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

Skip to comments.

Bush Is to Propose Broad New Powers in Domestic Security
The New York Times ^ | 07/16/2002 | ELIZABETH BECKER

Posted on 07/15/2002 9:03:38 PM PDT by 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."


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181 next last
To: Texasforever; Luis Gonzalez
Yes. But that still puts military involvement at odds with the PC act.

Not sure it would... Before there was a DoE, the Atomic Energy Commission was under the DoD.

Was there any Posse Comitatus problem then?

You and I agree that this is a bad idea.

And Luis, too, which ought to give people pause...

Not just anti-Illegals, but more than a few Bushies who aren't thinking beyond the end of his term.




141 posted on 07/16/2002 7:02:16 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Here is the way I look at all of this flurry of legislation. There should be none based on the War on Terrorism. The Patriot act should have been by executive order. The measures listed above should be by Executive order under the powers of the CIC in wartime. That makes those powers easily nullified when the President sees fit or his term in office is ended and he decides to either rescind them himself. However you then get the wails from many that he has bypassed congress. However; once congress passes those powers into law then only congress or the USSC can get them off the books when they are no longer required.
142 posted on 07/16/2002 7:03:53 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Not just anti-Illegals, but more than a few Bushies who aren't thinking beyond the end of his term.

Come now be fair. There are a lot of non-Bushies that are perfectly willing to use the military when it comes to illegals.

143 posted on 07/16/2002 7:08:20 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Byron_the_Aussie
What you said (#130)
144 posted on 07/16/2002 7:10:27 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Come now be fair. There are a lot of non-Bushies that are perfectly willing to use the military when it comes to illegals.

I don't see how my statement disagrees with that.

The point I was making is that, in addition, not enough Bushies ask themselves the question:

"Would I give this power to a Clinton?"




145 posted on 07/16/2002 7:13:33 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
I just received this and it is from a person that is reliabe. It is about the "Red Teams".

First, the red teams will not be blowing anything up. They are small teams of experts from many fields who will be examing targets and looking at ways of destroying or damaging them. They will not receive any inside information from any agencies but will work from available knowledge (much as the terrorists themselves); ie. internet, public documents, photos, etc. These plans will be used to develop defenses against such attacks.

It appears to be a sort of "war game" scenerio.

146 posted on 07/16/2002 7:20:12 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
"Would I give this power to a Clinton?"

see 142.

147 posted on 07/16/2002 7:21:45 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
see 142.

Yeah, but you're not one of the Bushies I'm talking about.

C'mon, Tex!




148 posted on 07/16/2002 7:29:08 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
You know, I, too, was wondering why the existing police force was left out. They would be the bet ones to round up the illegals, but the government will not let them. I reread the article and I did not see a mention of local police. This is just insanity. Actually not, if your intent is NOT to get rid of the illegals.

Yes, the domestic police forces have their hands full - many times it is full of illegals and all their problems. When they find them, let them arrest them.

Keep the military on the border to keep them out, let President Bush make a few really strong speeches, allow domestic police forces to round up the illegals and we would be in business. We wouldn't get them all, but we still should try.

149 posted on 07/16/2002 7:34:59 PM PDT by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: browardchad
"And when we know, what will we do? Wouldn't it be simpler and safer to limit the amount of people immigrating to this country until we at least know who's here now?"

If Bush is saying that we need to know if they're leaving the country when they say they're leaving the country, I really doubt that he was talking about immigration.

150 posted on 07/16/2002 7:36:15 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Yeah, but you're not one of the Bushies I'm talking about.

You may regret saying that. LOL There are MANY around here that will set you straight.

151 posted on 07/16/2002 7:36:18 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
I'm only on chapter two. When the books finshed then I'll quit and go make my millions.
152 posted on 07/16/2002 7:40:26 PM PDT by Marine Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever; Luis Gonzalez
Oh, on this issue, you and Luis probably have your share of head shakers from that side.



153 posted on 07/16/2002 7:40:53 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Don Myers
"Only the blind can not see that something really strange is going on here. "

What is so strange about an out of control government on the brink of bankruptcy and failure passing legislation that will help protect those in government from the angry mobs of citizens who might wish to behead them? Our government is in a melt-down panic mode and doing everything it can to stave off the inevitable. The anger of it's betrayed and starving citizens. It isn't too far off judging by the amount of controls and the speed with which they are trying to implement them.

154 posted on 07/16/2002 7:47:36 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
I'm only on chapter two. When the books finshed then I'll quit and go make my millions.

Well with comments like "open border Jorge" being posted on an open forum you may want to hurry up and get it finished. Big Brother is everywhere. LOL

155 posted on 07/16/2002 7:50:16 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
No, we don't want the military within the US. We (or I) want them on the borders. There is a vast difference. We have had military personnel on the border during wartime. (Oh, I forgot this is not a war - it is a 'terrorist action'). Protecting our borders is a very legitimate action for the military, and as I said, one that has been used in the past. Probably more than we know. No I don't want martial law, but neither do I want every goober in Texas being encouraged to report on his/her neighbor everytime he/she gets upset about something.

If every illegal that has been in the 'custody'of local law enforcement officers had been returned, we would be in much better condition. We do not need military for that. Many of these people have already been 'caught' by the local guys, and they will continue to be caught - just let them hold them for the INS.

YEs, I want the borders closed, yes I want them protected, yes, I want all illegals sent home. This can be done without the military doing anything by protecting the borders - which seems to me to be the primary goal of a nation's military.

156 posted on 07/16/2002 7:52:22 PM PDT by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
YEs, it could be nullified by a future president. But how many that you have known in your lifetime do you think would give up such powers?
157 posted on 07/16/2002 7:55:04 PM PDT by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: nanny
but neither do I want every goober in Texas being encouraged to report on his/her neighbor everytime he/she gets upset about something.

Well then I guess neighbor hood watch is out? BTW goobers are not a Texas race.

158 posted on 07/16/2002 7:55:46 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
WEll, as a lifelong Texan, I'm telling you they are!!

The Neighborhood Watch comparison has been used before and it is apples and oranges. That is a group of citizens banding together to watch out for their own neighborhoods. It is not the federal government encouraging it. By the way, will the one reporting have to give a name. If not, I think I could warm up to this!!!!!!!

159 posted on 07/16/2002 8:00:14 PM PDT by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: nanny
It is not the federal government encouraging it. By the way, will the one reporting have to give a name. If not, I think I could warm up to this!!!!!!!

So you would use this to make false reports against your neighbors?

160 posted on 07/16/2002 8:05:12 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181 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