It's easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that the government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or spend vast sums from the federal treasury. The history of the 20th century shows that the Constitution is violated most often by Congress during times of crisis; accordingly, most of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the two world wars and the Depression.

Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The founders intended its provision to place inviolable restrictions on what the federal government could do even in times of great distress. America must guard against current calls for government to violate the Constitution- break the law- in the name of law enforcement.

The"anti-terrorism" legislation recently passed by Congress demonstrates how well-meaning politicians make shortsighted mistakes in a rush to respond to a crisis. Most of its provisions were never carefully studied by Congress, nor was sufficient time taken to debate the bill despite its importance. No testimony was heard from privacy experts or others from fields outside of law enforcement. Normal congressional committee and hearing processes were suspended. In fact, the final version of the bill was not made available to members before the vote! These political games should not be tolerated by the American public, especially when precious freedoms are at stake.

Almost all of the new laws focus on American citizens rather than potential foreign terrorists. For example, the definition of "terrorism" for federal criminal purposes has been greatly expanded; you now may be considered a terrorist if you belong to a pro-constitution group, a citizens militia, or various pro-life organizations. Legitimate protest against the government could place you (and tens of thousands of other Americans) under federal surveillance. Similarly, your internet use can be monitored without your knowledge, and your internet provider can be forced to hand over user information to law enforcement without a warrant or subpoena.

The bill also greatly expands the use of traditional surveillance tools, including wiretaps, search warrants, and subpoenas. Probable cause standards for these tools are relaxed or even eliminated in some circumstances; warrants become easier to obtain and can be executed without your knowledge; and wiretaps can be placed on you without a court order. In fact, the FBI and CIA now can tap phones or computers nationwide without even demonstrating that a particular phone or computer is being used by a criminal suspect.

The biggest problem with these new law enforcement powers is that they bear little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are greatly expanded, while checks and balances on government are greatly reduced. Most of the provisions have been sought after by domestic law enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism, but rather to increase their police power over the American people. There is no evidence that our previously-held civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists. The federal government has made no showing that it failed to detect or prevent the recent terrorist strikes because of the civil liberties that will be compromised by this new legislation.

In his speech to the joint session of Congress following the September 11th attacks, President Bush reminded all of us that the United States outlasted and defeated Soviet totalitarianism in the last century. The numerous internal problems in the former Soviet Union- its centralized economic planning and lack of free markets, its repression of human liberty, its excessive militarization- all led to its inevitable collapse. We must be vigilant to resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society, so that our own government does not become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist.

It's easy for elected officials in Washington

Well, elected officials and those who actually call the shots ... like Henry Kissinger.

But I raised it in the context, and I don't want to delay all of this, but I raised it in the context -- I came back from a conference on terrorism back in 1980. I was over in, not Berlin, I was in Bonn, and I went to a conference on terrorism and I spoke there, Henry Kissinger was there, Helmut Schmidt was there, and as I came out of the hotel I saw the hotel was surrounded by APCs, armored personnel carriers. And all the soldiers or policemen had automatic weapons.

I looked at that and I said, I wonder, would any American city allow VIPs to be protected by virtual tanks in the street? And it had been just after a guy named Schleier, a banker, had been assassinated, stuffed in his trunk of a Mercedes car, so there was real tension over there, and there was some real protection underway. I said no, it will never happen in the United States.

Then I said well wait a minute. What happens if the terrorists come to the United States and the bombs start going off, the killing starts here?

Would we as the American people, say protect our liberties or protect our lives? We've never had to have that debate at this point.

And so when you have an Oklahoma City bombing that's taken place, and you have others who may not be domestic but international, what will be the reaction of the American people?

Will they say the government's responsibility is to protect us, and we say absolutely, but how do we do that?

Do we do it through the local police? The National Guard? The Guard and Reserve? Or do we call upon the military in extremists to provide protection and to help with what they call consequence management?

DefenseLink -- Cohen Breakfast Meeting with Reporters in Washington, D.C. (1/11/2001)

The Message They're Sending is Essentially the Same Thing

Bounty hunters respected no state lines. Crossing a state line was only a hope and a prayer that you might not get caught. Back then the long arm of the law was swift and did not need Federal investigation.

What is amazing to me is the trust that we now see among Conservative Republicans in our Government. If I go out to buy private security for my property, I would like to see some results. What we now have is a surrendering of civil liberties that would be totally wrong to hand over to a private security firm. I happen to think that it is equally wrong to hand them to government.

This editorial ampliflies my point:

November 2, 2001

Turning to Government

by David Boaz David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute.

Patriotism is back in America. Sales of American flags are sky high, "God Bless America" leads the hit parade, and politicians are avoiding negative campaigning. For many people this renaissance of patriotism also involves a renewed confidence in the federal government: A recent poll found that 64 percent of Americans say they trust the federal government to do the right thing "nearly always" or "most of the time" -- the highest level of trust in government since 1966 and double the level a year ago.

The increased support for the federal government makes sense. Finally, the government is focused on its main purpose: the protection of the lives and property of Americans. People who had lost confidence in the government's attempts to run the trains or the post office or to provide everything under the sun can only be pleased to see it concentrating on protecting individual rights.

However, the increased confidence in government is not as clear as it seems. The Sept. 11 attacks, after all, reflect a massive failure of the government. With $1.9 trillion a year and 1.8 million employees, the government failed to anticipate or prevent a military attack on New York and Washington. It failed in its first duty.

It might be suggested that the attacks came out of the blue, that no government could have been prepared for them. In fact, there were repeated warnings -- often from within the government itself -- that terrorist attacks inthe United States were likely.

The attempt by associates of Osama bin Laden to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993 should have been a stark warning of terrorist threats inside our borders.
In 1997 the National Defense Panel -- a group of retired generals and civil defense experts -- called for a reemphasis on defending the American homeland in light of the increase in threats of terrorism.
That same year the Department of Defense wrote in its report, Proliferation: Threat and Response, "As the new millennium approaches, the United States faces a heightened prospect that regional aggressors, third-rate armies, terrorist cells, and even religious cults will wield disproportionate power by using -- or even threatening to use -- nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons against our troops in the field and our people at home."
After Bin Laden's bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 reminded us of the threat, former defense secretary John Deutch said, "We must insist on superior intelligence that will warn of potential terrorist actions. . . . Our country is not fully prepared to act effectively on these matters."
Also in August 1998, the Reagan administration's former anti-terrorism chief, L. Paul Bremer III, wrote that bin Laden and his associates "hate America, its values and its culture and proudly declare themselves to be at war with us." He urged beefed-up security, more pressure on terrorist groups, and "a large reward for bin Laden's capture -- dead or alive" to "exacerbate the paranoia common to all terrorists."
Bremer was appointed to head a National Commission on Terrorism, which reported in 2000 that "the threat of attacks creating massive casualties is growing."
On July 26, 1999, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen wrote: "In the past year, dozens of threats to use chemical or biological weapons in the United States have turned out be hoaxes. Someday, one will be real. . . . There is not a moment to lose."
In February 2001, the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, headed by former senators Gary Hart (D-Colo.) and Warren Rudman (R-N.H.) made similar warnings.
Later in 2001 -- but before Sept. 11 -- the Federal Aviation Administration's Criminal Acts Against Civil Aviation report warned, "Bin Laden's anti-Western and anti-American attitudes make him and his followers a significant threat to civil aviation, particularly to U.S. civil aviation."

Warnings came from foreign sources as well. Columnist Jim Hoagland writes, "The Clinton White House did not want to hear about or deal seriously with Iraq. Defectors ranging from Khidhir Hamza, one of Saddam's chief nuclear scientists, to lowly intelligence officers have been met with a cold shoulder and reluctance by the FBI, CIA, DIA, etc., to listen to, assess and then share the information about terrorism the defectors possess." And the respected Israeli journalist Ze'ev Schiff wrote recently that the former head of Israel's Shin Bet security service met with Attorney General Janet Reno and the heads of the FBI and the CIA to inform that terrorist cells were being established in the United States. "They looked at him forgivingly, and claimed that he was exaggerating."

And the Cato Institute issued several warnings about the threat of terrorism, often based on official government documents. The 1997 Cato Handbook for Congress warned, "The sabotage of Pan American flight 103, the bombing of the World Trade Center, and (possibly) the crash of TWA flight 800 make it clear that Americans have become targets of international terrorism. Unfortunately, that danger is likely to grow rather than recede in the coming years. Moreover, the potential for thousands, rather than dozens or hundreds, of casualties in any single incident is also rising."

In his 1998 paper "Protecting the Homeland," Ivan Eland wrote, "Recently, several government reports have emphasized the need for increased attention to the defense of the American homeland. The proliferation of technology for creating weapons of mass terror and conducting chemical, biological, nuclear, and information warfare has reawakened interest in protecting the homeland." And a November 2000 Cato study deplored the federal government's failure to educate Americans about civil defense preparedness.

So it's odd that Americans' confidence in government would rise sharply after a massive failure of government to do its job. Presumably the phenomenon reflects Americans' love for their country, which they express in a time of crisis by declaring their support for their government and approval of the Bush administration's response to the attacks. It's a sort of prospective vote of confidence, not in what the government has done, but in what we hope it will do.

If our elected officials want confidence in government to stay at these high levels, they must show results in the fight against terrorism. One element of that process involves trimming the vast scope of the federal government and focusing on the core function for which it was established. As the Declaration of Independence says, "governments are instituted . . . to secure these rights [of] life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That 's a big enough job for one entity, even the federal government.

A lot of the corporate conglomerates of the 1960s proved unwieldy, and their managers eventually sold off many of their acquisitions and focused on their core businesses. They trimmed and they got stronger -- less is more. The U.S. government should emulate that model: Get out of the game of trying to supply all the desires of 270 million people, and concentrate on protecting us from mass murder. As for the rest, the market and American know-how will take care of it.

Funny you should bump me! I was just looking at this article.

Back in 1970, racketeering laws were put in place to combat organized crime. Now, these laws are being used to prosecute people who protest against abortion and other crimes, in order to justify their tortured logic for seizing people's property. There continues to be proposals to expand the use of racketeering laws. RICO Problems

The 1968 Gun Control Act said this:

Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.

And now look where we are. These are just two examples of how the Feds sell something to us as one thing, but over time turn it into an assault against liberty and the citizens. We need to be very wary of this Patriot Act. Once this camel's nose is in the tent, there's no stopping the rest of him coming in.

What currently troubles me is the De-Militarization provision. We may soon find it illegal to own camoflage clothing, many knives, firearms (bolt action firearms are under consideration for ban, why I don't know, unless it'a aimed at 50cal), jeeps, trucks, planes, etc, anything that might be considered "military" in nature. It won't catch a single terrorist, but it will disarm and neutralize the populace, making them easier to control. The potential for abuse via the PA is disturbing.

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.