--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030208-070617-2097r > <snippage> > Rumsfeld raised the issue with German Defense > Minister Peter Struck in a > one-on-one meeting Saturday. "And the response we > got was, 'We're talking > about that with the French, but we're not ready to > talk to you about it; > it's not fully done,'" the senior official said, > "which to say the least was > a highly inadequate response." > > The official called it extraordinary that no one had > spoken to Rumsfeld about it before...
While I think this was not the way to influence the Bush Administration (or be friends, for that matter), I find it ironic that Rumsfeld is so indignant over secrecy, given the recent finding that the Justice Dept. has secretly drafted a new security bill: http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030208patriotactnat5p5.asp "...The draft, a potential successor to the Patriot Act that passed Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, would authorize the Justice Department to conduct clandestine searches or eavesdrop on any suspected terrorist or foreign agent for 15 days after the beginning of a military conflict or "national emergency," rather than after a formal declaration of war, as current law provides... ...The Jan. 9 document, labeled "confidential -- not for distribution" and titled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, was posted on the Internet by the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based nonprofit organization. Civil liberties advocates immediately expressed alarm about the draft. "There are some truly breathtaking provisions here. In some respects it is bolder even than the Patriot Act," said Jim Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit organization based in Washington." Related issues, from the Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/research/articles/levy-021124.html "...The policies that are put in place by this administration are precedent-setting. Bush supporters need to reflect on the same powers in the hands of his predecessor or his successors. Here's the guiding principle: In the post-9/11 environment, no rational person believes that civil liberties are inviolable. After all, government's primary obligation is to secure the lives of American citizens. But when government begins to chip away at our liberties, we must insist that it jump through a couple of hoops. First, government must offer compelling evidence that its new and intrusive programs will make us safer. Second, government must convince us that there is no less invasive means of attaining the same ends. In too many instances, those dual burdens have not been met. If administration critics have a single overriding concern about policies adopted in the wake of 9/11, it is this: The president and the attorney general have concentrated too much unchecked authority in the hands of the executive branch - compromising the doctrine of separation of powers, which has been a cornerstone of our Constitution for more than two centuries. Those persons who would unhesitatingly trade off civil liberties in return for national security proclaim that concentrated power is necessary for Americans to remain free. Yet there's an obvious corollary that's too often missed: Unless Americans remain free, they will never be secure." [If someone already posted these articles, sorry for the repeat - I know that I first read on-list about the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003'.] Hmm - I think that this was the article someone (the Fool?) actually posted - it has a link to the full-text document: http://publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0 Marvin's Sig Is Looking Less Like A Joke Daily Maru __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
