Bush Is to Propose Broad New Powers in Domestic Security

The New York Times ^ | 07/16/2002 | ELIZABETH BECKER

[Pokey78]

WASHINGTON, July 15 — The Bush administration's broad new proposal for domestic security, to be made public on Tuesday, calls for sweeping changes that include the creation of a top-secret plan to protect the nation's critical infrastructure and a review of the law that could allow the military to operate more aggressively within the United States.

Tom Ridge, the president's adviser on domestic security, has been at work on the plan for more than eight months — beginning long before the proposal for a new department of homeland security, which was hastily announced last month as Congressional investigators were making public new information about intelligence lapses before Sept. 11.

The administration could impose some changes on its own authority, while others would require Congressional action. Dozens of the recommendations are familiar initiatives that the government has tried to enact for years but are newly popular to help reach the goal of preventing terrorist attacks within the United States. Many fall outside the scope of the proposed new department.

Given the difficulties the president's proposal for the department is facing in Congress, the idea that this new plan could be enacted as written is questionable.

These are among the administration's proposals:

¶Establish national standards for state driver's licenses.

¶Create an "intelligence threat division" in the new department that uses what the plan calls "red teams" of intelligence experts. These teams would act like terrorists and plot attacks on vulnerable new targets in the country so that means of preventing such attacks can be devised.

¶Increase inspections of international shipping containers before they leave foreign ports and as they cross United States borders.

¶Ensure that government agencies can communicate with one another, something successive administrations have tried and failed to do.

The plan also calls for the first thorough inventory of the country's critical infrastructure — both public and private — followed by a secret plan to protect it. The inventory would include, for example, highways, pipelines, agriculture, the Internet, databases and energy plants.

"That's one of the big points," said a senior administration official, who provided a copy of the plan to The New York Times. "The whole society is vulnerable with hundreds, thousands of targets we have to protect, but the most important stuff we do won't be released."

In a letter accompanying the plan, also provided by the official, President Bush said that the federal, state and local governments and private companies should share the responsibility for — and the $100 billion annual cost of — combating what he called the greatest threat to the United States this century. It was a sign that full financing for his plan would not come from the federal budget.

"We must rally our entire society to overcome a new and very complex challenge," Mr. Bush said.

The senior official said that the idea for the homeland security department actually grew out of the secret deliberations on this broader plan. But the official insisted that the administration actively fought Congressional efforts to legislate a new department throughout the winter and spring because the White House wanted to keep deliberations secret.

"People were asking for a strategy, but we weren't ready," the senior official said. "We announced the department first because we had finished that part of the study."

Congressional Democrats are openly criticizing the White House for having been too closed and secretive in the development of what amounts to the largest reorganization of government in 50 years.

Democratic lawmakers on the House Appropriations Committee issued a statement today complaining that the legislation for the security department was written by White House political appointees without proper consultations. "That kind of secretive and arrogant behavior has produced a plan that, in many areas, is poorly constructed and complicates Congress's ability to produce a good final bill," said David Sirota, a committee spokesman.

The plan begins with an acknowledgment of the difficulty of defining the problem: "Terrorism is not so much a system of belief, like fascism or communism, as it is a strategy and a tactic — a means of attack."

Domestic attacks like Timothy J. McVeigh's on Oklahoma City in 1995 and the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon should be treated as terrorism even if the motives may differ widely, according the study. For that reason, it proposes to make better use of the military to counter domestic threats.

Before today, senior Pentagon officials had repeatedly said that they had no plans to ask Congress to revamp the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which sharply restricts the military's ability to participate in domestic law enforcement.

In a hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee in May, Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, asked Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld whether the administration was hoping to make changes in the act.

"No, Senator, we're not," Mr. Rumsfeld replied. "We're not looking for any long-term or short-term change with respect to Posse Comitatus."

But the Bush plan says that "the threat of catastrophic terrorism requires a thorough review of the laws permitting the military to act within the United States in order to determine whether domestic preparedness and response efforts would benefit from greater involvement of military personnel, and if so how."

Adding these initiatives could only complicate relations with Congress, where members of both parties insist that the administration's proposed department is conceptually too unwieldy. A series of House committees, controlled by Republicans, essentially rewrote the Bush plan last week, voting not to move the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and a large part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the department.

Mr. Ridge, appearing today before a special House committee that is managing the legislation on the department, said the administration opposed each of those changes and more demanded by lawmakers.

"The president's reorganization is well planned and well thought out, based on input from every level of government, the private sector, the academic community and of course the Congress of the United States," Mr. Ridge said.

He also said the department must have wide-ranging flexibility to move money to different uses as needs arise.

The chairman of the special committee, Representative Dick Armey of Texas, the House Republican leader, told Mr. Ridge flatly that "it's not likely that that's going to happen," but Mr. Ridge said the usual close Congressional oversight could cripple the new department's ability to respond to terrorism.

"We're at war," Mr. Ridge said. "The enemy — if you agree that they're agile, that they'll move and change targets — we ought to be able to give the secretary some flexibility to target some of these resources based on the threat, based on the vulnerability."

[Valin]

Stupid question time. Is he still in this country?
< /stupid question>

[flamefront]

quarantine and mass vaccination

Yes, consider how the acknowledged response for any bioterror is to have the military come in and handle it - there is not much civilian bioterror response capability as yet.

[FITZ]

Of course. They don't deport around here. It's in the 100 mile border zone which they made so that people can go back and forth pretty much as they please ---they aren't supposed to take jobs but it's done often but so is collecting welfare.

[browardchad]

Jorge "Open Borders" Bush is a "Once your in, Your in" President. He may try to shut off the flow, but he won't touch what is already here.

245(i) is just his first step. More amnesties will follow if he is successful.

The polls show the American people favor limiting immigration.

Bush does not want to limit immigration.

Bush must do something to make the American people think he is able to control the result of immigration.

As a result, all Americans will lose (more) freedoms for the sake of those who are not Americans, and most will not even notice they've been had.

[Marine Inspector]

Agreed.

[Valin]

they aren't supposed to take jobs but it's done often but so is collecting welfare.

Well I'm shocked! Just SHOCKED!

[steve-b]

FYI ... no president, alive or dead, has EVER gone after his predecessor, for crimes he and / or his administration or friends committed whilst in office.

Most Presidents have not committed crimes worthy of prosecution. When the most egregious pre-Clowntoon case (Nixon) was driven to resign in disgrace, Ford decided that this was sufficient punishment -- a decision that probably cost him the election, and cost the nation four years of administration by the feckless Mr. Peanut.

It is NOT part of a president's job description. He does NOT have the power to do so.

Directing the executive branch of the federal government, which includes the Department of Justice, is most certainly part of the president's job description.

[steve-b]

Indeed -- and isn't it interesting that security measures that would enhance, or at least not infringe upon, freedom (e.g. restoring the Second Amendment to some semblance of the Founders' intent) are not on the table?

[steve-b]

What do you think of Operation TIPs, for instance?

An initiative confined to providing a well-publicized place for people to report suspicious activities, with staff trained to screen out the nutcase and harassment calls (with severe penalties for proven cases of the latter) would be worthwhile.

The reports that the feds are trying to set up some sort of formal and directed "watch groups" are quite another thing, and offer too many possibilities for abuse.

The key difference is that the former represents government advise and support to spontaneous acts of good citizenship, whereas the latter represents government direction of local society.

[iconoclast]

"Deputize" every Barney Fife mailman, deliveryboy, and meter-reader to perform warrantless searches and invasion of privacy......YES(?)!

Time for your meds.

Thank you for your concern. Perhaps you'll be good enough to give me the name of what you're on. You appear nicely sedated.

[steve-b]

The same exact one that GW said he wouldn't support. Looks like he < gasp! > lied.

Meet the new boss....

[Valin]

I can be reached a pjb1776@clueless.org

[iconoclast]

Thanks, but I think I'll just wait and chat with you when we get to Oceania.

[Don Myers]

"Indeed -- and isn't it interesting that security measures that would enhance, or at least not infringe upon, freedom (e.g. restoring the Second Amendment to some semblance of the Founders' intent) are not on the table? "

It must look a little scary to people who have cause to worry about such things. I am not worried about where we are headed. I think that I already know. But, there is light at the end of the tunnel.

[smith288]

Create an "intelligence threat division" in the new department that uses what the plan calls "red teams" of intelligence experts. These teams would act like terrorists and plot attacks on vulnerable new targets in the country so that means of preventing such attacks can be devised.

Now that sounds like a fun job. How easy. The govt would be embarrased day after day I bet.

[FreedomFriend]

Cute

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I've slep on it, and just don't see the President jumping rails from pushing Amnesty to modifying Posse Comitatus for the purpose of rounding up Illegals."

There are a multiplicity of issues here, even within issues there are issues.

The illegal immigrant issue as several aspects.

One is the number of illegals already in the US, two is the ones continually arriving, three is the terrorism thing, and four is the viable possibility of a massive attack by terrorists on a large segment of the population (suitcase nuke).

I have told you before, and you scoffed at me then, that one of the first things that I thought needed to be done, would be to deal with those illegals who may have some sort of a legitimate claim to be reviewed. Be it by the virtue of being married to an American citizen, or whatever, you separate those that have begun the process of becoming a productive member of society, from the rest of the field.

If a Mexican national applies for 245(i), and he has family here legally, and a job, process him.

It would be cunter-productive to initiate massive deportations without controlling new arrivals, you are simply creating a revolving door at the border.

[Sabertooth]

If a Mexican national applies for 245(i), and he has family here legally, and a job, process him.

It would be cunter-productive to initiate massive deportations without controlling new arrivals, you are simply creating a revolving door at the border.

I'm not buying that this possible modification of Posse Comitatus has much, if anything, to do with Illegals. I really think it's about responses to WMDs, especially bio-weapons. So, while I don't want to see this thread hijacked in the direction of Illegals, let me say this in response to your post...

The consequence of "changing status" of Illegal Mexican nationals with family here is to bust immigration caps and consequently, spin more revolutions of the door.

And how would you only do it for Mexican nationals? You think that would ever fly? If Section 245(i) is ever extended again, it'll be for just about any Illegal with family or an (illegal) employer, regardless of country of origin, just as it's always been.

[Southern Federalist]

I hope I can be forgiven for not hyperventilating:

¶Establish national standards for state driver's licenses.

So some liberal loon in some blue-zone stronghold doesn't start letting Muslim women have their picture taken veiled in the interests of "respecting diversity."

¶Create an "intelligence threat division" in the new department that uses what the plan calls "red teams" of intelligence experts. These teams would act like terrorists and plot attacks on vulnerable new targets in the country so that means of preventing such attacks can be devised.

The standard way of preparing to meet any unpredictable threat that's taken seriously.

¶Increase inspections of international shipping containers before they leave foreign ports and as they cross United States borders.

Nobody has a problem with doing that, do they? Yes, no doubt more is needed, but surely this is something that ought to happen.

¶Ensure that government agencies can communicate with one another, something successive administrations have tried and failed to do.

Every government agency now involved with the problem has a different definition of terrorism, driven largely by the struggle to expand turf and avoid blame. I heartily believe that it's time for the elected President to take charge of the Executive Branch, and pull the reins in on these tinpot civil service satrapies.

As for modifying Posse Comitatus, that could mean anything or nothing. All that seems to be called for is that the laws be reviewed. No concrete proposal has been made.

The reporter tries hard to make out a contradiction between this proposal and Pentagon statements that they are not requesting changes in the law, but that's smoke and mirrors. There could and maybe should be a review of the laws whether the Pentagon wants any changes or not. It would in fact seem pretty damn irresponsible not to review just about any relevant existing laws with an eye to the present situation.

Revision of Posse Comitatus does not have to mean martial law in Alabama, special forces patrolling your neighborhood, goose-stepping squads herding us all into concentration camps. The Posse Comitatus law regulates a whole range of permitted and forbidden contacts between the armed services and domestic law enforcement, including, for example, training issues. It might very well be the Justice Department or Ridge's people that want the changes, in order to make possible new kinds of training for law enforcement, joint anti-terrorism planning, military back-up for law enforcement, say if a city were subjected to multiple simultaneous attacks. Any change ought to be discussed carefully, but discussing it is not a threat in itself.

A series of House committees, controlled by Republicans, essentially rewrote the Bush plan last week, voting not to move the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and a large part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the department.

The reality under all of this is that consolidation is a means of pulling these agencies back under tighter presidential direction. But all these committees have turf staked out in different departments, and consolidating them threatens their little fiefdoms. Constitutionally however the elected President is supposed to direct the executive branch, not little cabals of career bureaucrats and their favorite Congressional committee chairmen.

[Betty Jo]

666 !!!