Prev topicNext topicHelp

Topic 46 of 96: suspension of civil liberties as a response to terrorism

Fri, Sep 21, 2001 (18:15) | Paul Terry Walhus (terry)
There is a hue and cry to gain access to our communications now so we can intercept the commiques of terrorist conspirators. We have the capability to listen in on the world's phone conversations via "Echelon" which intercets and records and scans for keywords on a huge number of phone calls. We have a limited ability to intercept encrypted communications.

Yet, even if we had access to every communication around the globe, how could we possibly sift through and decipher this morass?

What will we lose of our civil liberties? And will we ever get them back? War on terrorism may not have and end point like the past wars.

Added to this is the fact that Bin Laden and those of his ilk may use low tech methods or no tech methods to throw us off, like human couriers and just not using any electronic communications.

19 responses total.

 Topic 46 of 96 [news]: suspension of civil liberties as a response to terrorism
 Response 1 of 19: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Mon, Sep 24, 2001 (10:52) * 10 lines

Broaching a controversial subject that has gained visibility
since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Oracle Chairman and
CEO Larry Ellison is calling for the United States to create
a national identification card system -- and offering to
donate the software to make it possible.

 Topic 46 of 96 [news]: suspension of civil liberties as a response to terrorism
 Response 2 of 19: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Thu, Oct 18, 2001 (09:41) * 6 lines 
Your new id card.

 Topic 46 of 96 [news]: suspension of civil liberties as a response to terrorism
 Response 3 of 19: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Mon, Oct 29, 2001 (08:58) * 53 lines>

Law and Order
John Dean: 'Liberties lost: unintended consequences of the anti-terror law'
Posted on Sunday, October 28 @ 08:47:15 EST
By John W. Dean, MSNBC

When President Bush signed the sweeping new anti-terrorism legislation into
a law, providing federal law enforcement officials with powerful new weapons
to more effectively fight terrorism, he proved Supreme Court Justice Sandra
Day O'Connor prescient. A little less than a month earlier, Justice O'Connor
advised a law school audience in Manhattan 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."

While this new anti-terrorism law was certainly not designed to take away
civil liberties of Americans, its unintended consequences threaten
fundamental constitutional rights of people who have nothing to do with
terrorism. The well-meaning but careless exuberance of our lawmakers is


More attention appears to have been given finding a title for the new law
than the substance of its provisions. The "Uniting and Strengthening America
by Providing Appropriate Tools Required To Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
Act," as Rep. Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, noted during the
House debate, is a truly "high-flying acronym, it is the PATRIOT bill, it
is the USA bill, it is the stand up and sing the 'Star Spangled Banner'

It is also a law, Frank lamented, that was processed by Congress "in the
most undemocratic way possible, and it is not worthy of this institution."

No hearings were held in either the House or Senate on the USA PATRIOT Act,
and few -- if any -- members of Congress were really aware of what was
actually in this massive, complex, highly technical 30,000-word statute,
which is divided into ten titles, with more than 270 sections and endless
subsections that cross-reference and amend a dozen, or more, different

There is a concept in the legislative process called "regular order." It is
the time- tested procedure to make certain that our laws are carefully
considered. The USA PATRIOT Act was jammed through the House and Senate,
with those calling for regular order being labeled unpatriotic. In fact, the
66 Republicans and Democrats in the House and the one member of the Senate
who refused to be railroaded believed that law enforcement officials should
have the tools needed to fight terrorists, but they should not be created
at the expense of basic American freedoms.

 Topic 46 of 96 [news]: suspension of civil liberties as a response to terrorism
 Response 4 of 19: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Wed, Nov 14, 2001 (07:03) * 17 lines 

"In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a Communist."

"Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a Jew."

"Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist."

"Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't
speak up because I was a Protestant."

"Then they came for me--and by that time no one
was left to speak up."

Pastor Martin Niemoller, 1892-1984

 Topic 46 of 96 [news]: suspension of civil liberties as a response to terrorism
 Response 5 of 19: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Sat, Nov 24, 2001 (21:10) * 14 lines 
The Detroit Free Press has an article on what the FBI wants law enforcement
to ask the 5,000 Middle Eastern men they are supposed to question

Visitors to U.S. can expect probing terrorism questions

a summary of the questions

and the actual memo

 Topic 46 of 96 [news]: suspension of civil liberties as a response to terrorism
 Response 6 of 19: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Sat, Nov 24, 2001 (21:32) * 24 lines 
From a lead story in the Sunday NYT:


As Pentagon officials begin designing military tribunals for suspected
terrorists, they are considering the possibility of trials on ships at sea
or on United States installations, like the naval base in Guantánamo Bay,
Cuba. The proceedings promise to be swift and largely secret, with one
military officer saying that the release of information might be limited to
the barest facts, like the defendant's name and sentence. Transcripts of
the proceedings, this officer said, could be kept from public view for
years, perhaps decades ...

President Bush's authorization of secret military tribunals for noncitizens
accused of terrorism and the systematic interviewing of 5,000 young Middle
Eastern men in the country on temporary visas is well known. But broad new
powers are also contained in more obscure provisions.

A recent rule change published without announcement in the Federal Register
gives the government wide latitude to keep noncitizens in detention even
when an immigration judge has ordered them freed.

 Topic 46 of 96 [news]: suspension of civil liberties as a response to terrorism
 Response 7 of 19: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Sat, Nov 24, 2001 (21:35) * 22 lines

November 24, 2001

Spain Sets Hurdle for Extraditions


MADRID, Nov. 23 -- Spain will not extradite the eight men it
has charged with complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks unless the
United States agrees that they would be tried by a civilian court
and not by the military tribunals envisioned by President Bush,
Spanish officials said today.

The officials said the United States was informed this week of
the Spanish stance, and several experts predicted today that
other countries in the 15-nation European Union would balk at
handing prisoners over to the Americans without similar guarantees.


 Topic 46 of 96 [news]: suspension of civil liberties as a response to terrorism
 Response 8 of 19: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Sat, Nov 24, 2001 (21:40) * 4 lines

Overstepping sovereignty: Antiterror law gives U.S. sweeping Internet power

 Topic 46 of 96 [news]: suspension of civil liberties as a response to terrorism
 Response 9 of 19: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Sat, Nov 24, 2001 (21:40) * 3 lines 
FBI computer surveillance plans:

 Topic 46 of 96 [news]: suspension of civil liberties as a response to terrorism
 Response 10 of 19: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Sun, Nov 25, 2001 (18:33) * 1 lines 
Biometrics is going to skyrocket in the next few years. A good stock buy might be biometric companies.

 Topic 46 of 96 [news]: suspension of civil liberties as a response to terrorism
 Response 11 of 19: suzee   (suzee202000) * Tue, Dec  4, 2001 (00:35) * 42 lines 
Ashcroft Ignores the Lessons of the Last Roundup
November 29, 2001

TODAY THEIR names do not instill fear.

They include Scalia and D'Amato, DiMaggio and Stallone, Grasso and Gallo. These names are shared now by people who hold positions of high public trust, or guarantee high gross at the box office. They are leaders of business, or legends for all time.

In another day, these were names of people - dark people with exotic customs - who were officially branded by the U.S. government as a threat to the nation.

They were roused from their jobs and from their sleep. They were dragged in without charge or guarantee of ever hearing one. They were brought before special tribunals, prohibited from seeing secret evidence against them.

They were ripped from their families and held indefinitely. Their reputations were ruined; their livelihoods destroyed.

They were, after all, aliens. Italy, their country of origin, was the enemy. It was war. And so it was ordered.

The report of the U.S. Justice Department on the treatment of Italian Americans during World War II is either perfectly timed or perfectly ill-timed, depending on your point of view. It was released this week because Congress ordered it a year ago. Lawmakers could not have known, then, how exquisitely apt the study would be now.

The law requiring the report has in its title a presumption by Congress that there was something terribly wrong about this ensnarement due to ethnicity. The law is "The Wartime Violation of Italian-American Civil Liberties Act." It assumes a clear violation, even though it was wartime.

History's voice speaks through these pages. It has a tone of truth not heard from the current Justice Department, with its policy toward Mideastern immigrants that bears such resemblance to this ugly ancestor.

In the immediate aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the roundup not only of Japanese Americans, but of German and Italian Americans, some of whom had lived and worked in the United States for 40 or 50 years. But even before that, in the 1930s, J. Edgar Hoover had prepared.

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation drew up a list of those thought to be security risks to the nation," the report states. Those thought to be "most dangerous" were leaders of ethnic and cultural organizations. Others were deemed suspicious because they belonged to these clubs or simply because they were "known to support" them.

Then, as now, the questions put to the immigrants (some already had become U.S. citizens) bore no discernible relation to risk. One young woman's father was asked why his daughter spoke French and Italian so well; she lost her job at Saks Fifth Avenue, where she sometimes interpreted for foreign customers, because of his detention.

Today's FBI wants to ask 5,000 legal aliens from Mideastern countries how they "felt" when they heard news of the attack. The lawmen would also like to know whether these immigrants noticed anyone who reacted "in a surprising or inappropriate way."

Then, as now, arrest could come on minor violations, overlooked if commited by someone who was not ethnically suspect. Theresa Borelli was arrested repeatedly for violating curfews that applied to Italian Americans in California. Her crime: making hospital visits to her paralyzed son, who'd been wounded in the Army overseas.

Then, as now, it was government policy to detain immigrants as a way of soothing public nerves.

The act of wartime apprehensions, according to an Immigration and Naturalization Service document cited in the report, "served two important purposes: [It] assured the public that our government was taking firm steps to look after the internal safety of the nation, thereby preventing the growth of war hysteria; and it took out of circulation men and women whose loyalty to the United States was doubtful and who might therefore commit some inimical act against the nation."

Congress required this history to be revealed. It told the Justice Department to use the review "to determine how civil liberties can be better protected during national emergencies."

This clause is mostly ignored by John Ashcroft, who signed the report. Instead, the current attorney general merely states his belief that his department is doing just fine, this time.

 Topic 46 of 96 [news]: suspension of civil liberties as a response to terrorism
 Response 12 of 19: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Tue, Dec 25, 2001 (10:57) * 16 lines 
Will Safire warns

The universal use and likely abuse of the national ID -- a discredit card --
will trigger questions like: When did you begin subscribing to these
publications and why were you visiting that spicy or seditious Web site?
Why are you afraid to show us your papers on demand? Why are you paying
cash? What do you have to hide? ...

Beware: It is not just an efficient little card to speed you though lines
faster or to buy you sure-fire protection from suicide bombers. A national
ID card would be a ticket to the loss of much of your personal freedom. Its
size could then be reduced for implantation under the skin in the back of
your neck.

 Topic 46 of 96 [news]: suspension of civil liberties as a response to terrorism
 Response 13 of 19: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Sat, Dec 29, 2001 (11:35) * 36 lines
Bush Agent Removed From Flight
Associated Press Writer

December 27, 2001, 1:42 PM EST

BALTIMORE -- An Arab-American Secret Service agent assigned to
President Bush's security detail was removed from an American Airlines
flight after the pilot questioned his credentials, the Secret Service
said Thursday.

American Airlines spokesman Todd Burke said "inconsistencies" in
paperwork filled out by the armed agent prompted his removal Tuesday.
The captain decided a more thorough check was needed to confirm the
identity of the agent, the spokesman said.

Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said
Thursday that the agent told him he felt he had been kicked off the
Baltimore-to-Dallas flight because of his religion and ethnicity.

FBI spokesman Pete Gullota said an incident similar to the one Tuesday
occurred shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Gullota said an armed, off-duty FBI agent from the Baltimore office was
not allowed to board a plane by a pilot despite following the security
procedures for armed agents. Gullota refused to identify the airline
but said the issue was cleared up and resulted in the pilot's

"This, unfortunately, is not the first time something like that has
happened," Gullota said. "In most instances the airlines are very happy
to have us on-board. We don't just don't show up at gate armed. We go
through routine and a whole lot of people are notified."

 Topic 46 of 96 [news]: suspension of civil liberties as a response to terrorism
 Response 14 of 19: suzee   (suzee202000) * Sat, Dec 29, 2001 (13:50) * 21 lines

The New York Times
December 28, 2001

The Antiterror Bandwagon

Since the Bush administration announced plans to proceed with military tribunals and other limitations on liberties in the war against terror, foreign leaders have used the American example to justify all manner of repressive acts at home. It is a lamentable — and predictable — response to misguided American leadership in this area.

Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, has repeatedly used the events of Sept. 11 and the campaign against terror to demand a free hand to use scorched-earth policies in what is essentially a domestic separatist conflict in Chechnya. Washington has obliged by muting its criticism. In Egypt, government officials have muzzled the political opposition in the name of fighting terror, policies now praised by the Bush administration.

The misuse of Washington's antiterror campaign, however, is not limited to countries where terror is a problem. Unscrupulous governments and militaries are invoking the threat to tar their opponents or create draconian new laws.

One example is Guatemala. The greatest potential terrorist threat in Guatemala today comes from military and retired military officials. These men have long been behind a policy of intimidation and even murder of activists for human rights and Mayan Indians. Yet in the wake of Sept. 11, this group has acquired enhanced powers. In November, at the urging of the United States, Guatemala established a new antiterror commission, which will be led by a retired military officer. The commissioner will direct a new interagency security committee dominated by military men. President Alfonso Portillo also recently switched Defense Minister Eduardo Arévalo Lacs, a retired general, to the post of interior minister. Mr. Arévalo Lacs has denounced human rights groups as bent on the country's destabilization.

In Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe has been even more brazenly opportunistic. Mr. Mugabe — who receives oil and financial help from the Libyan dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi — is desperate to win a fifth term in elections likely to be held in February or March. He has begun to tar as terrorists his democratic political opposition, white farmers who object to the expropriation of their land, foreign and local journalists and even the British government. His government has proposed a new security bill that punishes terrorism and other vague offenses with the death penalty.

Too many leaders in the world are looking for excuses to limit the liberties of their adversaries. It is inevitable that America's new policies would provide powerful new justifications. The Bush administration can limit the damage by demanding high standards of conduct from America's allies and conducting the war on terrorism with minimum damage to civil liberties at home.

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information

 Topic 46 of 96 [news]: suspension of civil liberties as a response to terrorism
 Response 15 of 19: sirichai  (osk) * Sat, Dec 29, 2001 (14:24) * 1 lines 

 Topic 46 of 96 [news]: suspension of civil liberties as a response to terrorism
 Response 16 of 19: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Wed, Apr 10, 2002 (08:09) * 11 lines 
Manhattan lawyer Lynne Stewart has been arrested by federal
agents and charged with delivering messages between the imprisoned
Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and the Islamic Group, an Egyptian terrorist
organization. In announcing the arrest, Attorney General Ashcroft noted
that Stewart's communications with Rahman had been monitored by the
government since December 1998, and would continue to be monitored
under the controversial rule passed in the aftermath of 9/11.

 Topic 46 of 96 [news]: suspension of civil liberties as a response to terrorism
 Response 17 of 19: Stacey  (stacey) * Fri, Nov  1, 2002 (16:18) * 3 lines 
This looks like the same topic as in the EFF conference, yet they don't appear to be linked (i.e. my eff response is not visible here...)

 Topic 46 of 96 [news]: suspension of civil liberties as a response to terrorism
 Response 18 of 19: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Fri, Nov  1, 2002 (20:37) * 1 lines 
I may link them up.

 Topic 46 of 96 [news]: suspension of civil liberties as a response to terrorism
 Response 19 of 19: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Thu, Mar  4, 2004 (08:56) * 55 lines 
Neil Young "Crazy Horse" speaks out.

Last question in an interview about Neil Young's new film _Greendale_.

You surprised people by supporting Reagan back in the '80s, or by
sympathy with some of Reagan's policies. And now you seem to be a very
Bush guy. And you seem to be in fact, concerned with individual
personal freedoms. But obviously, many expect you to toe some kind of


What happens to me is, whenever anybody gets elected to office, my first
inclination is to get behind them, because they're in a position to win,
do something good. My natural thing is I'll get behind it, and I'm hoping
they'll do well. I hesitate to say anything, but I'm rootin' for 'em. So
taking up things that are on a personal level, on a human level, you
Reagan said people in their communities have a responsibility to try to
handle things in a grassroots community organizations and working
to ensure things that happen right in communities, and it has to be
happening there or government isn't going to work, nothing's gonna change
if that's not there. So I agreed with some of those things that he said.

I look for good things in bad things, and I also look for bad things in
things. I don't see that it's all good or all it's all a measured
of things. So I've never backed off of what I was saying, what I was
about. At the very beginning, after 9/11, when we thought we needed the
Patriot Act, I was thinking, "Somebody's gotta do something to tighten
all up." I mean, we can't just have people coming in and out all the
And it's still supposed to be a temporary measure that has to be re-voted
and re-voted it's never gonna be permanent. Of course, now we know that
this administration has its way, it'll be not only permanent, but it'll
more and more and more rights being taken away. So they took advantage of
the situation and used it, which I think whoa, that's bad.

Prev topicNext topicHelp

news conference Main Menu