Freedom: How much will we lose?

[JBMoney]

For Quotes and Discussion:

"Attorney General John Ashcroft, with the support of the president, is
asking an all-too-willing Congress for a rash of expanded police powers,
investigative tools aimed at terrorism that could have serious and
far-reaching consequences for American citizens.

"Among other things, Ashcroft wants the FBI to have the power to snoop on
which Web sites you visit and with whom you're exchanging e-mail, without
the bother of a search warrant. He wants the authority to listen to your
voicemail messages, including those you haven't even heard yet. He wants to
be able to check out your education records. He wants the power to detain
legal immigrants indefinitely without interference from the courts. He wants
to be able to use the results of foreign governments spying on Americans in
court, even if the surveillance is illegal and violates the Fourth
Amendment. And he wants to be able to share investigative information with
the CIA, a practice heretofore banned to prevent spying on Americans at
home.

"And what are many Americans saying? It's the price we pay for freedom. But
how high a price? Does anyone doubt that, once the present crisis is over,
these powers will remain firmly in place? Does anyone doubt that the
potential for abuse still exists in the FBI and other federal agencies? Does
anyone think they will even be able to recognize the America that now seems
destined to come?"

- Columnist Steve Sebelius, 9/23/01

[JBMoney]

"In the wake of genuine concerns about the safety and security of law-abiding Americans, Attorney General John Ashcroft is urging Congress to trash the U.S. Constitution. To be sure, the measures Mr. Ashcroft will place before Congress are being promoted under the cover of counteracting terrorism and preventing future attacks against Americans or on American soil. But the changes that would result from this proposed legislation would allow authorities access to the most private, intimate details of citizens and noncitizens alike, and subject untold Americans to unlawful searches,
seizures and other harassment by government officials.

". . . Any action Congress takes in this time of heightened tensions should
be narrowly tailored -- with comprehensive sunset provisions to ensure that when the immediate emergency has ended, any potential for government abuses will be reduced. To do anything less would make a mockery of the very principles Americans will be defending -- with all of the military,
diplomatic and financial resources at our disposal -- in the months and years to come."

- Las Vegas Review Journal editorial, 9/24/01

[JBMoney]

"Proposed Bush antiterrorism laws hit resistance in the divided House Judiciary panel, which put off a vote on the package amid expressions of concern over erosion of civil liberties. Ashcroft insisted the Constitution would be protected and denied that the Administration is trying to use the crisis to enhance its powers. . . . In an example of the unusual bipartisan opposition which has sprung up involving two elements of the proposal, Rep. Maxine Waters of California, one of the committee's most liberal members and Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, one of its most conservative, jointly argued that the bill, if enacted, could seriously impair civil liberties of ordinary Americans."

- Wall Street Journal, 9/25/01

[JBMoney]

Related??
=======================

Hackers 'branded as terrorists'

Hackers could be labelled as dangerous terrorists under new legislation being proposed by the Bush administration, civil liberties groups have warned.

The Anti-Terrorism Act adds computer hacking to the list of federal terrorism offences, with penalties of up to life imprisonment.

"Treating low-level computer crimes as terrorist acts is not an appropriate response to recent events," said Shari Steele, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based cyber civil liberties group.

The new bill, which would expand law enforcement's freedom to catch and punish terrorists, was put forward by US Attorney General John Ashcroft following the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington.

Broad powers

As well as making hacking a terrorist offence, it would create penalties of up to life imprisonment, adding broad pre-conviction seizure powers and serious criminal threats to those who help or shelter individuals suspected of causing minimal damage to networked computers.

"A relatively harmless online prankster should not face a potential life sentence in prison," said the EFF's Shari Steele.

The bill also eliminates the statute of limitations for terrorist crimes and will apply retroactively. This could affect past hackers and virus writers, who might have otherwise received just a warning or a relatively minor penalty.

Civil liberties groups are concerned that the legislation is being rushed through, without adequate debate on its impact on both security and personal freedoms.

"Congress must take every reasonable step it can to protect our nation against future attacks," said Laura W Murphy of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"The civil liberties we value so much as a society are at stake. We urge you to go slowly," she said.

Cyber warnings

Officials and academics have warned that cyber attacks could be a dangerous part of warfare against the US.

The vast majority of previous politically related cyber attacks have been nuisance attacks, and it is extremely likely that such attacks will follow any US-led military action," said a recent report by the US-based Institute for Security Technology Studies.

It added that, "the potential exists for much more devastating cyber attacks following any US-led retaliation to the 11 September terrorist attacks on America. Such an attack could significantly debilitate US and allied information networks".

Backers of the Anti-Terrorism Act argue the bill is not aimed at teenage hackers.

The clause is one of the many points of the legislation currently under discussion between the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Bush administration.

[RodJSM]

I was interviewed the other day by a Sacramento News & Review reporter for their little "Streetalk" column where they ask a usually lame question and get 4 or 5 people to give an even lamer answer. I declined to give an answer on the record but this time the question was "What civil liberties would you give up to fight terrorism?" My answer is none. You?

[JBMoney]

Era of Big Government Is Back - Big Time
================================

"In just two weeks, the terrorist attacks have turned a two-decade trend
toward less government into a headlong rush for more. . . . Stunned like the
rest of the nation by the brazen terrorist attacks many conservatives have
watched this abrupt reversal with only tepid complaint. . . . But some
conservatives are starting to become more strident. Grover Norquist, head
of the conservative Americans for Tax Reform, said advocates of a big cash
infusion for (federally-subsidized) Amtrak 'should be hanged as war
profiteers.'

". . . Yesterday, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans met with top executives
from hard-hit travel industries, including hoteliers and rental car
agencies. They said that, like the airlines, they deserved government help.
At a news conference, Mr. Evans said the administration was considering tax
relief for the travel companies. The administration is also supporting a
plan to expand the federal government's role in the insurance market. . . .
Under the still-developing proposal, insurance companies would cover damages
up to a point, while the federal government would pay for losses beyond
that.

". . . And just yesterday, Mr. Bush suggested he'd also support federal help
for workers who lose their jobs because of the tragedy, saying his
administration will 'make sure that the displaced worker is given due
consideration in the halls of government.' Meanwhile, in Congress, concern
about using the surplus in the Social Security trust fund to finance this
expansion of government has disappeared.

". . . 'The sentiment and hysteria and the emotion are so high, it's like a
bulldozer and it's rolling,' says GOP Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. 'We're moving
in the direction of bailing everyone out, which is a dangerous precedent.
And we're moving away from the idea that there's a role for the private
sector.'"

- Wall Street Journal, 9/26/01

[JBMoney]

BUSH CONTEMPLATES NATIONAL ID CARD FOR ALL CITIZENS
sent in by JP

(From the Drudge Report)

A highly controversial option has emerged for use in fighting terrorism in the United States: A national ID card which would be issued to every citizen.

A proposal for the creation of a national ID card was presented to President Bush in recent days, top government sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

The ID card plan was included in a classified briefing outlining steps the nation can take to limit exposure to terror attacks.

Bush briefly discussed the ID card option with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, according to insiders.

MORE

"I can tell you this, the president is very reluctant [to issue a national ID card]," a top White House source said on Sunday. "But we must look at all options."

Just as House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt [D-MO] says Congress should quickly move to open debate on security measures such as a national ID card.

"We are in a new world," Gephardt said. "This event will change the balance between freedom and security."

SAFETY FROM A CHIP

ORACLE Chairman and CEO Larry Ellison this weekend called for the United States to create a national identification system -- and offering to donate the software to make it possible -- free-of-charge.

"We need a national ID card with our photograph and thumbprint digitized and embedded in the ID card," Ellison said in an interview Friday night on the evening news of KPIX-TV in San Francisco.

Blair has tentatively approved identity cards which will be introduced for the first time in Britain.

The universal identity card leads major papers in London on Monday:

'ID CARDS FOR ALL' fronts the TIMES.

'IDENTITY CARDS ON THE WAY IN FIGHT ON TERROR' headlines the MAIL.

'WE'RE ALL GOING TO HAVE ID CARDS' splashes the SUN.

MORE

Blair has opted for a voluntary scheme in issuing the card, rejecting a compulsory "on demand" card because of connotations with Nazi Germany, where lack of proper identity cards could result in instant arrest, according to reports.

However, it will be virtually impossible for anyone to live a normal life without the new ID card in England - possession of a valid card will be necessary for boarding an aircraft, buying gas, opening a bank account, starting a job or claiming government benefits.

UK. Home Secretary David Blunkett on Sunday questioned the idea of a "voluntary card".

"It would not be a great deal of help" in the fight against terrorism, Blunkett said on BBC1's On the Record.

Blunkett stressed the need to balance the fight against terrorism with the freedoms of a liberal society.

But he said that his "instincts" were that beating terror must take priority and that politicians' ability to act must not be hamstrung by an excessively legalistic approach to human rights.

New laws are expected to be rushed through the U.K.'s Parliament in coming weeks to allow for the legality of a mandatory ID card.

In a nationwide poll released Sunday, a stunning 85% of Brits would welcome a national ID card system in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the United States, with an overwhelming majority calling for the cards to be packed with information to clearly identify the holder: These include photograph (97%), date of birth (96%) eye color (92%), a finger print (85%), DNA details (75%), criminal records (74%) and religion (67%).

Stateside, U.S. Rep. George Gekas [R-PA], chairman of the House immigration subcommittee, told reporters last week that Congress could no longer reject out of hand a national ID card system for citizens.

In a survey released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, seven of 10 Americans favored a requirement that citizens carry a national identity card at all times. The proposal had particularly strong support from women.

ORACLE's Ellison said in the electronic age, little privacy is left anyway.

"Well, this privacy you're concerned about is largely an illusion,'' he told PIX's anchorman Hank Plante. "All you have to give up is your illusions, not any of your privacy. Right now, you can go onto the Internet and get a credit report about your neighbor and find out where your neighbor works, how much they earn and if they had a late mortgage payment and tons of other information."

[JBMoney]

"Describing herself as 'still tearful' after viewing the World Trade Center site, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told a law school audience on Friday that as part of the country's response to terrorism, 'we're likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country.' ... O'Connor, who spoke at New York University, was the first Supreme Court justice to speak publicly about the event and its possible
legal consequences."

- New York Times, 9/29/01

[JBMoney]

"One of the most surprising results of the September 11 terrorist attacks is the sharp increase in the number of Americans who now trust the federal government. The number of people who trust the government to do the right thing has doubled since last year -- and is now more than three times higher than in 1994.

". . . Many liberals expect the terrorist atrocities could fundamentally alter Americans' political thinking. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam said: 'I think there is the potential that September 11 will turn out to be a turning point for civic America.... There could be some good coming from it if it causes us to become ... more aware of the obligations we have to other people and more open-minded about the role of government.'"

- Columnist James Bovard, Future of Freedom Foundation update, 10/4/01

[JBMoney]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2001/10/17/national1959EDT0880.DTL

Lawmakers break logjam on new anti-terrorism laws, surveillance measures to expire in 2005

JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

(10-17) 17:52 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

New authority wanted by President Bush to wiretap and eavesdrop on suspected terrorists, including secret police searches of their homes and records, would expire in four years under a compromise negotiated Wednesday, according to congressional sources.

The White House had sought unfettered and permanent authority for so-called roving wiretaps to monitor telephone and computer communications of terrorism suspects no matter where they take place, but encountered stiff opposition from civil rights and privacy advocates in both parties.

House and Senate negotiators agreed Wednesday afternoon to the compromise sunset date of Dec. 31, 2005, for the expanded authority to expire, said four top congressional aides, all speaking on condition of anonymity.

"It's a done deal," said one GOP House aide. Three Senate aides, one Republican and two Democrats, confirmed the deal.

Before departing on a trip to Asia, President Bush met Wednesday morning with leaders in both parties and urged them to come to a speedy agreement on anti-terrorism legislation containing the new law enforcement measures. The bill had been stalled for more than a month, primarily over the new electronic surveillance authority.

The GOP-controlled House originally wanted a three-year expiration date, and then changed it to five years after discussion with the White House. The Democrat-controlled Senate did not include any expiration date in its legislation but many Democrats said they supported the idea.

Lawmakers have been trying to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions of the anti-terrorism legislation since Monday, despite the anthrax scares in the Capitol complex.

"Good progress was made on that this afternoon," Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Wednesday evening.

It was not immediately known when the bill would make it to the House and Senate floors. Because of the anthrax scare, the House will not be in session again until next Tuesday at the earliest.

There is also a disagreement on whether money laundering legislation should be included in the anti-terrorism package. The Senate version has such legislation in it. The House passed that legislation separately on Wednesday.

The aides said that portion of the bill was still being negotiated, but no resolution had been reached.

The anti-terrorism expiration date means that Congress will have to renew the wiretapping and electronic surveillance portion of the anti-terrorism package or they will expire.

Both the House and Senate anti-terrorism measures would expand the FBI's wiretapping authority, impose stronger penalties on those who harbor or finance terrorists and increase punishment of terrorists.

However, House leaders insisted on changing the Senate package to put an expiration deadline on the most intrusive of the new measures, including roving wiretaps.

"As long as they are temporary, we will get better cooperation from the agencies until such time as we look at the question: 'Do we give them complete authority?"' said House Majority Leader Richard Armey, R-Texas.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The House anti-terrorism bill is H.R. 3108. The Senate bill is S. 1510.

[JBMoney]

Should have posted this first:
===========================

http://www.aclu.org/congress/l100801d.html

HOW THE SENATE ANTI-TERRORISM BILL WOULD CONVERT DISSENT INTO BROADLY DEFINED "TERRORISM

Section 803 of the Uniting and Strengthening America Act ("USA Act") creates a broadly defined new crime of domestic terrorism. The PATRIOT Act has a similar provision. We oppose this definition of terrorism because it is unnecessary to respond to terrorism and could be used to prosecute dissidents.

Under federal law there are already three definitions of terrorism - international terrorism, terrorism transcending national borders and federal terrorism. The September 11th attacks triggered all three of these definitions.

Under Section 803 of the USA Act, a person commits the crime of domestic terrorism if within the U.S. they engage in activity that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any State and appear to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.

The Administration has not adequately explained why this new crime should be created or why the definitions in existing anti-terrorism laws are insufficient. This over-broad terrorism definition would sweep in people who engage in acts of political protest if those acts were dangerous to human life. People associated with organizations such as Operation Rescue and the Environmental Liberation Front, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) protesters, have engaged in activities at that could subject them to prosecution as terrorists.

Under the USA Act, once the government decides that conduct is "domestic terrorism," law enforcement agents have the authority to charge anyone who provides assistance to that person, even if the assistance is an act as minor as providing lodging. They would have the authority to wiretap the home of anyone who is providing assistance. Also, the government could prosecute the person who provided their home under a new crime of "harboring" a terrorist or for "providing material support" to "terrorists."

The ACLU does not oppose the criminal prosecution of people who commit acts of civil disobedience if those acts result in property damage or place people in danger. That type of behavior is already illegal and perpetrators of these crimes can be prosecuted and subjected to serious penalties. However, such crimes often are not "terrorism." The legislative response to terrorism should not turn ordinary citizens into terrorists.

In addition, this provision gives the federal government the authority to prosecute violations of state law, which should be prosecuted in state courts, not in federal court.

This provision should be deleted from the Senate bill.

[Laurie]

Rod......the answer of course, would be none.

Answering yes would only defeat the purpose of what our forefather's fought so hard for us to have now.

[wrecker05]

Personally I suspect that the government monitors web traffic a little bit anyways.
National ID cards, great now we'll have to carry an ID card, passport, drivers license, the smart chip implanted in our ears. Why can't they do all this with our passports? Anyone?

[This message has been edited by wrecker05 (edited 10-24-2001).]

[Butterlugs]

Go to WSJ opinion Journal (you'll have to fill out a response) and read the 10-23 featured article by Jay wink. It deals directly with the historical setting for this discussion

For those of you that can't access the editorial and went to government schools, heres a recap.

In WWII Roosevelt interned the Japanese, nota a bright spot in our history but the republic survived.

It was Lincoln who suspended Habeus corpus, and when it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme court he ignored it! He jailed anti-war demonstrators.

And who would want to forget the Alien and Sedition act of 1798 invoked by Adams, to deport any citizen considered dangerous to the nations welfare.

And since we're talking about sedition, how about the ever popular Sabotage and Sedition Act of 1918 which punished TALK that was disloyal!

We managed to survive those, we'll survive a sunsetted Ashcroft. I'll trade my freedom of e-mail traffic for the freedom to fly around the country.

The point remains, those excesses all occurred while we were at war. We are either at war now or we are not. I believe we are so I expect some infringement on my personal freedoms in exchange for greater public security...kind of like I'm giving up my right to be wiretapped without a court order for the benefit of everyone on this board.

If these proposals, as the biased media reports them are disturbing then ask yourself if we are really at war. If you do not think we really are at war with a much larger enemy with greater resources than we originally gave them credit for then I think your opinion will be changed by events and plots that are uncovered. In 1998 they wanted to kill the pope, simulaneously blow up 11 planes and smash an airliner with nerve gas into DC. These guys aren't just menopausal they are certified dangerous.

[wrecker05]

I would think that at least if over restrictive laws were enacted that they would be challenged in a court of law.

[Eddy's Geist]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JBMoney:
Related??

As well as making hacking a terrorist offence, it would create penalties of up to life imprisonment, adding broad pre-conviction seizure powers and serious criminal threats to those who help or shelter individuals suspected of causing minimal damage to networked computers.

"A relatively harmless online prankster should not face a potential life sentence in prison," said the EFF's Shari Steele.

The bill also eliminates the statute of limitations for terrorist crimes and will apply retroactively. This could affect past hackers and virus writers, who might have otherwise received just a warning or a relatively minor penalty.
</font>
This is worrisome... In my opinion, defacing a web site for political reasons really isn't much different then say.. going up to a billboard and spray painting the same message. Should an act of vandalism be a life sentence?

This is even more worrisome for me because I've been known to be an idiot (I have references, damnit!) and "fool around" just for the sake of figuring out how something works.

I wonder if the retroactive provision was set in to this bill as a kind of trojan horse. I would think that it would be unconstitutional to apply punishment retroactively to a crime. If this is determined to be unconstituinal would the whole bill be thrown out or just the retroactive part?

[JBMoney]

"If the United States is at war against terrorism to preserve freedom, a new coalition of conservatives and liberals is asking, why is it doing so by wholesale abrogation of civil liberties? They cite the Halloween-week passage of the antiterrorism bill - a new law that carries the almost preposterously gimmicky title: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" (USA PATRIOT Act). Critics both left and right are saying it not only strips Americans of fundamental rights but does little or nothing to secure the nation from terrorist attacks.

"Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of only three Republican lawmakers to buck the House leadership and the Bush administration to vote against this legislation, is outraged not only by what is contained in the antiterrorism bill but also by the effort to stigmatize opponents. Paul tells Insight, 'The insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and suggest I'm not patriotic
because I insisted upon finding out what is in it and voting no. I thought it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it - and therefore I'm somehow not a patriot. That's insulting.' Paul confirms rumors circulating in Washington that this sweeping new law, with serious implications for each and every American, was not made available to members of Congress for review before the vote."

- Insight On the News, 12/3/01

[Eddy's Geist]

Ron Paul is a great man. Wasn't he also the guy that got the "banking reform" bill killed a couple of years ago. I forget what they called it but basically all banks were to give all of it's customer's financial data into a national database. One more of Clintons sicko tricks. Was it called "Know your customer" bill?