment, the 9th amendment, and the 10th amendment.
In addition, you do not understand Art I, Sec 8, which defines the powers of Congress and the legislative jurisdiction of our federal government.
Any clear thinking individual who has a perspective of the presumption of liberty would easily see their are serious rights violations in the Patriot Act.
Of course, if you are not a U.s. citizen, then my remarks are a moot point.
Cite one instance.
And thank you for provoking a debate on the topic.
ML/NJ
This is too easy.
"requiring financial institutions to maintain anti-money laundering programs which must include a least a compliance officer; an employee training program; the development of internal policies, procedures and controls; and an independent audit feature."
This regulation will take money from the owners of such instututions to pay for the personnel and recorded keeping order to comply.
Amendment V:
"..nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
This regulation, as written and viewed from the perspective of the presumption of liberty is unconstitutional until a compensation provision is initiated to fund the compliance of the regulation.
For argumentive purposes I will relunctantly agree that Congress has the power to make such regulations, Art I, Sec 8, CL 3, but the Constitution consists of two parts.
One, the powers "granted" by the people to our federal government and two, the Bill of Rights which were added to the Constitution at the insistence of the anti-federalist because the anti-federalist did not believe in Alexander Hamilton's faith that surely Congress would never exceed their powers that were enumerated to them.
"the powers "granted" by the people to our federal government "
Yes, you just agreed that this is covered.
"two, the Bill of Rights "
So, cite how this conflicts with the BOR. It is not "easy" to consider this intended to be or effectively to be a "taking"- certainly not a significant one. It seems a very reasonable and responsible requirement for interstate and international banking- which you know the congress is authorized to regulate.
The section: SEC. 352. ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING PROGRAMS.
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 5318(h) of title 31, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`(h) ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING PROGRAMS-
`(1) IN GENERAL- In order to guard against money laundering through financial institutions, each financial institution shall establish anti-money laundering programs, including, at a minimum--
`(A) the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls;
`(B) the designation of a compliance officer;
`(C) an ongoing employee training program; and
`(D) an independent audit function to test programs.
`(2) REGULATIONS- The Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the appropriate Federal functional regulator (as defined in section 509 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), may prescribe minimum standards for programs established under paragraph (1), and may exempt from the application of those standards any financial institution that is not subject to the provisions of the rules contained in part 103 of title 31, of the Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor rule thereto, for so long as such financial institution is not subject to the provisions of such rules.'.
Well, gotta retire. Hope you get back when you can.
"Takings" by regulation complaints get my sympathy when they are undue, this seems narrowly drawn to prevent a dangerous use of private property.
All of the "powers of Congress" must not violate or abridge the Bill of Rights.
For example, Congress may have the power to "regulate" newspapers, power emanating from the "commerce clause."
But that power to regulate cannot violate Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...the press;"
The Bill of Rights always trumps the powers of Congress. The perspective of a presumption of liberty requires that trump.
If U.S. citizens wish to have their federal government "regulate" bank transactions for the purpose of controlling terrorism (public use), and when the regulations require the resources of the bank to comply with those regulations (taking of private property), then the U.S. citizens have to be prepared to compensate the owners of the banks in order for the regulation to be constitutional.
In addition, a "taking" should never be dismissed as not being significant. All "takings" are significant.
As any constitutionalist knows, it is because all of the insignificant "takings" by Congress over the years that have accummulated and de-sensitized most citizens to accepting the power to regulate by Congress of taking private property for public use without compensation.
Unfotunately, by your remarks italisized above, you are one of those citizens.
Study their words and acts so your opinions will have a foundation in reality. The foolishness of the living constitution crowd is that they place their opinions above the Founders.
The very congress that sent out the BOR passed several bills with insignificant "takings" (the ""'s are there for a reason BTW), a good example is the requirement that ships in the coasting trade register and paint their names on their bows- costing the owner paint and labor- an insignificant amount, for a neccessary lawful purpose.
Some good words on the danger of regulations becoming "takings" are in Federalist 62. The author (Madison I think) uses it as a recommendation for the longer terms for Senators.
The "american memory" has many records from our Founding.
I need a bit of your help to clarify the above remark.
Are you implying that my interpretation of a "taking" is the same thought process of the "living constitution crowd?"
Do you think it was unconstitutional for the Founders to pass regulations that businesses had to spend money to meet?
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.