Where our Civil Liberties?
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 08-17-2004 - 5:03pm |
Bush’s CIA nominee has alarmed civil libertarians with a plan that would authorize the agency to arrest U.S. citizens.
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Aug. 11 - Rep. Porter Goss, President Bush’s nominee to head the CIA, recently introduced legislation that would give the president new authority to direct CIA agents to conduct law-enforcement operations inside the United States—including arresting American citizens.
The legislation, introduced by Goss on June 16 and touted as an “intelligence reform†bill, would substantially restructure the U.S. intelligence community by giving the director of Central Intelligence (DCI) broad new powers to oversee its various components scattered throughout the government.
But in language that until now has not gotten any public attention, the Goss bill would also redefine the authority of the DCI in such a way as to substantially alter—if not overturn—a 57-year-old ban on the CIA conducting operations inside the United States.
The language contained in the Goss bill has alarmed civil-liberties advocates. It also today prompted one former top CIA official to describe it as a potentially “dramatic†change in the guidelines that have governed U.S. intelligence operations for more than a half century.
“This language on its face would have allowed President Nixon to authorize the CIA to bug the Democratic National Committee headquarters,†Jeffrey H. Smith, who served as general counsel of the CIA between 1995 and 1996, told NEWSWEEK. “I can’t imagine what Porter had in mind.â€
Goss himself could not be reached for comment today. But a congressional source familiar with the drafting of Goss’s bill said the language reflects a concern that he and others in the U.S. intelligence community share—that the lines between foreign and domestic intelligence have become increasingly blurred by the war on terrorism.
At the time he introduced the bill, Goss thought the 9/11 commission might recommend the creation of a new domestic intelligence agency patterned after Britain’s M.I.5. The commission ended up rejecting such a proposal on civil-liberties grounds. But in his bill Goss wanted to give the DCI and a newly empowered CIA the “flexibilityâ€â€”if directed by the president—to oversee and even conduct whatever domestic intelligence and law-enforcement operations might be needed to combat the terrorism threat, the congressional official said.
“This is just a proposal,†said the congressional official familiar with the drafting of Goss’s bill. “It was designed as a point of discussion, a point of debate. It’s not carved in stone.â€
But other congressional staffers predicted that the Goss bill, even if it has little chance of passage, is likely to get substantial scrutiny at his upcoming confirmation hearings—in part as an opportunity to explore his own attitudes toward civil liberties.
Those hearings are already expected to be unusually contentious—partly because of concerns among Democrats that the Florida Republican, a former CIA officer himself who has chaired the House Intelligence Committee, has been too partisan and too close to the Bush White House. But so far, most staffers expect Goss to be confirmed eventually—if only because Democrats are loath to appear overly obstructionist on a matter that might be portrayed as central to national security.
The Goss bill tracks current law by stating that the DCI shall “collect, coordinate and direct†the collection of intelligence by the U.S. government—except that the CIA “may not exercise police, subpoena, or law enforcement powers within the United States.â€
The bill then adds new language after that clause, however, saying that the ban on domestic law-enforcement operations applies “except as otherwise permitted by law or as directed by the president.â€
In effect, one former top U.S. intelligence community official told NEWSWEEK, the language in the Goss bill would enable the president to issue secret findings allowing the CIA to conduct covert operations inside the United States—without even any notification to Congress. The former official said the proposal appeared to have been generated by Goss’s staff on the House Intelligence Committee, adding that the language raises the question: “If you can’t control a staff of dozens, how are you going to control the tens of thousands of people who work for the U.S. intelligence community?â€
A CIA spokeswoman said today that, while familiar with the provision, she was not aware of any agency official seeking such a modification to the longstanding ban on the CIA from conducting domestic law-enforcement operations. (Ever since the creation of the CIA in 1947, the agency has been excluded from federal law-enforcement within the United States. That function was left to the FBI—which must operate in conformity to domestic laws and, in more recent years, under guidelines promulgated by the attorney general designed to insure protection of the rights of citizens.)
Sean McCormack, a White House spokesman, said the president’s own proposal for the creation of a national intelligence director—separate from the director of the CIA—to oversee the entire U.S. intelligence community does not envision any change along the lines called for in the Goss bill. “I have not heard any discussion of that,†said McCormack about the idea of allowing the CIA to operate domestically.
Some congressional staffers speculated today that Goss most likely had reached an understanding with President Bush that, if Congress does create the new position of a national intelligence director, he would move into that position rather than serve in the No. 2 position of CIA director. Asked if such a deal had been reached, McCormack responded: “Nothing has been ruled in or out.â€
Goss introduced his legislation, H.R. 4584, on June 16—before the September 11 commission issued its own recommendations for the creation of a national intelligence director as well as a new National Counterterrorism Center that would conduct “joint operational planning†of counterterrorism operations involving both the FBI inside the United States and the CIA abroad. The congressional official familiar with the Goss bill pointed to that proposal as a recognition of the increasingly fuzzy lines between foreign intelligence operations and domestic law enforcement.
The proposal comes at a time when the Pentagon is also seeking new powers to conduct intelligence operations inside the United States. A proposal, adopted last spring by the Senate Intelligence Committee at the request of the Pentagon, would eliminate a legal barrier that has sharply restricted the Defense Intelligence Agency and other Pentagon intelligence agencies from recruiting sources inside the United States.
That restriction currently requires that Pentagon agencies be covered by the Privacy Act, meaning that they must notify any individual they contact as to who they are talking to and what the agency is talking to them about—and then keep records of any information they collect about U.S. citizens. These are then subject to disclosure to those citizens. Pentagon officials say this has made it all but impossible for them to recruit intelligence sources and conduct covert operations inside the country—intelligence gathering, they say, that is increasingly needed to protect against any potential terror threats to U.S. military bases and even contractors. But critics have charged the new provision could open the door for the Pentagon to spy on U.S. citizens—a concern that some said today is only amplified by the language in the Goss bill.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5675992/site/newsweek/
See Also:
http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P2095_0_1_0
"It thus appears that we are no longer a nation of laws, and not of men -- since "authority to set aside the laws is 'inherent in the president.'" Moreover, our government officially encourages members of our own military to use the Nuremberg defense, that they were just "following orders." And it doesn't matter that their conduct might go "so far as to be patently unlawful" -- since the President can set aside any laws he chooses, at his own discretion.
What the hell happened to the United States of America?"
Edited 8/17/2004 5:11 pm ET ET by hayashig

Pages
>"The legislation, introduced by Goss on June 16 and touted as an “intelligence reform” bill, would substantially restructure the U.S. intelligence community by giving the director of Central Intelligence (DCI) broad new powers to oversee its various components scattered throughout the government. "<
>"The language contained in the Goss bill has alarmed civil-liberties advocates. It also today prompted one former top CIA official to describe it as a potentially “dramatic” change in the guidelines that have governed U.S. intelligence operations for more than a half century. "<
Is this an end run that
The United States of America was attacked from within is borders by terrorists that could just as easily have been citizens. The terrorists cells that are currently all across our country are an issue that I continue to be concerned about and am glad that Porter Goss isn't so naive to believe that terrorists are only abroad. Unfortunately for us, the United States is full of crazy people that are citizens, like Timothy McVeigh, who have it in their tiny little minds to hurt others. Yes, we have a right to privacy, but at what point do we decide that safety is a priority? If I am doing something that is a big enough issue for the CIA to be concerned then I should be subject to a loss of privacy. The right to privacy is not paramount to the right to safety. We can't blame the government for allowing 9/11 to happen and then tie their hands from dealing with anything happening in the United States. Civil rights groups are leading people to believe that laws like this will have the CIA putting wire taps on all our phones and cameras in our bedrooms. It is the standard scare tactic to get people so worked up about losing their rights that they lose sight of what it really means. Between the popularity of Onstar, GPS phones, and the availability of information on the Internet, it doesn't seem that privacy is much of a concern to many people anyway.
IMO Goss is angling for the top position, and it is expected that he will use the intelligence gathering to any means Bush's cronies deem necessary. I have stopped believing this this group has any desire to follow the law or the Constitution.
Of course, they want to spy on their opponents--I thought that was obvious from their past tactics.
So because we were attacked we should give up our civil liberties to be safe? You must be young because you don't remember what happen after WWII and the Communist terror the country suffered because of a zealous senator. Our liberties need to be protected, otherwise we are not a free country--but, of course, you would rather be safe the free. Sad!
"Yes, we have a right to privacy, but at what point do we decide that safety is a priority? If I am doing something that is a big enough issue for the CIA to be concerned then I should be subject to a loss of privacy. The right to privacy is not paramount to the right to safety."
I echo hayashig's sentiments and will also add that nothing the government does will make us safer.
Editorial
It's disconcerting to hear that federal agents are making unannounced visits to people's homes for little chats with citizens who might consider expressing some sort of dissent at the upcoming Republican National Convention.
The Justice Department says its goal is to preempt disruptive protests "of a criminal nature" at the New York convention, which starts Aug. 30. They have gone about their mission aggressively, with little regard for basic rights and without evidence that the people they are trying to dissuade are actually intending any criminal activity.
Thousands of protesters plan to march in opposition to the war in Iraq before or during the convention. Others plan to demonstrate for or against other causes.
Recent FBI bulletins about anti-war protests have urged local police to be alert and report "potentially illegal acts" to federal terrorism task forces. Justice Department officials know the potentially insidious impact of their spying: "Given the limited nature of such public monitoring, any possible 'chilling' effect caused by the bulletins would be quite minimal and substantially outweighed by the public interest in maintaining safety and order during large-scale demonstrations," according to a department memo.
In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, concerns spread that the government might use counterterrorism efforts as an excuse to ignore Americans' civil rights. Those concerns became front and center as agents made surprise visits to people's homes and sent "scruffy-looking" agents to infiltrate protest-organizing meetings.
Three members of Congress have called for the Justice Department to investigate the FBI tactics, saying they appeared to represent "systematic political harassment and intimidation of legitimate antiwar protesters."
People associated with three activist groups in Colorado have been questioned by FBI agents. FBI spokesman Joe Parris in Washington says the bureau is interviewing people "that we have reason to think are in a position to have knowledge of plans to commit disruptive acts of a criminal nature."
But the inquiries don't really seem designed to root out criminals. Would-be protesters in Denver, Fort Collins and elsewhere who have been questioned say they feel the FBI is trying to cow them into not demonstrating. A 21-year-old intern with the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker public service group that once won the Nobel Peace Prize, says she and her friends were questioned even though they have no plans to go to New York.
ACLU attorney Mark Silverstein said federal agents are operating in plain sight, typically marching up to someone's door with a clipboard of information and photographs of their targets in hand.
Ironically, Denver recently settled a lawsuit accusing the police of unlawfully keeping intelligence files on people and organizations involved in legal protests. Denver agreed to keep such files only where there was a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Silverstein said two Denver police officers are involved in the federal Joint Terrorism Task Force questioning.
Despite the FBI effort, protests will surely go on, and some demonstrators will be arrested. But the damage will come in the longer run as trust in the government erodes and as people silence themselves just so they won't become part of an FBI spy file.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~417~2343415,00.html
Patriot Act Ineffective and Needlessly Tosses Aside Constitutional Protections
by Tom Maertens
In the climate of fear following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration pushed the USA Patriot Act through Congress with virtually no debate and with no amendments permitted. Some provisions of the act are up for renewal shortly.
Public opinion polls show widespread support for the Patriot Act. The same polls show that few Americans know what is in the act or that it vastly increases the government's power over American citizens.
Under the Patriot Act, the federal government no longer has to show reasonable cause that the wiretap target is involved in criminal activity but only has to assert a national security connection. In that case, the judge cannot reject the request.
The act gives law enforcement agencies unparalleled power to obtain personal and financial records, medical histories, Internet browsing history, bookstore purchases and travel records. It also puts the CIA back in the business of collecting domestic intelligence.
Under the "sneak and peek" provisions of the Patriot Act, the government may conduct a covert search first and seek a regular warrant later. The Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans recently decided that the Patriot Act allows police officers in Louisiana to conduct a brief search of homes or businesses without a search warrant. So much for the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit three months ago against some of the information-gathering procedures employed by the FBI and was told that the existence of the lawsuit was itself under a secrecy order.
It was only after weeks of negotiation that a heavily redacted version of the lawsuit was released to the public.
The House Judiciary Committee asked the FBI recently how it had used its new powers and was told: We can't tell you; it's classified.
The Bush administration used the Patriot Act to hold Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, two American citizens, incommunicado for two years. The Supreme Court recently ruled that U.S. citizens classified as enemy combatants must be granted access to the courts. Before that ruling, the administration held to the belief that it could detain anybody indefinitely that it labeled a terrorist, without legal proceedings.
It is facts like these that prompted Rep. Dan Burton, a conservative Republican, to observe, "An iron veil is descending over the executive branch."
The draft Domestic Security Enhancement Act, the so-called Patriot II Act, would give the government even more power.
It would permit the Department of Justice to strip Americans of their citizenship and seize their assets if they contributed to organizations — even inadvertently — or associated with individuals that the attorney general determined were affiliated with terrorism. Losing your citizenship would mean losing the right to live in the United States.
In addition, the government would no longer be required to disclose the identity of people arrested, even American citizens, as long as the arrest was asserted to be terrorism-related.
Patriot II would provide a gag rule against revealing subpoenas. If your banker or doctor revealed that your records had been subpoenaed by the FBI, he or she could face one to five years in prison.
The events of 9/11 were the result of failures of law enforcement and intelligence coordination and due in large part to our inability to track foreign nationals on U.S. soil. People forget that of the 1,200 people detained after the attacks, not one was convicted of a terrorism-related crime, although almost 800 were deported for immigration offenses.
We can expect terrorist attempts in the future, but mass roundups under the USA Patriot Act are not the way to prevent another 9/11; international and interagency sharing of data and better coordination are.
This fight against al-Qaida is not a threat to our survival such as World War II or the Cold War posed, despite Mr. Bush's efforts to portray himself as a war president.
It must be fought judiciously, using the appropriate means, not with a blunderbuss attack on our civil rights. The wiretap and surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act should be allowed to expire.
Maertens, of Mankato, served on the White House National Security Council staff under presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/opinion/9434439.htm?1c
Now tell me, was this even necessary.
And this is only the beginning. When people are frightened the reptilian brain takes over, and there is little thought to freedom and liberty. "First there's the most primitive of our brains, sometimes referred to as the "reptilian brain" because we share it in common with reptiles like alligators and komodo dragons. The reptile brain has a singular focus: SURVIVAL. It doesn't think in abstract terms, and doesn't feel complex emotions. Instead, it's responsible for fight-or-flight, hunger and fear, attack or run. It's also non-verbal - you can stimulate it with the right words, but it operates purely at the level of visceral stimulus-response. "
Quote from Cheney Speaks to the Reptile Brain by Thom Hartmann
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0817-13.htm
Edited 8/20/2004 2:53 pm ET ET by hayashig
Pages