Ashcroft Takes Terror Case To Senate |
Posted by FoM on September 25, 2001 at 10:38:53 PT By Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press Writer Source: Associated Press Punishing terrorists as harshly as drug dealers and mafia dons and updating the FBI's wiretapping abilities are necessary for the Justice Department to battle terrorism, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Tuesday. Ashcroft, who testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked Congress to pass an entire anti-terrorism package before the end of the year. But when asked to pare down his proposed legislation to the most important items, Ashcroft picked increasing the terrorism penalties and updating the technology laws. ``Those are the two things that are priorities,'' Ashcroft said. The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., promised to work with Ashcroft on getting some parts of his legislation through the Senate, although Leahy has an anti-terrorism proposal of his own that he wants lawmakers to consider. ``There are a whole lot of things we can work on and we can agree on,'' he told Ashcroft. This was Ashcroft's second day on Capitol Hill calling for his anti-terrorism legislation. The attorney general acknowledged in testimony to the House Judiciary Committee Monday that the proposals would not have prevented the attacks but said they are necessary for a safer future. ``The mere fact that we can't do everything shouldn't keep us from doing what we can do,'' he says. ``The American people do not have the luxury of unlimited time in erecting the necessary defenses to future terrorist acts,'' the attorney general said. Questions about the constitutionality of his provisions and how they would affect Americans' civil liberties have prompted lawmakers to slow down the legislation. The House committee had planned to vote on the legislation Tuesday, but Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who chairs the panel, delayed it until late next week to give the panel time to work out worries aired by some lawmakers. ``We are very close to reaching a bill that has bipartisan support and that would pass the House of Representatives,'' Sensenbrenner said. Ashcroft, a former senator, wants Congress to expand the FBI's wiretapping authority, impose stronger penalties on those who harbor or finance terrorists and increase punishments of terrorists. ``Every day that passes with outdated statutes and the old rules of engagement is a day that terrorists have a competitive advantage,'' Ashcroft said. But he said the new powers would not necessarily have prevented the attacks two weeks ago that left more than 6,500 people dead or missing in New York City, at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. ``We do know that without them the occurrence took place, and we do know that each of them would strengthen our ability to curtail, disrupt and prevent terrorism,'' Ashcroft said. ``But we have absolutely no assurance.'' Both Democrats and Republicans on the committee said the issues are too important to rush the legislation. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the panel's senior Democrat, said the parties had agreed on 16 items in Ashcroft's package, but that some others ``give us constitutional trouble.'' Ashcroft's proposal also would allow immigrants suspected of terrorism to be held indefinitely -- something Conyers said the courts already have viewed as unconstitutional. Concerns also were raised about the proposed use in U.S. courts of electronic surveillance gathered by foreign governments with methods that violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. ``While some would say that's unconstitutional on its face, let me be more polite: We're deeply troubled,'' Conyers said. Ashcroft said he was sure his bill would pass constitutional muster. ``We are conducting this effort with a total commitment to protect the rights and privacy of all Americans and the constitutional protections we hold dear,'' he said. On the Net: Justice Department: http://www.usdoj.gov Source: Associated Press Related Articles: Open Borders are Early Casualties of War Land Of The Free? - Arianna Huffington War on Terrorism, Unseen Fronts May Be Crucial Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
Comment #13 posted by FoM on September 25, 2001 at 14:17:40 PT |
I think anything could happen and it wouldn't shock me. I'm almost beyond shock. I wonder if they will close in the site after a little more time or will they continue to keep digging to find he 12 tons gold and lots of silver? For health reasons they should close it up soon but the money's down there. I wonder what they'll do? [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #12 posted by Silent_Observer on September 25, 2001 at 13:56:24 PT |
Picture this... A couple of years go by, and some turn of events in this war on terrorism precipitates some kind of military action. Then, in a show of unity and non-partisanship, they introduce an emergency bill that does away with the 2004 elections because it could be too divisive - after all, we're in a state of war. Am I going crazy here? [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #11 posted by Silent_Observer on September 25, 2001 at 13:44:19 PT |
I think we may well be on the last dying edges of free speech, as we know it. I wonder how long it will be before they take away the vote... [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #10 posted by Silent_Observer on September 25, 2001 at 13:42:06 PT |
This is takeover. The more I think about all this, the clearer it gets how the situation benefits our politicians. Think about this. Not one of them has been touched by this. All the photo-ops you could want - some even bending the term limit rules to stay, some who had decided not to run again suddenly changing their minds because of the situation (Fred Thompson). Guess where the gold is, folks? [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #9 posted by krutch on September 25, 2001 at 13:28:34 PT:
|
...Why does the FAA not improve airport security? They have done next to nothing on this since the attacks. At Philly international a man was able to get through security with a briefcase full of sharp implements. I have no problems with searches of airline customers. This is not unconstitutional. Airline customers can be made to submit to a search of their carry on luggage as a condition of getting on the plane. We have allowed searches of people attending stadium events, such as concerts and football games, for years. Phones lines and e-mail are a different story. The government has no right to listen in without a warrant as these things are all part of the puiblic domain, and no harm has ever come to anyone directly as result of a telephone call or an e-mail. Leave it to Ashcroft to come up with an idea that violates everyones civil rights rather than dealing with the specific problem of airline security. Unlike his unamerican proposal better airline security could have prevented this attack. "One and One is eleven, two and two is twenty-two. Won't somebody please tell me what the government is trying to do." - Frank Zappa [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #8 posted by FoM on September 25, 2001 at 13:03:47 PT |
Hi Lehder, I was wondering about more banners but I wasn't sure which organizations. Delicate ground these days. Ron Bennett put the Red Cross banner up for me. Maybe he would do a couple more. I could email him and ask him. It meets the non profit requirements. http://www.americanlibertyfoundation.org/banners.htm I don't want any political web sites, because we all believe our own way, but sites about liberty or free speech would be good. I don't know how many banners I can have put on either. I should probably call Ron instead of emailing him maybe. I'll try to do that later today if I get a little free time. If not today in the next few days. Meanwhile a couple suggestions would be appreciated for banners. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #7 posted by Lehder on September 25, 2001 at 12:51:45 PT |
thanks, tdm, for the link. it's exactly what is needed. i have never seen any of their ads - but pg 2 of the link explains that they are to be shown soon. i'll subscribe to their bulletin, Liberty Wire. here is page 2 of the link where you can click to get the bulletin: http://www.americanlibertyfoundation.org/main.htm They also have a banner that can be displayed on supporting websites. FoM? ----- it's madmen's, not madmens', sheesh. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #6 posted by FoM on September 25, 2001 at 12:42:33 PT |
Hi Jean,
I feel just like you do. This might just be the NWO everyone talks about. You make perfect sense to me. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #5 posted by Jeaneous on September 25, 2001 at 12:36:35 PT:
|
The government has been talking of the slippery slope that this war could get us into. Now I am beginning to see what that slope is. Please all bear with my insanity for a minite. Has anyone heard about the sun "wave" that is to hit this afternoon?... That we might lose phone and cable service due to the wave hitting the satalites in space. Can we possibly being tapped into? I have watched this since it occurred and am seeing what I feared I would. We are stong as a nation, as one, good against bad, but the areas of "bad" are getting larger. I saw a report on CNN that the talban is supported by "drug money" and that one statement tells me we are in for it. I am afraid that we have arrived at the New World Order and it will be us citizens that will suffer the protection of this government. I believe our government is lying directly to us to enable their own agenda, not to "protect" it's citizens. Sorry if this makes no sense.... but things really don't feel right with the direction that things are going..... *The More Laws, The More Criminals* [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #4 posted by tdm on September 25, 2001 at 12:35:08 PT:
|
Harry Browne understands this problem and co-founded the American Liberty Foundation in response. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #3 posted by Lehder on September 25, 2001 at 12:24:36 PT |
I'm sorry that your comment does not offer me anything practical. How do you suppose the government will respond to the request for a moratorium? That is de facto legalization. I propose stronger measures. If I were trapped in a house full of drunken maniacs I would call for help. I would call for people strong enough to take the madmens' whisky away from them, knock the wind out of them and get me out of there. I urge foreign governments and institutions who are unhappy with U.S. policies, and who are civilized enough not to bomb us, to 1) speak out without compunction, loud enough to be heard on our TV sets and 2) stop buying our treasury notes, bills and bonds. Take the money away. Let U.S. interest rates soar. Get people's attention. Invest elsewhere. It may not pay as much, but you won't be invaded and destroyed either. Read the writing on the bonds: drug-free, toe the line, finance our wars, destabilize the world, destroy cultures, kill. You'll avoid going to war with America - you never know who is next - and save me a lot of trouble too. Thank you. The Chinese, by the way, currently own enough U.S. debt that, were they to dump it all, we would have terrible problems. Totalitarian movements end in political and economic collapse, warfare, destruction and death. Unless otherwise circumvented, and that I would like to see. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #2 posted by FoM on September 25, 2001 at 11:29:49 PT |
At least a temporary cease fire in the states on the drug war would be a good beginning. They can separate terrorism from the drug war if they want too. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #1 posted by Lehder on September 25, 2001 at 11:23:23 PT |
Harsh penalties and the destruction of the Constitution have proved ineffective against drug cartels? How effective will they be against suicide bombers? ``We do know that without them the occurrence took place, and we do know that each of them would strengthen our ability to curtail, disrupt and prevent terrorism,''Ashcroft said. Speak for yourself. I know better. We also know that with our current policies they took place. ``The mere fact that we can't do everything shouldn't keep us from doing what we can do,''he says. So do anything at all. If you have no water, throw gas on the fire. Anything! Our officials can be regarded, individually and collectively, only as insane. I mean this quite literally, the same as the entire Nazi heirarchy could rightfully be labeled insane. Only if this fact is accepted can progress be made in taming our government. It's no use to try and reason with people like Ashcroft or to petition our government with well-meaning counsel. It does no good to point out moral niceties or offer practical advice to a man who is crazy, extremely drunk and violent. Yet to make any headway we must recognize this as the condition of our government. Then we can ask, "How does one deal with a madman?" Unfortunately, we are dealing not with a single maniac who showed up on street one day. We find ourselves, rather, the unwilling guest in his house among all his drunken and crazy relatives, all of them shouting, angry at us and blocking the door. We got into this mess by various failures, but I rank at the top of them all the sinister influence of government and corporate controlled television that permits the presentation of only a single viewpoint and condems, even criminalizes, all others. This circumstance alone has created an unstable system in which the smallest mistake is compounded, by maintaining it and buttressing it with ever larger errors, into universally fatal policies in every aspect of governance. Whoever attacked us has clearly given up on diplomatic procedures. We had better find ways to get our message on TV. PAZ, 'Carlos' [ Post Comment ] |
Post Comment | |