| | Proposed Legislation Threatens Civil Liberties Opinion by Matthew A. Wallace, Ó2003 When I say, "Secret Police", or "Identification Checkpoints", or "Spying on citizens (without a warrant, I might add, in case that's unclear)", what do you think of? The KGB, perhaps? Nazi secret police? Good thinking. Those are the sorts of totalitarian regimes which employed such tactics. Those are the sorts of things that Americans have fought wars to prevent, for their liberties to be secured. And now, perhaps thinking it is for our own good, or perhaps with a darker agenda, our current legislature and executive branch are going to attempt to pass legislation enabling many of these things. My bias disclosure: I am fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and have been voting libertarian because I think our major parties have sold out to special interests, corporate lobbying, and are too alike for a good political landscape. The Justice Department, under the regime of John Ashcroft, plans to release a bill under the moniker, "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003". It will give law enforcement agencies unprecedented and truly frightening powers that are reminiscient of previous totalitarian regimes. Some key provisions include: Section 201, "Prohibition of Disclosure of Terrorism Investigation Detainee Information": Safeguarding the dissemination of information related to national security has been a hallmark of Ashcroft's first two years in office, and the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 follows in the footsteps of his October 2001 directive to carefully consider such interest when granting Freedom of Information Act requests. While the October memo simply encouraged FOIA officers to take national security, "protecting sensitive business information and, not least, preserving personal privacy" into account while deciding on requests, the proposed legislation would enhance the department's ability to deny releasing material on suspected terrorists in government custody through FOIA. Section 202, "Distribution of 'Worst Case Scenario' Information": This would introduce new FOIA restrictions with regard to the Environmental Protection Agency. As provided for in the Clean Air Act, the EPA requires private companies that use potentially dangerous chemicals must produce a "worst case scenario" report detailing the effect that the release of these controlled substances would have on the surrounding community. Section 202 of this Act would, however, restrict FOIA requests to these reports, which the bill's drafters refer to as "a roadmap for terrorists." By reducing public access to "read-only" methods for only those persons "who live and work in the geographical area likely to be affected by a worst-case scenario," this subtitle would obfuscate an established level of transparency between private industry and the public. Section 301-306, "Terrorist Identification Database": These sections would authorize creation of a DNA database on "suspected terrorists," expansively defined to include association with suspected terrorist groups, and noncitizens suspected of certain crimes or of having supported any group designated as terrorist. Section 312, "Appropriate Remedies with Respect to Law Enforcement Surveillance Activities": This section would terminate all state law enforcement consent decrees before Sept. 11, 2001, not related to racial profiling or other civil rights violations, that limit such agencies from gathering information about individuals and organizations. The authors of this statute claim that these consent orders, which were passed as a result of police spying abuses, could impede current terrorism investigations. It would also place substantial restrictions on future court injunctions. Section 405, "Presumption for Pretrial Detention in Cases Involving Terrorism": While many people charged with drug offenses punishable by prison terms of 10 years or more are held before their trial without bail, this provision would create a comparable statute for those suspected of terrorist activity. The reasons for presumptively holding suspected terrorists before trial, the Justice Department summary memo states, are clear. "This presumption is warranted because of the unparalleled magnitude of the danger to the United States and its people posed by acts of terrorism, and because terrorism is typically engaged in by groups - many with international connections - that are often in a position to help their members flee or go into hiding." Section 501, "Expatriation of Terrorists": This provision, the drafters say, would establish that an American citizen could be expatriated "if, with the intent to relinquish his nationality, he becomes a member of, or provides material support to, a group that the United Stated has designated as a 'terrorist organization'." But whereas a citizen formerly had to state his intent to relinquish his citizenship, the new law affirms that his intent can be "inferred from conduct." Thus, engaging in the lawful activities of a group designated as a "terrorist organization" by the Attorney General could be presumptive grounds for expatriation. This summary is taken from a report by the Center for Public Integrity. See: http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=94&sid=200 To summarize, the government wishes to: Restrict Americans' access to information available via the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). In other words, you can't be trusted to know what your own government is doing. Creation of a DNA database. Ostensibly for ídentifying terrorists and suspected terrorists, this provides the government with inescapable means to identify and silence domestic dissidents. Repeals all law enforcement consent decrees passed before 9/11/01. Specifically put into place BECAUSE OF POLICE ABUSE, they are now to be repealed because of the 'war on terror'. Suspected terrorists can be held without bail. The "War on Drugs" pioneered this violation of the 5th amendment, and now the "War on Terror" -- a much less easy to define set of offenses -- will expand it. And perhaps most disturbing, the government would have the ability to expatriate an American Citizen if the Justice Department declared they were a terrorist or had ties to a terrorist organization. This will be used in conjunction with indefinite detention of 'enemy combatants'. If the government wants someone out of the way, they claim they are a terrorist, expatriate them, and take them into permanent custody as an enemy combatant. No trial, no jury -- not even any public record. Just men come and take them away, and they are gone, perhaps forever.
The government has had a long and continuing trend of disregarding your civil rights. The supreme court, long the bulwark against such abuses, has begun to side with the legislative and executive branches in bizarre defiance of hundreds of years of precedence. For example, the government has been chipping away at the right to reasonable bail. Kevin Mitnick, a hacker who compromised computer systems and caused no intentional damage, no harm to any others, never profited from his crimes and showed no intention of doing so, was held 4.5 years without a bail hearing, despite the fact that federal law only provides for denying bail outright when a person is charged with a violent crime, a capital crime, or a drug crime involving more than a 10-year sentence. His crime fit none of these; yet he was held. (In fact, he was held nine months in solitary confinement because prosecutors claimed he could and would start a nuclear world war III with a prison payphone). I urge you to contact both your senators and your representative in the house, and insist that they oppose the Domestic Security Enhancement Act. If you don't stand up for your rights, no one will, and you simply won't have them any more. I hope you remember that this is George Bush's nominee when you vote in 2004. We've lost millions of patriots in wars to defend our rights, and now we're supposed to voluntarily surrender them because 3000 people are killed in a terrorist attack? Not only would such a surrender of our liberties be the most unpatriotic thing imaginable, it would be giving terrorists exactly the victory they were looking for when they made the attacks. Don't give in to terror by letting your government try to take your rights away. Matthew Wallace can be reached at matt@ender.com . | |
