-Caveat Lector-
From
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemId=12372
> And let me underscore here, that when [Attorney General] John Ashcroft
> testified before Congress in support of that law, he acknowledged that
> none of these sweeping powers, and that was his term -- sweeping
> powers -- could have averted the terrible catastrophe on September 11.
> So, I think we are seeing the worst of both worlds. That the
> government is getting new powers that are not going to effectively
> protect us against terrorism, but are effectively going to deprive
> millions of innocent Americans of very precious freedoms.
}}}>Begin
Big government as Big Brother
The historical look at civil liberties and the government
By Steven Rosenfeld
TomPaine.com
11.20.01 |
TomPaine.com: The Attorney General, Bush administration and
Congress have adopted numerous new anti-terrorism laws and
policies increasing police powers. They're changed rules for
evidence gathering and detention, set new standards for citizens
and non-citizens, and authorized military tribunals to operate under
rules set by the Secretary of Defense and President. Should
Americans expect such changes in the justice system, even if
Congress hasn't officially declared war?
Nadine Strossen: I think the changes that have been adopted are
completely unjustified, not only because we are not in an official
declared state of war -- and that is a very important point to stress.
For example, when you talk about the military commissions that
the president's executive order just purported to authorize, those
have never before operated outside of an official, declared state of
war. The other reason, though, which to many people may sound
more substantial and less formalistic, is that even though we are in
this state of national emergency, our government should not claim
and exercise additional new powers unless a case can be made
that these new powers will be effective, in order to prosecute the
war -- the metaphorical war -- against terrorism.
So many of the new power grabs will be aimed not at all against
terrorists. For example, the so-called 'anti-terrorism' law, and I say
so-called for a reason, almost all of its provisions apply to all law
enforcement, including ordinary crimes involving, for example, the
so-called war on drugs, having absolutely nothing to do with
terrorism. And I think it's very interesting that we heard this kind of
criticism in Congress from both sides of the aisle, including
conservative Republicans with law enforcement backgrounds.
[Rep.] Bob Barr [R-GA], who was a U.S. Attorney before he went
to Congress, and he made the point very well. He said what this
law is, is just a grab-bag of prosecutorial powers and investigative
powers that the Justice Department has forever been asking
Congress for. Now, under the panic that's ensued in response to
the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress was stampeded into giving those
powers that have not been shown to be necessary in order to
counter terrorism.
And let me underscore here, that when [Attorney General] John
Ashcroft testified before Congress in support of that law, he
acknowledged that none of these sweeping powers, and that was
his term -- sweeping powers -- could have averted the terrible
catastrophe on September 11. So, I think we are seeing the worst
of both worlds. That the government is getting new powers that are
not going to effectively protect us against terrorism, but are
effectively going to deprive millions of innocent Americans of very
precious freedoms.
TP.c: The ACLU has reported on what you call 'court-stripping,' that
is, the legislative or executive branches depriving the judiciary of
authority to hear certain types of cases. Where does this current
spate of new terrorism laws fit under this trend?
Strossen: Unfortunately, that trend is accelerated by the new anti-
terrorism law, because one theme that pervades many different
provisions is shrinking the already-reduced role of the courts in
protecting individual rights -- that had already been under attack as
a result of the 1996 anti-terrorism law and some other laws that
were passed. But I'm also very concerned about Congress being
bypassed through a series of executive orders, including the one
on military tribunals; the one that's allowing sweeping
investigations of young men who have lawfully immigrated to this
country from certain other countries, mostly in the Middle East;
another executive branch order that's going to allow interception of
conversations between imprisoned inmates, who may even be
facing the death penalty, and their attorneys. All of this, without
even consultation with Congress, and then, even though Congress
did pass the anti-terrorism law, it was really stampeded by the
administration.
There was just unprecedented, extraordinary pressure, put, especially by John
Ashcroft, upon members of Congress, to rush this law through, bypassing Congress'
ordinary processes of analysis and deliberation. There was al
most no debate. There was only one hearing. Many members of Congress didn't even have
time literally to read the law. Congress has not been serving its intended function as
a deliberative body; as a body that is the voice
of 'We the People' in the federal government. And the courts, unfortunately, are
being denied their power to serve as a check upon an executive branch that is
increasingly consolidating power within itself.
TP.c: Is there an end in sight to these new powers the Administration has been
seeking? Do you know when enough will be enough?
Strossen: That is an excellent question, because many of us thought that in 1995, when
the Clinton administration, immediately after the Oklahoma City bombing proposed a
sweeping anti-terrorism law, that was passed in 199
6 -- many thought that that law much too far in giving the executive branch,
essentially, judicially unreviewable powers -- in the very areas we're talking about
now: electronic surveillance and detention and deportation
of non-citizens. And in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with us.
As you may know, in June of this year, in two ACLU cases, the Supreme Court agreed
that portions of the 1996 law were unconstitutional and did go too far. But that was
no impediment to this administration. And by the way,
I think if Al Gore had won the election, we would be in the same situation. I don't
think this has anything to do with party politics. I think it has to do with the
executive branch of government, in a time of crisis, al
ways seeking even more power.
No matter how much power it attains, you know the 1996 law many felt was too much
power. But a new national security crisis comes along and the executive branch is
going to seek even more power. There is not an instance i
n history of an executive branch saying, 'Okay, we have too much power. Let's roll it
back. Let's turn back the clock.' So, I think the only bright spot on that horizon is
the sunset provision that Congress did add to the
electronic surveillance aspects of the new anti-terrorism law. I hope Congress will
take seriously its opportunity to revisit and I hope repeal those sweeping provisions
that are going to violate the privacy of everybody
who uses the Internet in this country.
Steven Rosenfeld interviewed Nadine Strossen for TomPaine.com.
Nadine Strossen is President of the American Civil Liberties Union,
a non- partisan legal organization dedicated to upholding individual
rights and the limitations on government power as articulated in the
Constitution.
© 1999-2001 The Florence Fund
URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemId=12372
End<{{{
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
