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
And if you think the Constitution protects this guy from being fired, you and George should arrange a mutually convenient study date. He could focus on writing his anti-Gay Marriage amendment, and you could read the First Amendment.
I disagree. Here's the first Amendment.In my opinion this employee has redress in the Federal Courts.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The Donstitution does not stand alone; itt must be understood within the framework of its history of ideas. The Supreme Court when interpreting the Constitution must look to the intent of the authors and the interpretations of the Court.
FREE EXPRESSION IN AMERICA
A Documentary History
Edited by SHEILA SUESS KENNEDY
"The purpose of this volume is to demonstrate the extraordinary importance of free expression to the American constitutional system and to detail the social and political tensions that have accompanied the decision of the founders of the United States to restrain the government's authority over the communication of ideas. Those who constructed the American system did not work in a vacuum. While the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights were truly revolutionary as governing instruments, the ideas and ideals that influenced and shaped these documents came out of a rich intellectual tradition. This country's founders built upon the philosophy of the Enlightenment to create a nation where individual rights would enjoy unprecedented protection. Central to their notion of liberty was a belief that the free exchange of ideas is the bedrock upon which all other freedoms depend. They were formed by the Western intellectual tradition, with its emphasis upon science, empiricism, and rationality. It should come as no surprise that a worldview that placed so high a value upon reason would insist upon protecting the intellectual process from state interference. It is truly impossible to understand American constitutional law without first understanding the meaning and importance of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the relationship of that clause to the rest of the First Amendment and indeed the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Taken as a whole, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is nothing less than a celebration of the value of intellectual and moral autonomy. By forbidding government interference with the beliefs of individuals--religious, political, or personal--the First Amendment protects the right of citizens to form opinions freely, to exchange those opinions voluntarily, and to attempt to persuade others of their value."
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=26245678
We learn that their are consequencies to our speach, yet we still have the right to speak. When the company fired the man, it violated labor laws.
Edited 8/23/2004 5:27 pm ET ET by hayashig
I just despise the culture of excusing people from responsibility for their own decisions.
PS -- Maybe in order to please the Peace & Justice protesters in NYC next week, we could bring down the cage from Boston, where the DNC housed all the protesters at that convention. This would appease your desire for freedom of assembly? Use common sense, please. NYC is the prime target for terrorist attacks, and during the RNC next week, we'll need to batton things down pretty tight in order to A: keep life in general moving for the millions of people who live & work here; B: keep all those people safe; and C: ensure we can keep things as orderly as possible, so that we can spot trouble if there is any. Considering that several groups have threatened violence as part of their protests -- and considering that a crowd of the magnitude that these protesters promise is a perfect hiding spot for terrorists -- the dangers of allowing the use of such a massive and difficult-to-control venue as Central Park outweigh the "benefits" of the protesters. Besides, the West side is lovely.
Totally agree! :)
Pages