Where our Civil Liberties?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Where our Civil Liberties?
26
Tue, 08-17-2004 - 5:03pm
Goss’s Wish List

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.”

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 “flexibility”—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.”

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.”

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.”

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?”

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.”

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 08-19-2004 - 11:56pm
< 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. >

I did not say we must give up all of our civil liberties to be safe. Believe it or not, it doesn't have to all or nothing. A typical liberal scare tactic that if we allow the government to take one right away they will automotically take them all away.

< Our liberties need to be protected, otherwise we are not a free country--but, of course, you would rather be safe the free. Sad! >

So, let me get this right, you are saying that if we allow the CIA the right to INVESTIGATE suspicious US civilians we are totalling doing away with our freedom. We have been using these tactics in other countries to gain intelligence on terrorists and nooone was whining about civil liberties then. And yes, I would much rather be safe than whine to protect the freedom of homeland terrorists to plot and plan within our midst. How selfish of me to want to live to use those rights and freedoms we have!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 08-20-2004 - 9:40am

>"CIA the right to INVESTIGATE suspicious US civilians we are totalling doing away with our freedom. "<


See post #9 in this thread. Link to article in that post........


Counter intelligence
FBI questionee Marc Schultz was the lucky one.


http://www.atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2003-07-31/rant.html


Secret Service confiscates anti-Bush drawings by 15-year-old at Prosser High.


http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elinthenews/?msg=6456.1


Above examples when the CIA/FBI start investigating 'suspicious' citizens.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 08-20-2004 - 4:05pm
<>

Because terrorists don't a blinking sign on their head either all citizens are guaranteed their rights, until there is evidence sufficient for a court of law, or no citizen has rights. Let me explain.

In justification for Goss's proposal to give the "newly empowered CIA the “flexibility”—if directed by the president—to oversee and even conduct whatever domestic intelligence and law-enforcement operations might be needed>> you said "The United States of America was attacked from within is borders by terrorists that could just as easily have been citizens." Therefore, the CIA has the right to investigate "suspicious" civilians. Since it's inception, the CIA has been exempt from legal restraints, for this reason it has not been permitted to operate inside the US. As you said, "We have been using these tactics in other countries to gain intelligence on terrorists and nooone was whining about civil liberties then." Did you stop to think that those countries may not have "civil liberties". Lifting this ban would mean that the CIA wouldn't have to respect the laws that protect our rights. Since you defended the decision you agreed with the suspension of civil liberties. Whether you it was an all or nothing situation is irrelevant--the fact is that it is. As the article said under the Goss's proposal Nixon could have legally ordered the Watergate break-in.

<>

Because the CIA doesn't have to provide evidence for their suspicions--anyone can be a suspected terrorist, even you! So, you have given up your rights without even knowing it. Under the Patriot Act, citizens have been deprived of their civil liberties--why is it irrational for us to question the intentions of this proposal. We haven't even mentioned those who have names similar to suspected terrorists--even Sen. Kennedy was refused approval for plane travel because his name was on the terrorists list.

<>

Sadly, whining to protect the freedom of homeland terrorists is the only way to protect your own freedom.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sat, 08-21-2004 - 10:38am

ACLU Seeks Info on Spying on Fresno Peace Group


https://secure.progressive.org/mcwatch04/mc020504.html



He took a lot of notes.


That's how one member of a California anti-war group, Peace Fresno, described


Aaron Kilner, a member of the Fresno County Sheriff's Department, who had infiltrated the group.


To the activists, he was known as Aaron Stokes, and he'd been attending meetings and going to events for more than six months, says Camille Russell, who was president of Peace Fresno last year.


She and Peace Fresno realized he was an infiltrator only after he died in a motorcycle accident at the end of August.


"I saw an article in the Fresno Bee, and I saw this picture of a guy we knew as Aaron Stokes," she recalls. "But the article identified him as Aaron Kilner, a deputy sheriff working for the anti-terrorism unit."


She was shocked, to say the least.


"We thought he was one of us, and when we read this, we felt betrayed," says Russell, an elementary schoolteacher. "It's a very uncomfortable feeling. When we learned he was working for the anti-terrorism unit, we realized we were targeted because of our strong, vocal criticism of the Bush Administration."


She does not appreciate the implication that she is a terrorist.


"It is scary to think that the government would view someone who is simply involved in criticism of the government as a terrorist," she says. "We feel this is a violation of our First Amendment rights, and we want people to know that the government is doing this kind of thing."


The sheriff's department denies it did anything wrong.


"For the purpose of detecting or preventing terrorist activities, the Fresno County Sheriff's Department may visit any place and attend any event that is open to the public, on the same terms and conditions as members of the public generally," says a statement the department released. "Detective Aaron Kilner was a member of the Fresno County Sheriff's Department Anti-Terrorism unit. This unit collects, evaluates, collates, analyzes, and disseminates information on individuals, groups, and organizations suspected of criminal or terrorist activities. This information meets the stringent federal and state guidelines for intelligence gathering and civil rights protections in order to prevent crime and protect the health and safety of residents of Fresno County and the state of California."


The sheriff's department says Peace Fresno is not under investigation.


The ACLU of Northern California and Peace Fresno filed Freedom of Information requests with the FBI and the U.S. Attorney on January 29. The groups are seeking any and all documents the FBI has on Peace Fresno.


In addition, they want any and all documents about the "monitoring, surveillance, infiltration, or investigation of religious organizations or groups, places of worship, community groups, demonstrations, anti-war groups, and other activist groups or individuals in California."


The FOIA request also wants to know "the factors and/or procedures which are used to determine whether a group or individual is to be the target of monitoring, surveillance, infiltration, or investigation."


Peace Fresno has not decided yet whether it will pursue legal action against the Fresno Sheriff's Department or the FBI.


"We're exploring our options," says Catherine Campbell, an attorney for the anti-war group. "Peace Fresno is a very distressed and outraged organization, and the more they reflect on what happened to them the more distressed and outraged they become."


Campbell warns that the infiltration of peace groups may be widespread.


"If it's happening to Peace Fresno, it's happening to others," she says. "The only reason we found out about it is because of a fluke."


The FBI Up to Old Tricks.



https://secure.progressive.org/mcwatch04/mc081704.html



The FBI is intimidating political protesters as in the days of yore.


As many as 40 or 50 people have been contacted by the FBI about their knowledge of possible violent protests at the conventions or other political events, according to The New York Times.


They included Sarah Bardwell, a 21-year-old intern at the American Friends Service Committee in Denver. She was "approached at her home by four FBI agents and two Denver police officers," the ACLU said. "According to Bardwell, the officials at first jokingly told her and her housemates that they were there to do 'community outreach,' but then clarified they were 'doing some preventive measures and investigating.' Bardwell and her housemates believe they were targeted because of their past participation in protests, including anti-war demonstrations."


Sometimes, the FBI visited the homes of parents of the protesters.


Such was the case of three young men in Missouri, who "were trailed by federal agents for several days and subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury," the Times noted.


And the ACLU pointed out that they "were subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury on July 29, the same day they planned on protesting the Democratic convention." The FBI asked them if they knew about any "criminally disorderly behavior" that was being planned.


That's a far cry from terrorism, but the FBI is using the Joint Terrorism Task Force to do these investigations.


"These young men are quite terrified by the experience of being targeted by the Joint Terrorism Task Force because of their protest activities," said Denise Lieberman, legal director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. "The FBI interrogations have had a chilling effect on free speech."


People contacted by the FBI were warned that if you "know anybody planning any criminal acts and do not report them, it's a crime," the ACLU said.


Meanwhile, the AP reports that the FBI is monitoring political web sites and sending "young, scruffy-looking officers posing as activists to protest-organizing meetings."


This article written August 17, 2004


cl-Libraone~



Edited 8/21/2004 10:41 am ET ET by cl-libraone

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Sat, 08-21-2004 - 11:08am
<<"It is scary to think that the government would view someone who is simply involved in criticism of the government as a terrorist," she says. "We feel this is a violation of our First Amendment rights, and we want people to know that the government is doing this kind of thing.">>

Reflections of the 50s, only much worse, McCarthy was only a senator, now it's the president. But of course, the president is looking out for the interests of the people-NOT.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sun, 08-22-2004 - 12:41pm

Looks like no one has the right to free speech when they're around Bush....


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Bush%20Heckler%20Fired


Saturday, August 21, 2004 · Last updated 1:47 p.m. PT


Graphic designer fired after heckling Bush


THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


MARTINSBURG, W.Va. -- A man who heckled President Bush at a political rally was fired from his job at an advertising and design company. The graphic designer said he was told he'd embarrassed and offended a client who provided tickets to the event.


"I was told that my actions reflected badly on the company and that a client was upset," Glen Hiller of Berkeley Springs said.


Hiller was escorted from Hedgesville High School on Tuesday after shouting comments about the Iraq war and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction there. The crowd had easily drowned out Hiller with its chant: "Four more years."


Arriving at his job with Octavo Designs in Frederick, Md., the next morning, Hiller said he was "shocked" to learn he was fired. A woman at the company who declined to give her name confirmed Hiller was axed because of his conduct at the rally.


"They see my actions as negative," Hiller said, adding he'd do the same thing again. "There is no venue for the regular guy to ask a question. We don't have access to people in power. And those events are completely scripted and controlled."


Last month, Charleston City Council apologized to two protesters arrested for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts to the president's July 4 rally. The pair were taken from the event in restraints after revealing T-shirts with Bush's name crossed out on the front and the words "Love America, Hate Bush" on the back. Trespassing charges were ultimately dismissed.


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-29-2003
Mon, 08-23-2004 - 10:35am
Where in the First Amendment are we guaranteed not to suffer consequences of our speech? NOWHERE! While Congress can't make laws that abridge our freedom of speech (and even that comes with its own caveats), Americans need to understand that we're *responsible* for what we say. It's something we teach our children every day. This guy accepted passes to a rally from his employer (who got them from a client) with the intent of staging a protest. He should have known his employer and the client would suffer embarrassment from his behavior, considering that only well-connected Republicans are likely to secure such passes (and considering that his lone voice of opposition was reportedly drowned out by the thunderous "Four More Years" chants). So, he chose his desire to express himself politically over his loyalty to his employer. Just like Whoopi: you're fired :) The bottom line is, short of being thrown in jail or charged without merit (which is the subject of the last paragraph of the article, and bears no resemblance to the primary story), there is no such thing as "consequence-free" speech.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Mon, 08-23-2004 - 11:02am

While I agree fully that we are responsible for our words & actions, I do not agree that someone should be fired because they voice a dissenting opinion.


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Mon, 08-23-2004 - 11:16am
<>

If this were the only case it would be tragic, but it's not so it's dangerous. GWB truly believes he was choosen by God to rule the US, so who can permit a demonstration against God--it's blasphemous. I don't believe GWB knows anything about the Constution except it doesn't forbid gay marriage like the Bible--so it must be WRONG.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-29-2003
Mon, 08-23-2004 - 11:35am
"The guy was at this function on his own time, outside of work." Yes, but he was there only because his employer and the employer's client gave him a ticket to be there. Whether it was during work hours or not, the case can be made that he was indeed there as a representative of his employer. If I go to a weekend training session for my job, do I get to act like an idiot just because it's a Saturday? Also, I suspect (though I agree there's more to the story than was printed in the article) that he was not the only one in attendance from that agency. It's more likely that representatives from the client's office and the agency were together as a group, and that he was the lone -- and loud -- dissenter. Being a self-employed writer, and knowing the mindset of small service companies, I can assure you that the success of a business can ride on your relationship with key clients. It's one thing to simply trade work for pay, without any real emotional "buy-in" or loyalty to the "man." It's quite another to show contempt or disregard for your employer's ability to run his or her business.

As for the sporting event scenario, I think that rooting for another team is much less "charged" than screaming about no WMDs in Iraq at a political rally. But maybe getting drunk and making rude remarks about the client's wife while at a sporting event would qualify. Honestly, I think it's inappropriate to ask employees to attend political functions for just this reason. If you don't agree with the politics, you could theoretically say "no, thanks." But would you be stigmatized for turning it down? Maybe. And that's inappropriate.