-Caveat Lector- --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "M. L. Hawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Big Government Becomes Big Brother Steven Rosenfeld http://www.guerrillanews.com/newswire/222.html
November 20, 2001 You know it's getting bad when William Safire, The New York Times' house conservative, calls Bush a dictator, as he did in a recent editorial on the the USA Patriot Act. The bill, which was signed into law on Friday, gives the government vast powers in its battle against terrorism. But are these draconian measures actually making America safe from terrorists? Or is Orwell looking smarter than ever? The American Civil Liberties Union's Nadine Strossen puts the new act into context: Steven Rosenfeld: 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. SR: 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 almost 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. SR: 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 1996 -- 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, always 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 in 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. --- End forwarded message --- <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
