[iwar] [fc:Losing.the.War.for.Civil.Liberties]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2002-08-26 21:18:20


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-5253-1030421872-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 3809 invoked by uid 510); 27 Aug 2002 04:16:07 -0000
Received: from n39.grp.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.66.107) by all.net with SMTP; 27 Aug 2002 04:16:07 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-5253-1030421872-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [66.218.67.201] by n39.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Aug 2002 04:17:54 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 27 Aug 2002 04:17:51 -0000
Received: (qmail 54055 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2002 04:17:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Aug 2002 04:17:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (12.232.72.152) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Aug 2002 04:17:52 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g7R4IKN15219 for iwar@onelist.com; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:18:20 -0700
Message-Id: <200208270418.g7R4IKN15219@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Losing.the.War.for.Civil.Liberties]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILTO_WITH_SUBJ,MAILTO_LINK,DIFFERENT_REPLY_TO version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: 

<a href="http://insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/262278.html">http://insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/262278.html>
 
 Insight on the News - Politics 
Issue: 09/16/02 
  _____  

Losing the War for Civil Liberties
By Kelly Patricia O'Meara 

It used to be that Americans packed for air travel with a mental
checklist of personal items needed for their holiday or business
engagement: which clothes to bring, shoes, cameras, etc.  Today,
however, in the backwash of the Sept.  11 attacks on the U.S.  mainland,
a new and more detailed (often ridiculous) list of concerns must be
considered. 

No eyebrow tweezers, for instance, no fingernail files or clippers, no
toothpicks, no rat-tail combs, no letter openers or anything that even
resembles a knife, and just two (count 'em, two) throw-away lighters. 
Every one of these items, apparently, is considered a security threat
and, if noticed by the new federal airport-security force, will land a
passenger at the end of the conveyer belt for a public shakedown and
perhaps worse. 

While time-consuming, embarrassing, annoying and sometimes frightening,
the new airline-security measures pale in comparison to a number of
other (more invasive) provisions federal lawmakers authorized in the
immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon.  Civil libertarians charge that the new security
measures sacrifice political freedom in the name of national security
while contributing little or nothing to the war on terror. 

Either way, the terrorists win.  A little more than one month after the
Sept.  11 terrorist attacks, public enemy No.  1, Osama bin Laden,
predicted that "freedom and human rights in America are doomed.  The
U.S.  government will lead the American people - and the West in general
- into an unbearable hell and a choking life." During the year following
the bin Laden attacks, sweeping new government powers indeed have been
authorized that civil libertarians say threaten the freedoms Americans
are told this nation's enemies hate. 

Many of these powers were authorized in a flush of panic by the Uniting
and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, or USA PATRIOT Act [see "Police
State," Dec.  3, 2001].  Passed before members of Congress even could
read it, this law provides sweeping powers to state and federal
law-enforcement officials to combat terrorism.  The problem, critics
say, is that under these new powers every American citizen is a possible
suspect of terrorism.  On the right, Insight is on record as opposing
this law from the moment of its passage.  On the left, the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has worked tirelessly to resist assaults on
civil liberties arising from the Sept.  11 attacks and has focused on
the act. 

Indeed, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero tells Insight, "We've
been enormously concerned that the war on terrorism has fundamentally
eroded civil liberties in the country.  You have a system of checks and
balances that has been upset by Attorney General John Ashcroft; you have
actions taken by the Justice Department that have been veiled in a cloak
of secrecy; and you have wholesale abridgement of the Bill of Rights
even in cases involving American citizens.  All of our efforts have been
focused on the effort to keep in place a system of checks and balances."

The ACLU has been relentless in publicizing what its leaders say they
regard as the most egregious of the new security measures under the USA
PATRIOT Act, including but not limited to the following:

*	The law allows for indefinite detention of noncitizens who are not
terrorists on minor visa violations. 

*	It minimizes judicial supervision of telephone and Internet
surveillance by law-enforcement authorities in antiterrorism
investigations and in routine criminal investigations unrelated to
terrorism. 

*	The act expands the ability of the government to conduct secret
searches - even in criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism. 

*	It gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to
designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations. 

*	The new law grants the FBI broad access to sensitive medical,
financial, mental-health and educational records about individuals
without having to show evidence of a crime and without a court order. 

*	The act allows searches of highly personal financial records without
notice and without judicial review, based on a very low standard that
does not require the showing of probable cause of a crime or even
relevance to an ongoing terrorism investigation. 


*	It creates a broad new definition of "domestic terrorism" that could
allow a police sweep of people who engage in acts of public protest and
subject them to wiretapping and enhanced penalties. 

*	And this law allows the sharing of sensitive information in criminal
cases with intelligence agencies, including the CIA, National Security
Agency, Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Secret Service. 

"The searches and seizures that have us the most concerned," continues
Romero, "are the 'Sneak and Peek' warrants that allow the government to
come into a citizen's home and search their personal effects, take
photographs, download information off their computers and not inform
them of the search until after the fact.  The problem with this is that
sometimes law enforcement gets it wrong.  They may have the wrong name,
the wrong address, or the judge might have signed the wrong warrant."

According to Romero, "The problem is that we haven't asked the most
basic threshold question that we needed to ask before we started adding
all the law-enforcement intelligence powers - how did Sept.  11 happen?
Were law enforcement and intelligence officials using their extensive
powers to their fullest extent prior to Sept.  11 and, if not, why not?
We need to know what broke down before we can figure out the remedy. 
Unfortunately, Congress didn't address those issues.  It's only now that
they're looking at those issues."

The ACLU executive director adds: "Americans don't fully realize what
has happened to some core American principles and basic workings of our
democracy.  Most Americans don't realize that American citizens are
being held on American soil without access to lawyers and no charges
having been brought against them.  This fundamentally puts the Bill of
Rights on its head - there's no such thing anymore as the presumption of
being innocent until proved guilty.  This is just fundamentally
un-American."

Civil libertarians, both on the left and the right, insist that the USA
PATRIOT Act violates the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech;
the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures;
the Fifth Amendment right to due process; the Sixth Amendment guarantees
of speedy and fair trial; the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and
unusual punishment; and the 13th Amendment prohibition against
punishment by servitude without conviction. 

John Whitehead, founder and president of the Rutherford Institute, a
leading advocate of civil liberties and human rights, tells Insight that
"the problem with a lot of the USA PATRIOT Act and some of the
presidential Executive Orders is that the 99.9 percent of the people in
this country who are not terrorists will be impacted by these laws.  How
can you suddenly introduce broadly encompassing laws which allow the
government to search your e-mails, check your library books, do 'Sneak
and Peek' searches of your home, turn your neighbor into a spy through
the TIPS [Terrorist Information and Prevention System] program, etc.,
without hearings or so much as asking how these laws will stop
terrorism?"

Whitehead says that, if this law stands, "The Fourth Amendment will have
been totally blown.  What the Fourth Amendment says is that you have to
individualize suspicion, a judge has to carefully look at it and it has
to be reasonable.  Today, everything is considered suspicious." But,
says Whitehead, "I'm hopeful that we'll look back in 10 years and say
this was all crazy stuff.  Back in the 1940s we put Japanese-Americans
in prison camps, in the 1950s we had the McCarthy era and in the 1960s
there was government harassment of the hippies and Martin Luther King. 
Today, most of us look back and say all that was wrong, so there is
hope."

According to Whitehead, "Freedom and security are not mutually
exclusive, but the only thing between us and tyranny is the Constitution
of the United States.  Do I think we've lost civil liberties? Yes.  Have
we set the groundwork for a police state? Yes.  The question is whether
we can reverse it.  To do so will take a courageous administration led
by a president of great intellect - and a Congress that not only reads
the bills it passes but which looks carefully at legislation and
compares it with the clear meaning of the Constitution rather than the
direction of the latest opinion polls."

The TIPS program to which Whitehead referred was created by the
Department of Justice (DOJ) as a "national information-sharing system,"
which enlists the support of workers in the community to report
"suspicious" activity to the government.  Neighborhood groups also were
recruited as in Cuba to report on "unfamiliar" people in the community
or those whose behavior is "suspicious" or "not normal." The tipsters
were to include the local cable guy, trash collectors and others.  But
the idea of assigning neighbor to watch neighbor finally raised such a
flap that the DOJ scaled back its snoop network to limit the hot-line
tattletales to workers involved in the "transportation, trucking,
shipping, maritime and mass-transit industries."

Dave Kopel, research director for the Independence Institute, a
nonprofit policy-research organization, tells Insight that "the misnamed
USA PATRIOT Act has plenty of search-and-seizure provisions that are not
limited to terrorism even under the new, very broad definition.  These
would allow secret searches of your house - warrantless searches without
regard to whether it's a terrorism offense." Kopel says, "The FBI with
the active assistance of the DOJ and White House pulled a real bait and
switch on the American people.  They said we've got to have these
emergency powers for fighting terrorism, and what they really got was a
whole lot of nonemergency powers for nonterrorist purposes.  It's not a
police state yet, but we're closer to it, and there has to be continued
vigilance among the people.  TIPS has received a lot of negative public
reaction and they've scaled it back some.  But the problem with the USA
PATRIOT Act is that it has little to do with fighting terrorism."

According to Kopel, "We're safer from terrorists because we've bombed
the hell out of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but that didn't have anything
to do with these new laws.  We had the ability to do that before the new
legislation.  Today we have a much higher level of intrusiveness without
greater security.  It would be one thing to change your birthright of
liberty for greater security - at least you're making that trade-off. 
Essentially, though, with the USA PATRIOT Act they have cracked down on
personal liberty without providing greater security."

Rep.  Ron Paul (R-Texas), a libertarian who is one of only three
Republican lawmakers to have voted against the USA PATRIOT Act, and an
outspoken critic, tells Insight: "The so-called PATRIOT Act condones and
institutionalizes everything and has really opened up a Pandora's box."
He says, "I think there is a strong determination on the part of
government to know everything about everybody, and fighting terrorism is
the excuse, not the reason.  All of these laws have been in the mill for
years, and everything now is in place for what some people describe as a
police state.  I think we're on the verge of a very, very tough police
state in this country - and it will only end when Americans are fed up. 
So far people are terrified to say anything.  Hopefully, we'll wake up
before it's too late."

Whether the growing restrictions on civil liberties are temporary
measures necessary to win the war on terrorism or a long first step
toward a police state has become a matter of opinion - which may be
scary enough.  But, given the new restrictions on civil liberties, the
president's promise "not to allow this enemy to win the war by changing
our way of life or restricting our freedoms" already seems to have been
more rhetorical than realistic. 

Kelly Patricia O'Meara is an investigative reporter for Insight
magazine.  email the author &lt;mailto:<a
href="mailto:komeara@insightmag.com?Subject=Re:%20(ai)%20Losing%20the%20War%20for%20Civil%20Liberties%2526In-Reply-To=%2526lt;379A8DC2FD20134CBC091ED3E135B0F370DB28@RMTVA-XVC01.info.trw.com">komeara@insightmag.com</a>

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/mG3HAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-10-01 06:44:32 PDT