Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Urges More Police Powers Vs. Terror
Associated Press ^ | 09-10-03

Posted on 09/10/2003 6:15:00 PM PDT by Brian S

JENNIFER LOVEN Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush told Congress on Wednesday to "untie the hands" of law enforcement officials and arm them with wider legal powers to combat terrorists, saying the groups that struck America two years ago are wounded but still dangerous.

He specifically called for expanding use of the federal death penalty, tougher bail restrictions and greater subpoena powers that he said are available for other crimes, such as drug trafficking and embezzling, but can't be used against terrorism. "This disparity in the law makes no sense," Bush said in a speech at the FBI Academy in nearby Quantico, Va.

Bush's appeal threw the White House into a growing debate over the anti-terrorism USA Patriot Act enacted after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Critics say the law is too intrusive and a threat to civil liberties and fear that the administration is trying to pass a second version of the measure in piecemeal fashion. Even some House and Senate Republicans have talked about rolling back portions of the Patriot Act.

"For the sake of the American people," Bush said, "Congress should change the law and give law enforcement officials the same tools they have to fight terror that they have to fight other crime."

Bush acknowledged that not all members of Congress agree with the need to tighten the law but said a lot of them do. The White House indicated Bush supports tougher laws in other areas beyond the three instances he cited.

The American Civil Liberties Union said that "further erosions of judicial oversight and the basic checks and balances ... are the wrong path to take."

The president's speech vied for attention with new video and audio tapes of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and his deputy, broadcast on the Arabic satellite channel Al-Jazeera. A voice said to be that of bin Laden praised the Sept. 11 attacks for causing "great damage to the enemy." Another voice attributed to bin Laden top aide Ayman al-Zawahri called on Iraqi guerrillas to "bury" American troops in Iraq.

"Haven't heard it yet," Bush said about the tape as he toured a ballistics room and a chemistry lab at Quantico, where he saw sensitive equipment used to identify material from explosions at the USS Cole, embassies in Africa and the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad.

On the eve of the second anniversary of Sept. 11, the White House issued a progress report on the anti-terrorism war and Bush renewed the national emergency he declared two years ago to mobilize reserve military forces and take other steps. Nearly two-thirds of al-Qaida's key leaders have been captured or killed, the report said, and terrorist networks have lost access to $200 million.

"We've thwarted terrorists in Buffalo, and Seattle, Portland, Detroit, North Carolina, and Tampa, Fla.," Bush said, drawing from information in the report. "More than 260 suspected terrorists have been charged in the United States courts; more than 140 have already been convicted."

While claiming solid progress, Bush warned that the nation could not rest.

"Every morning I am briefed on the latest information on the threats to our country, and those threats are real. The enemy is wounded, but still resourceful and actively recruiting, and still dangerous," he said, addressing agents of the FBI and Drug Enforcement Agency, Marines and police and firefighters.

Bush said that under current statutes, "there are unreasonable obstacles to investigating and prosecuting terrorism, obstacles that don't exist when law enforcement officials are going after embezzlers or drug traffickers."

For example, he said law enforcement officers should be able to use administrative subpoenas to obtain records. Such subpoenas are easier and faster to obtain but not for terrorism, the administration said.

Bush said administrative subpoenas are available in health care fraud and child abuse cases. "Yet incredibly enough in terrorism cases where speed is often of the essence, officials lack the authority to use administrative subpoenas."

Similarly, he said, suspects charged in some drug trafficking cases are not eligible for bail "but terrorist-related crimes are not on that list. Suspected terrorists could be released, free to leave the country, or worse, before the trial."

Bush did not mention complaints about the detention of hundreds of people - some for up to eight months - held on immigration violations after Sept. 11.

Bush also called for expanding federal death penalty provisions. "Sabotaging a defense installation or a nuclear facility in a way that takes innocent life does not carry the federal death penalty," he said. "This kind of technicality should never protect terrorists from the ultimate justice."

Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said all three provisions Bush highlighted were included in a draft sequel to the Patriot Act that was made public earlier this year. "What's relevant is that President Bush is trying to push through these powers that the Justice Department put together as a sequel to the Patriot Act in a way that further undermines civil rights and civil liberties," Edgar said.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bush43; fbi; fbiacademy; foiled; homelandsecurity; jihadinamerica; leo; patriotact; quantico
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last

1 posted on 09/10/2003 6:15:00 PM PDT by Brian S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Yep, moving faster and faster toward a big government police state. It's the conservative thing to do.

Richard W.

2 posted on 09/10/2003 6:19:35 PM PDT by arete (Greenspan is a ruling class elitist and closet socialist who is destroying the economy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arete
All they need is a "terrorist" hit, and not even a big one at that, to "seal the deal"...
3 posted on 09/10/2003 6:21:40 PM PDT by Brian S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
All they need is a "terrorist" hit, and not even a big one at that, to "seal the deal"...

OBL is one smart guy. He's just going to sit back and watch us give up our freedoms in exchange for "government protection".

Richard W.

4 posted on 09/10/2003 6:28:50 PM PDT by arete (Greenspan is a ruling class elitist and closet socialist who is destroying the economy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
It's a sorry day we need the ACLU and Democrats to save us and our Constitution from a "[Barf] Conservative" Republican administration, but any ally is welcome.
5 posted on 09/10/2003 6:30:58 PM PDT by John Beresford Tipton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arete
That is one of his wishes...
6 posted on 09/10/2003 6:32:33 PM PDT by Brian S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
The administrative subpeona worked so well on the WMD's in Iraq.
7 posted on 09/10/2003 6:34:31 PM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
That is one of his wishes...

Well, he has the right people in office in Washington to make his wishes come true. All he has to do is watch us destroy ourselves with our own hyped up fear.

Richard W.

8 posted on 09/10/2003 6:37:20 PM PDT by arete (Greenspan is a ruling class elitist and closet socialist who is destroying the economy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
""For the sake of the American people," Bush said"

He's getting so freeking desperate that it will be "for the children" next. He's seeing Ashcroft getting sheet-canned on his whistlestop tour and thinks he can rescue this JBT Relief Act.
9 posted on 09/10/2003 6:44:55 PM PDT by John Beresford Tipton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
"For the fatherland"?
10 posted on 09/10/2003 6:58:44 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican (Helping Mexicans invade America is TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
No, after de-Nazifacation we call it the "Homeland"
11 posted on 09/10/2003 7:01:52 PM PDT by John Beresford Tipton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Bush did not mention complaints about the detention of hundreds of people - some for up to eight months - held on immigration violations after Sept. 11.
My Comment: - if you come into a nation illegally without permission you have no rights except what our government choose to give to you. The constitution and its rights are for citizens not illegal immigrants.
12 posted on 09/10/2003 7:05:23 PM PDT by kkindt (knightforhire.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
I want to see the specifics. Chances are, I probably won't like what's in the small print.
13 posted on 09/10/2003 7:05:58 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("Our party will never be the choice of the NRA" - John F. Kerry, who looks French)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Beresford Tipton
It's a sorry day we need the ACLU and Democrats to save us and our Constitution from a "[Barf] Conservative" Republican administration, but any ally is welcome.

When you get down to the nitty gritty of the Patriot Act, and probably this Patriot Act II, I think you will find point-by-point most of its provisions are reasonable.

However, some are legitimately arguable. Where do you come down on the following issue? If a bug is legally planted as part of a terrorism investigation, and information is found about a drug dealer, should that be admissible for prosecuting the dealer?

The reason they want it is they may be able to squeeze terrorism information from the dealer through threat of prosecution.

14 posted on 09/10/2003 7:09:33 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
"If a bug is *legally* planted as part of a terrorism investigation, and information is found about a drug dealer, should that be admissible for prosecuting the dealer?"

That question is not really about what policy I think is best, but rather is a somewhat circular Constitutional question.

To start at the back end: "should that be admissible"-- all relevant evidence is admissible at a trial unless it was gathered by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment which requires warrants shall issue "upon probable cause"....

So, if the evidence gathered under the Patriot Act was gathered in violation of the 4th Amendment it was not legally gathered, and furthermore that whole section, may be unconstitutional. Therefore if the bug was not legally planted, any evidence gathered through it cannot be introduced in a trial either against the suspected terrorist, a drug dealer, or anyone else.

15 posted on 09/10/2003 7:23:55 PM PDT by John Beresford Tipton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: John Beresford Tipton
That question is not really about what policy I think is best, but rather is a somewhat circular Constitutional question.

My understanding is, before the Patriot Act, the legalities were that only information relevant to terrorism gathered by such a bug could be used in prosecutions.

I admit I don't know enough to debate this point. My intent was to illustrate the flavor of some of the issues that have actually arisen on the Patriot Act. They hardly fit the popular but erroneous characterization as lost liberties.

16 posted on 09/10/2003 7:30:36 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Bush Urges More Police Powers Vs. Terror

--------------------

I don't suppose securing our southern borders was a part of this plan.

17 posted on 09/10/2003 7:36:07 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
My understanding is, before the Patriot Act, the legalities were that only information relevant to terrorism gathered by such a bug could be used in prosecutions.

In other words, investigators are granted a warrant whose specific purpose is to catch conspiracy to commit terror. Oops, they accidentally get something incriminating on some involved person. Would using the evidence in court violate the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures?

18 posted on 09/10/2003 7:43:55 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Brian S; Lazamataz; dead
Well, he has a point. If we execute everyone, there will be less crime and terrorism.
19 posted on 09/10/2003 7:45:36 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
But he doesnt want to arm pilots
or let the assault rifle ban sunset
20 posted on 09/10/2003 7:49:58 PM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson