Here is another "paranoid" article Rikwriter. Gee, I watched the passage of the anti=terrorism bill on CSPAN2 and Patrick Leahy was voicing grave concerns about the contents pertaining to GUN OWNERS. He must be paranoid too huh?

Terrorism Bills Revive Civil Liberties Debate
By Eric Pianin and Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 14, 2001; Page A16


As President Bush vowed yesterday to "lead the world to victory over
terrorism," lawmakers, activists and scholars debated how far the government
should go in curbing civil liberties to avoid a repeat of this week's
horrific attack on the United States.

The Senate, enraged by the terrorist mayhem in New York and Washington, last
night approved legislation that would make it easier for the FBI to get
warrants for electronic surveillance of computer transmissions.

Individual rights champions as disparate as conservative Paul Weyrich, the
American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute have
cautioned Congress and the White House against action that might impinge on
the very rights they are seeking to protect. But key lawmakers in both
parties acknowledge that some erosion of civil liberties may be inevitable.

"We're in a new world where we have to rebalance freedom and security,"
House Democratic Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said yesterday. "We
can't take away people's civil liberties . . . but we're not going to have
all the openness and freedom we have had."

In past crises during this century -- from the anarchist-communist scares of
1917-18 to the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 -- Congress has responded by
enacting major expansions of state police powers over the objections of
civil libertarians. During World War I, Congress passed the Espionage and
Sedition acts, which were used to arrest more than 1,500 people, many of
whom were deported.

In 1996, after Oklahoma City, Congress enacted anti-terrorism and
immigration control legislation that severely curtailed the ability of
defendants in death penalty cases to appeal their sentences and that allowed
federal officials to use secret evidence in deportation cases.

Last night, the House passed a $40 billion emergency spending bill to
finance the preliminary response to the devastation in Lower Manhattan and
the damage to the Pentagon. The bill would also support law enforcement
agencies' efforts to counter and investigate domestic or international
terrorism.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who sponsored the amendments in the Senate,
complained that in the past, civil libertarians have blocked legislation
essential to frustrating terrorists. He vowed to press for other legislation
to make it easier to get court authorization for searches and surveillance
in domestic terrorism cases and a series of reforms called for by the
National Commission on Terrorism.

"We must determine just what we need to do to increase our
intelligence-gathering activities so that we can stop or at least have
advance warnings about attacks on American soil," Kyl said.

Congressional leaders have yet to decide how far to go in rewriting the
federal criminal code to clamp down on suspected terrorists. Rep. C. Saxby
Chambliss (R-Ga.), a senior member of the intelligence committee and head of
a task force on terrorism and homeland security, met yesterday with House
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and other leaders to begin mapping out a
strategy.

(continued)

Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) took a hard line earlier this
week, telling reporters that "when you're in this type of conflict, when
you're at war, civil liberties are treated differently."

"We've been having an academic discussion and holding our breath in this
area for several years," Lott added. "We can't do that anymore."

But Congress is divided on how best to proceed, and many on both sides of
the aisle are counseling caution. "Frisking everyone on the planet to find
the one person with the weapon is a high-cost, low-yield way to go," said
Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) "That's a fair analogy to searching through
everyone's e-mail. Not only do such schemes threaten civil liberties, they
are such scattershot approaches that they are bound to fail."

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is meeting in San
Francisco on Friday to discuss the risks of repressive steps taken in the
name of safety and plan a response if needed.

The Bush administration already has moved on several fronts this week to
tighten security in the aftermath of the mass killings. The Federal Aviation
Administration has imposed tough new regulations at commercial airports that
will add hours to the average flight and has agreed to put armed marshals on
many flights to discourage future hijackings.

Federal authorities have also tightened security at federal buildings and
national monuments, closed more than 50 embassies around the world, and
created gridlock at crossings along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border by
requiring inspections of practically every vehicle.

During a luncheon yesterday with Washington Post reporters and editors,
Gephardt said that "people will be terribly inconvenienced." He added, "It's
a very tough political transaction that we're going to have to make. . . .
We can't go on with business as usual in the way we conduct American life."

Many have described this week's tragedy as a turning point in the nation's
history -- an abrupt end to Americans' sense of safety and invincibility.
Yet at the core of the unfolding debate over responding to the terrorist
attacks is how willing Americans are to accept fundamental changes in their
society.

Some point to Israel's response to terrorism -- with armed soldiers on every
other block, excruciatingly tight security at airports and in government
buildings, racial profiling, and lax standards for obtaining and using
evidence against defendants -- as unacceptable to them. "We ought to be
aware of what the Israelis are doing and whether that's the sort of thing we
would do," said William A. Niskanen of the Cato Institute. Niskanen said he
argued against Congress moving ahead with a series of actions that might
curtail civil liberties, "But I fully expect that to happen."

Ibrahim Hooper, communications director of the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, said he feared that with anti-Muslim feelings running high in the
country because of the highjackings, Congress might respond with action that
would diminish the rights of Muslim Americans.

"We're getting reports every day of beatings, harassment, shots fired at
mosques," Hooper said. "We know people's emotions run high, but our rights
are not subject to circumstances, but are inalienable."

I agree that America will never be the same again. Hell, I will never be the same again after what took place on Tuesday.

A lot of changes will take place - some for the good, maybe some for the bad. We will have to wait and see what happens.

Brother In Arms

Tyler

Better report this to HUAC.

You did not see the senate debates. The gun item was only a small part of many things he was finding questionable in the bill.

I don't have the exact quote. Leahy (VERMONT) mentioned that he had a gun range in back of his house. He said that what if he was there shooting his pistols and a "state investigator" saw him and went to a fed judge asking for a wire tap because there was possible terrorism going on. He then said this would be of concern to gun owners.

He asked for the definition of "terrorist" which was not stated in the bill and did not get an explanation.

Orin Hatch would only scream "this is against terrorists!" and "law enforcement wants this!" in response.

The fact is, Imbroglio, that NOTHING has been done as of yet to abrogate our civil rights, unless you consider it your constitutional right to get on an airplane quickly.
IF a bill is introduced that I feel does abrogate our civil liberties, I will oppose it. What I will NOT do is start running around screaming that the sky is falling just because the POSSIBIILITY exists for abuse...which seems to be the tactic you've adapted.

Keep in mind all things begin with possibilities.  

Now, more than ever, we need to watch ALL the politicians.  Every last one.  

How often have they snuck things in in the past.  Oh, I guess they never have. Nevermind.

Zaz

Nothing has been done to leave the remaining tatters that once were our rights in flames? I submit the following to refute your hollow assertation, kind sir.

[url]http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46852,00.html[/url]

[url]http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46784,00.html[/url]

Found these after less than a minute of searching the grand ole 'net and on the same site no less.

Keep in mind that there are loads of possible things that never happen.

LOCK AND LOAD...........[-=(_)=-]

Things are starting to happen. Congress is discussing a National ID card. All within 3 days of the WTC attack.

I said before that there would be a major event either real or manufactured that would result in the loss of Constitutional rights in pursuit of safety and there even would be people on here rooting it on.

From the Wired News article link above:

"The measure, proposed by Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Dianne Feinstein (D-California), says any U.S. attorney or state attorney general can order the installation of the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system. Previously, there were stiffer restrictions on Carnivore and other Internet surveillance techniques"

Wow! Rikwriter actually trusts Diane Feinstein. I would rather say the "sky is falling" than be a naive rose colored glasses wearing handwaiver.

Would someone please explain the possible usefullness of a national id card....christ, my wallets overfull with that crap already...........[rolleyes]

If you're that worried about carnivore, just start using personal encryption like PGP, or another program.

They were also discussing how terrorists use data encryption. So don't worry, the PGP loophole will be soon closed also.

Fortunately there are several gradients inbetween, one of which I occupy.
BTW, the most likely "National ID card" would simply be to federalize the regulations for the information which has to be on your driver's license...hardly Orwellian.