Homeland in-security?

Josey1

Politics: Bush pushes Senate to pass Homeland Security bill

Copyright c 2002 AP Online

Search the archive for: homeland security

The Associated Press


WASHINGTON (July 27, 2002 11:27 a.m. EDT) - President Bush challenged the Democratic-controlled Senate on Saturday to follow the GOP-led House and pass homeland security, defense and economic legislation before its summer recess.

"By taking action on these issues, the Senate can advance our national priorities of defending freedom, protecting our homeland and strengthening our economy," the president said in his weekly radio address.

"The Senate now has one week left to make progress for the American people, and I urge them to seize the opportunity," he said.

The speech, taped after the House's last-minute flurry of activity before its six-week vacation, was broadcast while Bush played an early morning round of golf at Andrews Air Force Base.

At the first tee, Bush celebrated House passage early Saturday of a bill to give him broad authority to negotiate trade agreements. The 215-212 vote followed Bush's hastily arranged trip to the Capitol on Friday afternoon to appeal anew to majority Republicans to stand together on the bill.

"We're celebrating a victory in the House, playing golf with House members who helped convince their fellow members that trade is good for the economy and trade is good for the working people," Bush said Saturday.

Accompanying him were GOP Reps. Michael Oxley of Ohio, Dan Burton of Indiana and Tom DeLay of Texas.

On trade, Bush said on the radio that he wants the legislation on his desk next week "so I can immediately take action that will create jobs and strengthen the economy."

The Senate could take up the bill next week.

Also on Bush's mind was his proposal to create a Homeland Security Department, which the House approved Friday by 295-132. The bill mirrors most of the president's blueprint for merging 22 existing agencies into a new Cabinet department with 170,000 employees and a $38 billion budget.

Bush and Senate Democrats are fighting over the president's insistence on broad powers over agency personnel. Bush says these are vital in confronting an agile, shadowy terrorist threat; Democrats say it amounts to a Republican assault on collective-bargaining rights and civil service protections.

"This department will coordinate our nation's response to grave national threats, to anticipate our enemies, analyze our vulnerabilities and act forcefully to address them," Bush said in his address. "The Senate must give the Department of Homeland Security all the authority and flexibility it needs to protect the American people."

Bush also pressed for approval of a defense spending bill.

"Our military needs to plan for a long war on terror and prepare for all of the missions that lie ahead," he said.

Before the full Senate is a $355.4 billion defense measure, $35 billion higher than this year's level. It is $11.4 billion below Bush's.

Bush said he looked forward to signing a business overhaul bill - including a sweeping overhaul of accounting practices and tough new penalties on corporate fraud - next week.

"It should be clear to every shareholder, investor and employee in America that this administration will investigate, arrest and prosecute corporate executives who break the law," he said. The legislation "will help reassure Americans that our economic system is sound and fair."

He appealed to the Senate to act swiftly on pension legislation intended to tighten protection on workers' retirement plans.

"America's retirement security is too important to fall victim to political game-playing, and the Senate must act now," Bush said.

Senate Democrats, pressured by House Republicans to pass the pension changes the House approved nearly four months ago, said Friday they will take up a bill in early September.

Democrats have yet to agree about what changes they want to pursue.

http://www.nandotimes.com/politics/story/480234p-3834494c.html


"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

Northcom Raises Legal,
Constitutional Questions
by Carl Osgood
Since Sept. 11, there has been increasing pressure from both within and without the Bush Administration to expand the role of the U.S. military in "homeland defense." To this ostensible end, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced, on April 17, the formation of a new unified military command, the U.S. Northern Command, to-as Rumsfeld put it-"help the [Defense] Department better deal with natural disasters, attacks on U.S. soil, or other civil difficulties. It will provide for a more coordinated support to civil authorities such as the FBI, FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency], and state and local governments."

Rumsfeld described the new command as "assigned to defend the American people where they live and work, and it will be functioning in a supporting role to civil authorities as occasions arise." Northern Command's geographic area of responsibility will include Mexico and Canada, as well as the United States and parts of the Caribbean, including Cuba.

EIR Founding Editor Lyndon LaRouche warned (EIR, May 17, 2002) that in the current context of strategic policymaking, the creation of Northern Command "is clearly a proposal to 'cross the Rubicon,' " a reference to Julius Caesar's 49 BC march into Rome that ultimately led to the establishment of the Roman Empire under Augustus Caesar in 31 BC. The danger, today, stems from the possibility that, under this new arrangement, the Pentagon might become a tool of Attorney General John Ashcroft. LaRouche pointed to the doctrine of law encompassed by the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act which "may be properly viewed as the U.S. government's recognition of the danger of allowing the circumstances under which corrupt elements of the Federal government might act to establish a military dictatorship in the U.S.A."

LaRouche is not alone in his concerns. Military experts and state legislators consulted by EIR have raised numerous questions as to the Constitutionality and legality of the Northern Command as it is being constituted. One expert argues that, if the intent of the Northern Command is to facilitate the use of Federal troops in emergency situations, the required legal authorities already exist under Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code. If, however, the intent is to deploy Federal troops to assist other Federal departments, such as Treasury or Justice, in the enforcement of civil law, then Constitutional and legal problems arise.

Erosion of Posse Comitatus
The deployment of Federal troops for civil law enforcement purposes is strictly prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Law, formally known as Title 18, section 1385 of the U.S. Code. It simply reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army [later amended to include the Air Force, then extended to the Navy and Marines by Defense Department regulation] as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." The act has specific application to regular military forces functioning under Title 10, and Title 10 provides exceptions, such as for disaster recovery assistance. Title 10 also defines circumstances under which the regular military forces can provide assistance to law enforcement, such as the provision of equipment and training.

The National Guard, when functioning under state status, is governed by Title 32, and is not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act. The National Guard only comes under Posse Comitatus when it is Federalized under Title 10. The Coast Guard is normally under the Department of Transportation, and itself has significant law enforcement authorities and responsibilities, and is therefore also not subject to Posse Comitatus.

The law has its genesis in the aftermath of the contested Presidential election of 1876, when Federal troops on duty in the South were used to guard polling places. No prosecutions have ever taken place under the law, and exceptions have been made to it during its history, such as the deployment of troops to end rioting in Chicago in 1919 and against the "Bonus marchers" in Washington, D.C. in 1932. In the 1970s, Federal courts drew the distinction between active participation of the military in law enforcement activities, and passive assistance, such as the lending of equipment, in a series of cases that arose in the aftermath of the 1973 standoff at Wounded Knee, South Dakota between Federal law enforcement authorities and the American Indian Movement.

Real erosion of the posse comitatus principle came with the deployment of the military in drug interdiction in the early 1980s. Later on, border duty and investigative support were added. Matthew Carlton Hammond, writing in the Summer 1997 issue of the Washington University Law Quarterly, argues that such exceptions "blur the traditional line between civilian law enforcement and the role of the military." He notes that drug interdiction and border control have been properly the responsibility of civilian agencies and that investigative support is reminiscent of the military surveillance conducted in the 1960s and condemned by the Congress and the Supreme Court "as an improper use of the military."

Hammond also makes the point that law enforcement officers are trained to de-escalate a situation and only use deadly force as a last resort. Soldiers, on the other hand, are trained when to use or not to use deadly force, and escalation is the rule. Once someone has been identified as the enemy, soldiers have no need to be concerned about individual rights or any aggressive acts by that person before using deadly force. He argues that the use of the military in civil situations should only be to address emergencies, of short-term duration, when state and local agencies need help to protect property and save lives. In fact, Hammond proposes a rewrite of the Posse Comitatus Act specifically to define such use of the military.

Senator Warner's Questions
However, further erosion of the law has been suggested since Sept. 11. On Oct. 4, 2001, during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) asked Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, if he thought that Posse Comitatus should be reviewed in light of the Sept. 11 attacks and the war on terrorism. "It seems to me," he said, "we have to bring together every asset of the United States of America, irrespective of where it comes, military, civilian and the like." Wolfowitz replied, "I agree strongly," adding that the Pentagon "can do more than anyone else in the country, because of the special capabilities we have; because of the unique organizational capabilities of the department."

In a subsequent letter to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Warner wrote, "Limited use of the military beyond that permitted by existing law might strengthen the nation's ability both to protect against and to respond to events of the sort which we have recently undergone."

Army Secretary Thomas White told reporters at the Pentagon on Oct. 26 that, with respect to Posse Comitatus, "we are looking at the details of the law to see if revisions are appropriate in the way it's executed or the exceptions that can be taken." Rumsfeld, however, has since retracted that position. He told the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 7, "We're not looking for any long-term or short-term change with respect to Posse Comitatus."

Even before Sept. 11, state governors were already seeing themselves as on the front line of defense against terrorist acts within the United States, based on the simple fact that in any event, the first agencies on the scene will be the local emergency services, followed by state emergency management officials, if required. Governors see the state-level National Guard as an important asset for assisting in search and rescue efforts, disaster recovery, and the maintenance of order, and are loath to give that up.

Indeed, Gen. Richard Alexander, the director of the National Guard Association, emphasized this point in a prepared statement to the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 11. He told the committee, "Use of the National Guard as a primary fusion agent in executing a balanced, integrated national domestic security strategy preserves the Constitutional role of the sovereign states and assures that governors and other state and local civil authorities remain responsible and accountable for the public safety and security of their state, territory, and local jurisdictions."

Alexander warned, "Any attempt to repeal or substantially amend the Posse Comitatus Act would be met by a firestorm of resistance from the nation's governors and state and local civil authorities." He also warned that use of Title 10 forces or the National Guard in a Title 10 status for homeland security missions would not only negatively affect the readiness of the regular Army, but would also "place Federal military personnel on a collision course with the proscriptions of the Posse Comitatus Act-an act, by the way, that is as relevant and compelling today as it was when it was enacted."

This concern about the National Guard was echoed on May 21 by Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.), during a hearing of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. He told Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, "It concerns me very much that the establishment of the Northern Command does not appear to have involved sufficient input from senior National Guard leaders." Myers punted in response, telling Bond that "there will probably be a fairly heavy reliance on some National Guard capabilities," but that, since the Northern Command will not stand up until Oct. 1, it is still in the planning and implementation phase.

Congress Must Hold Hearings
While Rumsfeld is denying any desire to change the laws governing use of the military inside the United States, the terms of reference for the establishment of the Northern Command contain elements that appear to violate provisions of the Constitution and Federal law. The terms of reference, promulgated as a Joint Chiefs of Staff memo on March 7, asks for, among other things, recommendations regarding mechanisms for coordination between Northcom and local, state, and Federal agencies. The memo also asks for recommendations for "appropriate roles for USNORTHCOM, the Services, the National Guard and Reserve Components, Defense Agencies, and other combatant commands with assigned forces in the USNORTHCOM AOR [area of responsibility] with respect to anti-terrorism and force protection responsibilities."

One expert told EIR that, because the term "terrorism" is undefined, this means, the role of Northcom in "anti-terrorism" is also undefined, and therefore unlimited in a practical sense. The memo also specifies that civil support functions, such as the National Guard's Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams are to be brought under Northcom, but since legislation already provides for these functions, why put them under Northcom?

More disturbing is the plan for the fusing of intelligence information between the Defense Department and law enforcement, as well as the ability to coordinate operations with non-Pentagon agencies. Both appear to be not only inappropriate, but illegal as well.

The degree to which Congress will look at this remains to be seen. The fiscal 2003 defense authorization bill passed by the House on May 9, requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report by Sept. 1 on the implementation plan for the Northern Command. The report is to address the budget, the location of headquarters, the manning levels, the chain of command, the relationship of Northcom to the Office of Homeland Security, other Federal agencies, and the National Guard. Lastly, the report is to address "the legal implications of military forces in their Federal capacity operating on United States territory." It also is to address the status of U.S. consultations with Canada and Mexico regarding their role in the Northern Command.

Besides that, the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Gen. Ralph Eberhardt, currently commander of NORAD, to command the Northern Command. Certainly, the Constitutional and legal implications of the Northern Command demand that Congress do much more than simply ask for a report. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2921usnorthcom.html


"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

Lawmakers say Bush plan will pass quickly
By JIM VANDEHEI
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON - Congressional leaders predicted Friday that President Bush's plan for a behemoth Department of Homeland Security will be modified and then approved within three months.

This despite concerns that the proposed agency may fail to rectify the intelligence-sharing failures that have plagued the government.


After a White House briefing with Bush, Republican and Democratic leaders put aside frustrations about the secretive way the new department was developed - as well as suspicions about the an-nouncement's timing - to promise that the department will be approved before the 107th Congress adjourns this year.


"Shame on us if we don't," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who plans to lead Senate hearings on the proposed Homeland Security De-partment, starting as early as this month. "This is one of the most important things we will ever do here, so we want it to come out right."


However, the congressional debate promises to be bruising, with lawmakers clashing on two key fronts: Should they demand modest, as opposed to dramatic, changes to Bush's plan? And should they significantly alter their own committee structure to create and oversee the new department? Or should they try to make the current system work despite the turf battles certain to ensue?


Bush, sensing opposition from committee chairmen who could lose power under the reorganization plan, met with a dozen top congressional leaders Friday in the Cabinet Room and said afterward, "I am convinced that, by working together, that we can do what's right for America."


In a conciliatory gesture, Bush agreed to allow homeland security czar Tom Ridge testify before Congress. The administration's previous refusal had especially angered Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.


After weeks of disclosures that his administration missed signs of a possible terrorist attack before Sept. 11, Bush outlined his vision Thursday for the most ambitious government reshuffling in 50 years: a 169,000-person homeland security superagency monitoring domestic security at everything from borders and ports to highways and supermakets, with a combined budget of more than $37 billion a year.


House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo, today plans to call for Congress to approve the new department by Sept. 11, the anniversary of the terrorist attacks that killed more than 3,000 people and prompted calls for a new agency to coordinate intelligence-gathering and domestic defenses.


This report contains material from The New York Times.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/nation/3426530.htm

ONLINE: White House, www.whitehouse.gov


"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

Homeland Insecurity Update: Security Measures for the Celebration of our "Freedom"
News Analysis By J.J. Johnson
Published 06. 7. 02 at 23:15 Sierra Time
xxx Frankly, if we get through Independence Day without a 'terrorist' incident, it'll be a miracle. Until then, the newest threat warning from the guys who are currently responsible for our safety (the FBI) is of a potential nerve gas attack against American subway systems. And you'll be pleased to know just how much more possible we've made this nightmare, and how much safer you can feel.
KYW in Philadelphia broke the story Friday that the FBI issued the alert to state and local law enforcement officials - its an internal warning to cops around the nation - cautioning that Al-Qaida supporters in the United States may use nerve gas to poison subway systems in New York, Washington D.C. and other major cities before or during the fourth of July.

You see, we could just do a World War II type round up and exile, but that would be 'racist'. Ahhh. White People. We'll just keep prosecuting gun cases so you will 'feel safer.

Kinda makes you wonder what good the military is doing over there when Allah's Army is still planning more mayhem - over here. According to the alert, "this activity is allegedly intended to bring America to its knees on its Independence Day."

You'll find this pasted all over your Saturday Morning fish wraps.

Now, how high was your anxiety level before you heard this one? Well, last night, our President told us once again, to get on with our lives, and so we shall. You see, subways are in BIG CITIES.

BIG CITIES where, if you saw some Jihad freak attempting to release their deadly toxin, you could drop him with one or two bullets, but oops - packing heat is taboo. In fact, many of those BIG CITIES spent the last decade trying to sue gun manufactures.

BIG CITIES where you could just strap on a gas mask before going to work, but those silly gas masks were only novelty toys for those extremist, right-wing, antigovernment militia types. Nope, if any deadly chemical is released, you can die a 'moderate, mainstream death. But don't forget to dial 911 before taking your last breath.

So, what's the rest of the holiday threat - planes, trains and automobiles? We could call upon American to take up arms and other defensive measures, but...

SACRAMENTO - How the west coast prepares for terrorism: Have the California Senate Health and Human Services Committee pass a bill to tax each bullet sold in the Golden State.

It's California, so you know we're not kidding.

A state teetering on bankruptcy with over $22 billion in red ink this year (state's can't print more money - yet anyway, remember?) has been looking for any way it can to raise revenue, disarm its population, and normalized its gun laws with that of their southern neighbor. This way, they get to kill three birds with one stone.

Can't you just see it at the California Checkpoint?

"Welcome to California. Do you have any fruits or vegetables?"

"No"

"How about any guns, ammo? Inquiring minds at the Office of Homeland Security and the California Department of Revenue and Taxation want to know."

The Senate Health and Human Services Committee approved the measure, but it now faces uphill fights in the Revenue and Taxation and Constitutional Amendments committees. Actually, slight chance of this passing - since it's an election year.

Never fear - the east coast weighs in.

In Washington it's called the Metro System, a place that - according to the FBI, would be a prime target of Jihad Joe wanting to bring the nation's capitol to its knees while folks are on the train to watch fireworks. Repeating, some folks exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms might stop or even be a deterrent to such a disaster.

Good thing the U.S. Department of Justice recently acquired a few brain cells and told the Supreme Court this month that it believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess firearms.

Tell that to Michael Freeman and Manuel Brown.

These two folks had the unmitigated gall to walk into to a District of Columbia court, and claim they have a 'second amendment right' (stop laughing) to carry firearms, and they should not be prosecuted - especially with the Bush folks giving the green light on packing heat.

But welcome to the Twilight Zone: On Thursday, the Justice Department urged the prosecution of these two men who were seeking dismissal of criminal charges for carrying a pistol without a license.

Freeman and Brown say the Justice Department's position is inconsistent with a court of appeals ruling in the District of Columbia, where they were charged.

Forget it guys, your guns might stop a terrorist. Go talk to commercial airline pilots about that. They should focus on 'flying the plane'. You should focus on 'getting on with your life'. You need not worry. The new Office of Homeland Security will take care of you.

By the way, we'll start randomly searching cars at those ferries, too - as if that wait wasn't long enough - as if your forth amendment rights meant anything.

You should be happy. Go on - live your life as usual. Know that as you work, play and sleep, your government is doing everything it can to make sure you're safe. A new organization is being proposed, mixing so many alphabet soup agencies together they'll have to invent new alphabets. They are doing this for you.

So this holiday season, as we ransack your bags, search your cars, scan your faces, invade your political meetings, spy on the net, tax your ammo, ban most of the public from public land, disarm your pilots, raise your taxes, spend your social security, profile average Americans (to make it seem fair), enforce seat belt laws, child restraint laws, demand social security numbers from birth, declare your children wards of the state, give mind-altering drugs to children in school, analyze your finances, conduct open-ended spying operations, and prepare for mandatory vaccines, please know that we only do this so you can spend July 4th celebrating your 'freedom'.

http://www.sierratimes.com/02/06/08/jjjohnson.htm

c 2002 SierraTimes.com


"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

Are The FBI's New Guidelines Police State Policies?

Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.
P.O. Box 270143
Hartford, WI 53027

Phone (262) 673-9745
Fax (262) 673-9746
Are The FBI's New Guidelines Police State Policies?
By Richard Stevens
Editor, The Bill of Rights Sentinel

Attorney General John Ashcroft, on May 30, 2002, announced the revision of the FBI Guidelines for investigating domestic crime, particularly "domestic terrorism." The public document describing the new Guidelines is available on-line at: www.usdoj.gov/olp/generalcrimes2.pdf. (To see the 1989 Guidelines previously in effect, while they are still available on-line, click on www.usdoj.gov/ag/readingroom/generalcrimea.htm)

From Anti-Terrorism to Police State Policies

Given that our nation faces the threat of terrorism within our borders, shouldn't we expand the investigatory powers of our national police agency to detect and prevent such terrorism? At what point would new powers become police state policies?

To answer these questions, consider first that a police state exists when:

1. The central government imposes its comprehensive vision of economic welfare and correct behavior upon its citizens;

2. The police apparatus serves the central government, instead of serving the citizens;

3. The police apparatus takes upon itself to actively enforce the will of the central government, instead of responding primarily to criminal misdeeds, and

4. The citizens serve the central government and its police apparatus because of pervasive fear of punishment.

Do the FBI's new guidelines tie into any of these four elements of a police state? The answer has two parts. Right now: NO. In the future: YES. Following are four points to consider.

A. The FBI Becomes A National Police Force

If the FBI acted properly as a federal entity under the Constitution, the FBI would confine itself to coordinating interstate criminal investigations and to investigating criminal activity that affects the federal government. The sovereign states, after all, have the primary powers and duties to detect and prosecute crimes against citizens of the states. Murder, kidnapping, rape, robbery, theft, and all other crimes against persons or property fall squarely under state government jurisdiction. As so-called drug laws are also the business of the state governments, the FBI would not be involved in drug crime prosecutions except to coordinate among the several state police agencies.

Unfortunately, Congress has been allowed to expand the number and types of federal crimes, and the FBI has been given the jurisdiction to detect and investigate violation of federal criminal laws (except where other agencies have the exclusive enforcement authority). Some Americans view the FBI's expanded jurisdiction as unconstitutional; many others, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, accept the jurisdiction but view the FBI with considerable suspicion.

This article does not answer the constitutionality question, but instead examines whether the FBI's expanded powers move into police state territory. Under elements 2 and 3 of the definition above, a police state requires a national police apparatus. To enforce the police state's laws and decrees upon the citizens, the national police apparatus must be powerful. As the FBI acquires new or expanded powers, the FBI becomes more powerful.

As the FBI becomes more powerful, it becomes more capable of serving the goals of the central government. As the goals of the central government turn toward managing the economy and controlling the affairs of private groups and individuals, the central government will need one or more powerful police forces to enforce its policies. When the FBI gets enough power, and when the citizens accept or acquiesce to a powerful FBI, then the FBI can become the national police apparatus to support a police state.

Because a powerful national police apparatus is a key ingredient in a police state, every increase in FBI "law enforcement" powers poses a danger to American liberty.

B. FBI Investigation Procedures Are Changed Under the May 30 Guidelines

There is no absolute reason why the state government police agencies cannot develop counter- terrorism strategies and coordinate together to fight terrorism. Nevertheless, the FBI now has the job of trying to detect, prevent and prosecute terrorist activity. Dealing with a decentralized and apparently suicidal enemy presents a thorny problem, and this article does not pretend to offer a simple solution. Indeed, the FBI might be the appropriate agency to fight terrorist threats on American soil.

How does the FBI investigate crime? Under the FBI's 1989 investigation Guidelines, FBI agents would receive allegations or crime reports from citizens and local police agencies, and tips from informants. When the initial leads suggested some possibility of criminal activity, the FBI agents could conduct some "prompt and extremely limited checking out" of those leads. This "preliminary inquiry" required a supervisory agent's approval. If the preliminary inquiry uncovered enough information to produce a "reasonable indication of criminal activities," then the FBI could open a formal investigation.

When conducting investigations under the 1989 Guidelines, agents were supposed to proceed cautiously, usually starting with some allegation or report from outside the FBI. This fact must roar: police agencies in a free society respond and react to evidence of planned and actualized criminal activity. Police officers in a free society keep the peace; they do not investigate citizens and activities unless there is some reason to investigate. Quite properly, the FBI had first to obtain evidence suggesting some kind of criminal activity before its agents could begin investigating.

The FBI's May 30, 2002 revised Guidelines move to expand the FBI's investigatory powers. The 1989 Guidelines' basic rules about criminal investigations have not changed, but the new anti-terrorist provisions open huge exceptions. In Section VI(B), the new Guidelines authorize FBI agents to carry out "general topical research" and retain files on this research. Specifically, agents may conduct "online searches" and visit "online sites and forums as part of such research." Although the Guidelines warn agents against searching "for information by individuals' names or other individual identifiers," the new rules allow searching by names to locate "names of authors who write on the topic" that the agent is researching. (As a practical matter, isn't everyone a potential "author" of an e-mail on various subjects?)

What is the problem with allowing FBI agents to research the Internet for "terrorist" information? Nothing -- except that the FBI now encourages snooping around looking for people who might be suspicious, and gathering files on them. No longer do agents have to receive evidence or allegations about planned or on- going criminal activity before the agents start investigating. Now, agents can investigate people, organizations, websites, chat rooms and forums ... for any reason and for no reason.

The new Guidelines envision a surveillance apparatus unlike any in American history. Section VI(A) of the new Guidelines declares that the "FBI is authorized to operate and participate in identification, tracking, and information systems for the purpose of identifying and locating terrorists ... [and] otherwise detecting, prosecuting, or preventing terrorist risks and threats... [or] terrorist activities."

Certainly a national anti-terrorist effort will require a sophisticated data collection and analysis system. The new Guidelines conceal the interconnections, however. The FBI agents surfing the Internet looking for suspicious groups and characters will be feeding their data into the national system, all for the avowed "purpose of identifying and locating terrorists and detecting terrorist activity." Under the new Guidelines, the snooper-surfers won't need any prior evidence, tip, allegation, or indication of criminal activity -- they can search every website on the planet looking for stray words, e-mails, postings, and comments that might implicate someone who can then become a terrorism suspect.

What if you see your friend Jack across the terminal at the airport? You shout, "Hi, Jack!" and you'll find yourself cuffed, in a small room, answering many questions. Same result if, at the airport ticket counter, you casually remark about a new movie, saying "It's a bomb."

Imagine how stray remarks in web forum postings and e-mails might get you logged into an FBI agent's Internet research notes, and fed into national files. How will FBI snooper-surfers treat your posted comments that criticize the FBI or the current airport security procedures? You can fairly assume that some of your free speech remarks will be viewed as suspicious by an FBI agent who is searching for suspicious writings.

The 1989 Guidelines and the new revised FBI Guidelines expressly state that the FBI must not launch investigations "based solely on [citizens'] activities protected by the First Amendment or on the lawful exercise of any other [federal or Constitutional] rights." All that limitation means is that the FBI shouldn't investigate a person just because he or she is speaking, writing, or practicing a religion. That limitation disappears if the FBI snooper-surfer claims, for example, to be investigating people with "terrorist" proclivities in their writings.

C. The Internal Pressure To Snooper-Surf

Most Americans do not know how individual FBI agents are evaluated. There is no direct way to measure how effective a police officer is, so police agencies have developed indirect measures. The FBI is no different. Fact is, much of what field FBI agents do is counted, added up, and totaled. FBI agents, for example, must report statistics ("stats") about how many informers they have contacted or recruited, how many leads they received and processed, etc. An FBI agent's career depends in large part on these "stats."

Opening the Internet to snooper-surfing means a new category of "stats." It might not have started yet, but there is every reason to expect that FBI agents will log and report how many suspicious groups, persons and websites they have located by web surfing. It would make sense for the "stats" to include counts of how many persons or groups the agent actually reports to the national database. The more"stats" the better, so FBI agents will be able to maximize their "stats" by doing a lot of snooper-surfing and then logging and reporting as many people as possible.

D. More Aggressive Tactics

Under the 1989 Guidelines, the FBI was required to use the least intrusive means that could reasonably work to obtain leads to uncover and prosecute criminal activity. In connection with criminal activity that might occur in the future, FBI agents would not proceed to inquire or investigate a citizen or group unless there were "facts and circumstances amounting to a reasonable indication that a crime will occur." (Section II(C)).

The revised Guidelines take a much more aggressive stance. Under Section I, "Principles," the Guidelines now state: "The FBI shall not hesitate to use any lawful techniques consistent with these Guidelines, even if intrusive, where the intrusiveness is warranted in light of the seriousness of a crime or the strength of the information indicating its commission or potential future commission. ... particularly ... in the investigation of terrorist crimes and ... enterprises that engage in terrorism."

The term "intrusive" refers to how directly involved the federal police agency becomes in accessing private information, surveilling, questioning witnesses, searching premises, logging information, etc. The new Guidelines now encourage "intrusive" techniques -- liberty invading techniques -- whenever the FBI agents can explain the "seriousness" or the "strength" of their suspicions. The old Guidelines encouraged restraint; the new Guidelines encourage agents to push the envelope.


The Overall Effect

Under the May 30 Guidelines, the FBI is shifting toward surveilling and investigating people just to see whether those people might be suspicious. These Guidelines encourage field agents to use "intrusive" techniques to see whether even potential crimes are possible. National database logging of persons, writings, messages, groups and websites is to become standard FBI practice. Agents will likely have career incentives to maximize their surveillance and snooping into Internet and other activities of innocent citizens.

It might be quite sensible to empower the domestic police agencies in new ways to deal with this new, global, decentralized, and unprecedented threat of terrorism. It would certainly make sense if there were a congressionally declared war, because such a war could be ended by an act of Congress.

The "War on Terrorism," however, has no defined end point. The upshift in federal police agency power, as evidenced in the changes to the FBI's Guidelines, seems to be permanent.

Perhaps President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft will not use the FBI's new powers to an evil purpose. But what will happen when a President is elected who has a world socialist "vision" for America that requires national law enforcement to impose? The FBI will have already entrenched itself, built its national databases, and be all set to locate and capture those suspicious characters who talk too much about the Bill of Rights.

If you doubt the logic of this last scenario, then ask yourself: Who right now within the FBI is speaking out to question these expanded powers? Who within the FBI is even asking the right questions? The answer is: no one in the FBI is questioning the new powers. So, who within the FBI will question the next set of rules changes that further empower the FBI and redirect its mission to target political opponents?

Citizens, engaged in the defense of liberty, are America's only real hope.





Additional Reading:

Death by "Gun Control": The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament by Aaron Zelman and Richard W. Stevens. It begins with "reasonable measures" to control the unruly; it ends in the death of a thousand cuts - and millions of disarmed citizens.

The State vs. the People: The Rise of the American Police State, by Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman, the book that shows how, while people are fighting political skirmishes, the armored column of the police state is rolling across America.

Hope, by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith, the novel that shows what a genuinely freedom-loving president would do for the U.S. http://www.jpfo.org/fbirules.htm



"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

Homeland (in)Security

Sheer bureacracy might be our best hope that would-be protectors don't become sources of terror
J


At the risk of sounding like an eternal Cassandra when it comes to everybody's favorite war against terrorism, I'm going to raise an objection or two to the latest scheme for ensuring that, when Americans are tucked in at night, somebody is watching over them -- very closely. Am I the only one troubled by the proposed creation of a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security? This is a department that, among its powers, would incorporate the Secret Service -- an agency that often holds itself above the law -- as well as Customs, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol -- agencies that often act outside the law.

First off, I'll concede that the proposed department and its consolidation of responsibilities isn't inherently a terrible idea. The agencies it would take over already exist and exercise significant power. If handled absolutely corrrectly, the new department would go a long way toward unifying command structures, reducing inter-departmental squabbling of the sort that traditionally divides the FBI and the CIA, and making those consolidated agencies more efficient. And, after all, if you're going to have a government, protecting the citizens of the country from foreign terrorists is about as core a responsibility as you can imagine.

As extracted from a summary of the proposal on the White House web site, the Department of Homeland Security would take control of agencies and functions including the following:

Coast Guard
Customs Service
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Border Patrol
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Transportation Security Administration
FEMA
Nuclear Emergency Search Team
National Pharmaceutical Stockpile
Secret Service
That's a lot of consolidated power. Even without the addition of the FBI (which even in its scandal-ridden state is presumably still too large a prize to hand off to a new department), it's an agency that will command armed vessels, control entry to and exit from the U.S., wield domestic intelligence assets and field thousands of armed agents. Frankly, that's not the sort of amalgamation of responsibilities likely to be emulated by a country like, say, Bolivia. The U.S. isn't exacty a prime candidate for a coup at the moment, but domestic security services have developed international reputations as kingmakers for a reason -- and who knows where the U.S. will be in 20 years?

But the new department wasn't proposed to give Americans a personal taste of life in a banana republic; it's intended to improve the efficiency of the agencies tasked to battle terrorism. As long as that efficiency remains confined to preventing actual acts of terrorism, it's something we can probably all applaud.

But efficiency cuts both ways. Efficient protectors of peace and freedom are wonderful; efficient busybodies, snoops and strong-arm men aren't such a pleasure. Unfortunately, the protectors and the busybodies tend to merge together as they lose track of the line between being part of the solution and part of the problem.

The Secret Service, for example, has increasingly acted as something of a Praetorian Guard for the president of the moment. Despite the First Amendment's protection for free speech, hecklers and satirical critics of presidents have found themselves pulled aside and interrogated by agents on the off chance that their criticisms might mask darker intent. Glenn Given, managing editor of The Stony Brook Press, a student newspaper at the State University of New York - Stony Brook, was questioned by the Secret Service in the newspaper's offices for calling upon Jesus Christ to "smite George W. Bush" in a tongue-in-cheek piece. That's difficult act to justify, unless the Secret Service seriously thought that Given was soliciting the Christian messiah for an assassination contract.

And Customs and the INS are notorious for pretending that the Bill of Rights stops at the border, as they define it -- and that even U.S. citizens enjoy few if any protections for their rights until they have been formally readmiited to the U.S. from travels overseas. Common travelers with their shoes off and their pants around their ankles in airports across the country are coming to realize what these defenders of the border are capable of -- and it isn't pretty.

So it's understandable that Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center warned Wired that this proposal moves the U.S. along the path to a "police state." And it's clear why the ACLU's Laura Murphy suggests that "safeguards, like an Office of Inspector General, for example, are crucial given the potential scope of this new homeland security apparatus, which would reach into every nook and cranny of our lives and liberty."

Yes, safeguards are a good idea -- though abuse seems inevitable with any coercive power, no matter what checks are put in place. A new department that combines agencies that have abused their powers in the past might be better at battling terrorism if the new arrangement means better sharing of intelligence and resources. But such a massive combination of power and information suggests an agency that will likely also be more efficient in terms of committing future abuses.

In the end, the best protection that Americans will retain if the proposed new department is created probably lies in traditional bureaucratic in-fighting. With the continued independence of the FBI and the CIA, not to mention the ATF and the DEA, inter-agency jealousy and intrigue may help to moderate whatever damage the Department of Homeland Security can do.

That's right, sheer bureacracy might be our best hope that would-be protectors don't become sources of terror themselves

http://civilliberty.about.com/library/weekly/aa060702a.htm

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

Vol. 18, No. 12
June 17, 2002
Table of Contents Printer Friendly Version
More on Terrorism
Order This Issue


Foreknowledge and Failure
by William Norman Grigg

What was once unthinkable is now considered obvious: The federal government had advance warning of the September 11th suicide hijack plot and failed to prevent it.

Recommend this article to a friend.
Friend's Name:

Friend's E-Mail:


Your Name:

Your E-Mail:


Comments:





Names and email addresses are not harvested from this feature. We respect your privacy and as such you will not be added to an email list.



Was it culpable negligence - or something much worse - behind the federal government's failure to prevent the Black Tuesday atrocity? This question is now on the minds of millions of Americans following a stream of outrageous disclosures concerning prior knowledge of the attack. But a version of it had become office banter among agents in the FBI's Minneapolis office in the weeks before 9-11.

In a memo written and hand-delivered to FBI Director Robert Mueller in May, whistleblower Coleen Rowley, chief attorney for the Minneapolis FBI office, described how the Bureau's headquarters worked to "deliberately sabotage" the investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, a suspected conspirator in the September 11th attack. According to Rowley, "HQ personnel never disclosed to the Minneapolis agents that the Phoenix division had, only approximately three weeks earlier, warned of al-Qaeda operatives in flight schools seeking flight training for terrorist purposes!"

"Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case?" wrote Rowley. After seeing their investigative efforts collide with roadblocks set up by FBI headquarters, frustrated field agents in Minneapolis bitterly joked that key officials in Washington "had to be spies or moles . working for Osama bin Laden."

When THE NEW AMERICAN first examined the case for prior knowledge of the attack, there was little if any appetite on the part of the American public to examine the issues we raised. (See "Could We Have Prevented the Attacks?" and "Did We Know What Was Coming?" in our issues for November 5, 2001, and March 11, 2002.) Thanks to a series of dramatic disclosures, capped by Rowley's breathtaking memo, what was deemed unthinkable mere weeks ago is now considered obvious: Washington had detailed advance warning of the suicide hijack plot - and failed to prevent it.

The Long Train of Errors

In our March 11th report, we concluded: "[T]he feds knew no later than June [2001] that an attack from bin Laden was coming. By August it had identified several key co-conspirators, and had one in custody." One active counter-intelligence agent told us that detailed information about the planned attack "came from some of [the Bureau's] most experienced guys.... In some cases, these field agents predicted, almost precisely, what happened on September 11th. So we were all holding our breath . hoping that the situation would be remedied."

We described the case of bin Laden operative Hani Hanjour, who had come to the attention of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) while studying at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Phoenix. Concerned about Hanjour's inability to speak English, the international language of aviation, flight school officials contacted the FAA. After sending an observer to Hanjour's class, the FAA intervened - by insisting that the flight school find an Arabic translator to help the terrorist understand his training.

Our cover story also pointed out that FBI agents in Minnesota asked for, but did not receive, a national security warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's residence. Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, was arrested while training at a flight school in Eagan, Minnesota. He had prompted misgivings on the part of his instructor by his evasiveness, belligerence, and complete unsuitability to be a pilot - and for peculiar comments suggesting that he intended to use a jumbo jet as a bomb. His instructor called the FBI, warning that Moussaoui "wants training on a 747. A 747 fully loaded with fuel could be used as a weapon!"

Federal officials collected these substantial clues following pointed warnings that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network planned a spectacular attack on America. In our March 11th cover story we recalled Attorney General John Ashcroft's warning last June that "Americans are a high-priority target for terrorists." This roughly coincided with a remarkably detailed warning issued to airline industry personnel on June 23rd that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network posed an immediate threat to American civilian aviation.

These warnings came in the wake of a June 21st story carried by the Arabic-language MBC satellite television network in which a reporter who had interviewed bin Laden predicted: "a severe blow is expected against U.S. and Israeli interests worldwide. There is a major state of mobilization among the Osama bin Laden forces. It seems that there is a race of who will strike first. Will it be the United States or Osama bin Laden?"

Subsequent disclosures have validated our earlier reports - and added some critical details:

While on vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, on August 6th, President Bush received a CIA briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." That report predicted an attempt by al-Qaeda terrorists to hijack civilian jetliners to "bring the fight to America...."

In July 2001, Kenneth Williams, a highly regarded 11-year veteran of the FBI's counter-terrorism division stationed in Phoenix, sent a memo to headquarters urging an investigation to determine if al-Qaeda operatives were studying at U.S. flight schools. Hani Hanjour, the al-Qaeda terrorist believed to have piloted American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, had studied at the Pan Am Flight School in Phoenix, where he had come to the attention of the FAA.

In its May 15th story, the New York Times noted that Zacarias Moussaoui "had told the school's instructors that he wanted to train on a flight simulator trip from Heathrow Airport in London to Kennedy Airport in New York. Based on that information, one [FBI] agent speculated in an internal meeting last August that . Moussaoui might have intended to crash a plane into the [World] Trade Center...."

The Wall Street Journal reported on May 20th: "A week before the September 11th attack, investigators told the Federal Aviation Administration that student-pilot Zacarias Moussaoui had been arrested and was under investigation as a potential terrorist with a particular interest in flying Boeing 747s. But the agency decided against warning U.S. airlines to increase security." "Nothing [the FBI] told us was evidence that there was an imminent threat and as a result we issued no bulletins to the airlines or airports," explained FAA spokesman Scott Brenner. "All we knew was he was in jail. As a result of him being in jail, we did not think a threat was imminent."

In a May 16th White House briefing, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice also insisted that the administration's foreknowledge was not specific: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile...."

In fact, an eerily prescient 1999 Library of Congress report on terrorism predicted that terrorists would make precisely that use of hijacked aircraft. Entitled The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist, and Why?, the report predicted: "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives . into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House. [Al-Qaeda terrorist] Ramzi Yousef had planned to do this against the CIA headquarters." This would be done, the report speculated, in retaliation for the August 1998 cruise missile attack on al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan (timed to coincide with Monica Lewinsky's Grand Jury testimony). The report predicted that "al Qaida's retaliation [may take the form of] bombing one or more U.S. airliners with time-bombs. Yousef was planning simultaneous bombings of 11 U.S. airliners prior to his capture. Whatever form an attack may take, bin Laden will most likely retaliate in a spectacular way...."

With the newest revelations, media interest has been renewed in "Project Bojinka," an al-Qaeda plot to use jetliners as terrorist missiles. Philippine authorities discovered the existence of Project Bojinka in 1995. The FBI was fully briefed on Project Bojinka, as well as a December 1994 plot by Algerian terrorists to use a hijacked jetliner to attack the Eiffel Tower. The May 27th issue of Newsweek notes that a June 1994 "Pentagon-commissioned report conclude[d] that religious terrorists could hijack commercial airliners and crash them into the Pentagon or the White House." (Indeed, that same month saw publication of Tom Clancy's novel Debt of Honor, which concludes with a kamikaze strike on the U.S. Capitol building using a jumbo jet.)

Feudalist Priorities

As public outrage grew over these disclosures, Vice President Cheney insisted that "there wasn't anything out there that would have allowed us to predict what was going to happen" on September 11th. Speaking on the May 19th edition of NBC's "Meet the Press," Mr. Cheney expressed "a deep sense of anger that anyone would suggest that the president of the United States had advance knowledge that he failed to act on. I thought it was beyond the pale."

In a peculiar way, the vice president has a point. It is unreasonable to believe that the president "failed to act on" the detailed warnings he received. In fact, evidence exists that the administration took extraordinary precautions to deal with the threat of terrorism - on behalf of high-ranking government officials.

A CBS story filed on June 26, 2001 described how Attorney General John Ashcroft, acting on a recommendation from his security detail, "was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines." When the network inquired about the policy, the Justice Department "cited what it called a `threat assessment' by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term."

So even though the Americans who boarded the four doomed airliners on September 11th had been kept in the dark about the terrorist threat, the feds had already taken steps to keep Attorney General Ashcroft out of harm's way.

Stephen Push, whose wife died when terrorists plunged Flight 77 into the Pentagon, put the matter succinctly: "My wife, had she known, would not have taken that flight." Push's comments were offered in reaction to the news that the president had received warnings in August of a bin Laden plot to hijack American airliners. Continued Push: "It's shameful that they know as much as they did and didn't warn anyone." That is, they didn't warn anyone outside the privileged confines of the executive branch.

Extraordinary security measures deployed during the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy, also underscore the Bush administration's awareness of a potential threat from bin Laden's suicide-bombers. The administration acted to protect itself and its partners among the international elite. In recent years, G-8 summits, like meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization, have been besieged by "anti-globalization" protests - malodorous Marxist mobs whose actual purpose is to advance global socialism in the guise of opposing global capitalism. (See "Globalization's False Opposition" in our May 20th issue.) While security personnel in Genoa did make provisions for the leftist rent-a-mob, their larger concern was the possibility of a bin Laden strike.

The London Guardian reported on July 11th that "Italy has installed a missile defense system at Genoa's airport to deter airborne attacks during next week's G-8 summit.... A land-based battery of rockets with a range of nine miles and an altitude of 5,000 feet has been positioned...." With the missile battery in place, "unidentified planes, helicopters and balloons risk being shot down should they drift too close to the heads of state," warned the report.

Prior to the summit, Time magazine reported that "European security services are preparing to counter a Bin Laden attempt to assassinate President Bush at next month's G8 summit in Genoa, Italy. According to German intelligence sources, the plot involved Bin Laden paying German neo-Nazis to fly remote controlled-model aircraft packed with Semtex into the conference hall and blow the leaders of the industrialized world to smithereens." The plot was reportedly disclosed during interrogation of bin Laden-connected Islamic militants arrested in Milan and Frankfurt shortly before the summit.

Italian Deputy Prime Minister Gianfranco Fini confirmed the terrorism warning, but offered a slightly different account of the alleged plot. In comments reported by the Italian news agency ANSA following 9-11, Fini recalled that "there was the possibility of an attack against the U.S. president using an airliner. That's why we closed the airspace and installed the missiles. Those who made cracks should now think a little."

This disclosure should provoke the following thought: In the months leading up to Black Tuesday, the Bush administration undertook extraordinary measures to protect its highest officials from precisely the kind of attack that claimed the lives of thousands of civilians on that terrible morning.

Who's Responsible?

Six days after 9-11, FBI Director Robert Mueller told reporters that "there were no warning signs that I'm aware of that would indicate this type of operation in the country." In fact, the FBI, as we have seen, was given specific warnings about precisely the type of attack that took place on September 11th. In post-September 11th testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, CIA Director George Tenet claimed that the Agency had known "in broad terms" that terrorists might be planning major operations in the United States, but he insisted that the reports lacked "texture" - meaning enough specific information - to stop what happened. But the Agency knew enough to warn National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on June 28th that a "significant al-Qaeda attack" in the near future was "highly likely" - and to refine that warning into a prediction of a U.S. civilian aviation hijacking in the August 6th briefing for President Bush.

Given the extent of prior knowledge, why hasn't anyone been held responsible? Shouldn't CIA Director George Tenet, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and other high-profile figures in the intelligence community resign, as a matter of principle? And shouldn't Congress conduct in-depth inquests regarding the consummate failure of our "national security" establishment to protect our nation's security?

"Look at all of the investigations that have been held to examine the Enron collapse, a financial thing," Kathy Ashton, whose 21-year-old son Tommy was among the victims killed at the World Trade Center, commented to Newsweek. "Why, eight months later, are we not investigating the mass murder of 3,000 human beings on American soil by an enemy of the United States that was enabled to carry out this mass murder because many agencies in this country dropped the ball?"

Retired undercover agent Michael Levine knows the labyrinth of federal law-enforcement from the inside. For 25 years, Levine served as a "deep cover" specialist for four federal agencies, eventually becoming the most highly decorated undercover agent in the history of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Levine told THE NEW AMERICAN: "What happened last September is something that I and a lot of my friends and contacts in federal law enforcement had seen coming - and it's going to happen again, unless people are held responsible and the problems are fixed."

"Four years ago, on my `Expert Witness' radio program, I brought together four of America's top covert operatives - with a combined total of more than 100 years, frontline, international experience with CIA, FBI and DEA - who had tried to warn America that there was `massive ineptitude' in our nation's frontline defenses in the war on terrorism," Levine recalled to THE NEW AMERICAN. "The specific conclusion of our discussion was that unless Congress took immediate action America was vulnerable to terrorist acts that would `defy the imagination.' The problems we discussed in that program - such as a lack of qualified law enforcement personnel capable of handling human intelligence, a refusal by the FBI to share its intelligence with state and local police departments, and an emphasis on public relations over sound police work - persist to this day."

Levine emphasized that if the FBI had been required to notify local police about the leads it had gathered before 9-11, "it is possible that the whole thing could have been prevented." Rather than deferring to the primary role of local police in criminal investigations, however, the national security establishment has reacted to Black Tuesday by absorbing even greater powers and devouring an even larger portion of the federal budget - while carefully insulating its most prominent bureaucratic officials from hostile scrutiny. "Neither Congress nor the media is willing to hurt any of the bureaucratic egos in the FBI or CIA," Levine commented to THE NEW AMERICAN.

"But unless there's a thorough shake-up and the system is entirely cleaned out, we're going to get clobbered again - and this time it may involve nuclear weapons."

On this point, Levine agrees with the federal officials he criticizes. In addition to the wave of disclosures of prior knowledge, Bush administration officials, including Vice President Cheney and FBI Director Mueller, warned the public that further terrorist attacks - including Hamas-style suicide bombings - are "inevitable." The unspoken but unmistakable message of these warnings is that our federal protectors are too busy defending us against the next attack to assess - and hold officials responsible for - the mistakes that led to the last one.

Moral Hazard

Governments benefit from a peculiar form of "moral hazard": They actually stand to benefit when they fail to carry out their sole legitimate function - namely, to protect their citizens from murderous foreign aggression. Presiding over such disasters, ruling elites typically react: "We've failed - so give us more power." Indeed, by piling up evidence of the pre-9-11 intelligence failure, The Powers That Be are depicting the national security system as suffering from inadequate powers and excessive decentralization. The remedy they prescribe is simple: Centralize law enforcement and intelligence in the interest of combating terrorism, and give it even more extensive powers.

Typical of this approach is S. 2452, the "National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act of 2002," which would elevate the Office of Homeland Security to Cabinet status. In addition to exercising powers previously wielded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Cabinet-level "Homeland Security Czar" would "integrate the elements and goals of the [national counter-terrorism] Strategy into the strategies and plans of Federal, State, and local departments and agencies...." This would effectively make the head of Homeland Security an American "Interior Minister" - the director of a nationalized police force.

Newsweek essayist Fareed Zakaria, former editor of the Council on Foreign Relations journal Foreign Affairs, offers another version of the emerging party line: What is needed, he opined in the May 27th issue, is "a domestic CIA": "We need a domestic intelligence capability. Every major power in the world has one.... Britain's M.I. 5 and France's Renseignements Generaux can tap phones at will.... In an age of terrorism, when the enemy will often be operating inside America, we can't remain blindfolded."

But the "blindfold" Zakaria refers to is, in a sense, a self-inflicted liability. As THE NEW AMERICAN has warned repeatedly, decades of agitation by radicals and subversive organizations climaxed in the mid-1970s with the abolition of federal, state, and local investigative organs that had carried out our counter-terrorism efforts. Prior to that, our nation was blessed with an effective, multi-layered, and constitutionally sound counter-terrorism apparatus.

Congressional investigative committees gathered evidence on international and domestic terrorist organizations, and conducted valuable security probes of the military and executive branch. With the assistance of the FBI - which under Director J. Edgar Hoover was primarily an investigative body, rather than an embryonic national police force - state and municipal police agencies maintained intelligence units that scrutinized subversive groups. And prior to the disastrous immigration reform law of 1965, the federal government took seriously its responsibility to protect the integrity of our borders.

Centralized law enforcement agencies invariably become tools of a ruling elite, protecting the regime rather than the public's rights and property. The intelligence "failure" that presaged 9-11 illustrates this principle at work: Given detailed warnings of impending terrorism, the national security establishment saw to the safety of the ruling elite, while leaving the public in the dark.

Giving new, unaccountable powers to the same federal government that failed us so spectacularly would be not only unwise and counterproductive, it would dishonor the memory of the Americans who died because of our government's delinquency. Citizens across our nation should demand that Congress - not a make-work "bipartisan commission" - conduct a genuine inquiry into prior knowledge. It should use its subpoena powers where necessary, and it shouldn't be afraid to ruin careers. We must also make it clear that we will not countenance any effort to reward Washington's culpable negligence by creating a "domestic CIA" or appointing an "Interior Minister."

---

Rowley Memo Rebukes FBI HQ
by William Norman Grigg

The American public should demand that our elected representatives purge the FBI, and then proceed with restoring a constitutionally sound internal security system.

In her May 21st memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller, FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley took issue with Mueller's proposed reforms of the agency. "Your plans for an FBI Headquarters `Super Squad' simply fly in the face of an honest appraisal of the FBI's pre-September 11th failures," protests Rowley. The "Super Squad" would be an elite task force deployed to terrorism "hot spots" across the nation. Its findings would be collected and analyzed by a new centralized Office of Intelligence, which would include 25 CIA analysts and would be headed by a CIA official. But as Rowley points out, this arrangement assumes that the Bureau's field agents, rather than headquarters, botched the pre-9-11 probe.

"The Phoenix, Minneapolis and Paris Legal Attache offices reacted remarkably [well], exhibiting keen perception and prioritization skills regarding the terrorist threats they uncovered or were made aware of pre-September 11th," she writes. "The same cannot be said for the FBI Headquarters' bureaucracy and you want to expand that?! Should we put the counterterrorism unit chief and SSA [Senior Special Agent] who previously handled the Moussaoui matter in charge of the new `Super Squad'?"

While there is obviously a great need for "more and better intelligence and intelligence management," Rowley continues, "you should think carefully about how much gate keeping power should be entrusted with any HQ entity. If we are indeed in a `war,' shouldn't the Generals be on the battlefield instead of sitting in a spot removed from the action while still attempting to call the shots?"

This portion of Rowley's memo underscores the desperate need to restore the multi-layered, decentralized, constitutional system of counter-terrorism and counter-subversion organs that existed until recently. Under that system, investigative bodies - the FBI, the Subversive Activities Control Board, the Justice Department's Internal Security Division, and the House and Senate Internal Security Committees - would gather intelligence on potentially dangerous individuals, movements, and groups, and disseminate that information to state and local police agencies. Municipal police departments in major cities also maintained their own intelligence units.

Under the U.S. Constitution, noted James Madison in The Federalist, No. 45, each state reserves the power to deal with all matters that "concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state." In 1945, liberal Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote: "Our national government is one of delegated powers alone. Under our federal system the administration of criminal justice rests with the states except as Congress, acting within the scope of those delegated powers, has created offenses against the United States." A dissenting opinion in the same case noted that "to have provided for the national government to take over the administration of criminal justice from the states . would have constituted a break with the past overnight."

That "break with the past" happened incrementally. Invoking a dishonest judicial theory called "incorporation," the High Court expanded federal police powers, while placing handcuffs on state and local law enforcement. At the same time, subversive legal activist groups such as the National Lawyers Guild (a Communist front, according to a congressional committee) and the ACLU agitated to abolish federal intelligence-gathering agencies. By the mid-1970s, many of those agencies were gone; the FBI's counter-terrorism capacity was destroyed; and counter-terrorism efforts by local police departments were effectively handcuffed.

The Rowley memo examines the incompetence and careerism that afflicts the FBI's highest levels. But her most telling observation was her recollection of bitter jokes made by Minneapolis FBI agents that "the key FBI HQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like Robert Hansen [sic], who were actually working for Osama bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis' effort." While said in jest, there is legitimate cause for concern that the FBI, CIA, and State Department have been seriously compromised. One immediate priority for any inquiry into the 9-11 intelligence failure should be full top-down security checks of all U.S. military and security personnel, with a special focus on FBI headquarters personnel.

Congress should also take steps to reverse FBI and CIA mergers with the police and intelligence organs of such terrorist-sponsor states as Russia and China. Since 1994, the FBI has had an agreement with Russia permitting agents of the FSB - the re-named Soviet KGB - to train at the Bureau's Quantico academy. This intimate association between our nation's lead counter-terrorism agency and the world's foremost sponsor of international terrorism goes a long way toward explaining why our nation was left so vulnerable last September.

Congress has the means to rebuild our counter-terrorism capacity - but only if an informed electorate pressures it to do so. Rather than being demoralized by the most recent wave of scandalous disclosures, the American public should demand that our elected representatives - not the tainted FBI bureaucracy, or a "Blue-Ribbon Commission" staffed with establishment hacks - purge the FBI, and then proceed with restoring a constitutionally sound internal security system.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/06-17-2002/vo18no12_foreknowledge.htm


"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

Homeland Security Plan Details Emerge
Sat Jun 8, 9:25 PM ET
By LAWRENCE L. KNUTSON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Details began emerging Saturday of how President Bush (news - web sites)'s staff devised his plan to revamp the nation's domestic security apparatus, including word that aides considered much more expansive moves than the White House eventually proposed.

Photos

AP Photo


Meanwhile, the president asked Congress in his Saturday radio address to complete work this year on the new terrorism-fighting Cabinet-level agency. House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt said approval should come by Sept. 11.

Presidential aides cast a wide net in working up his presentation for the Department of Homeland Security, a senior White House official said, considering among other changes shifting the FBI (news - web sites) from the Justice Department (news - web sites) to Homeland Security.

The idea never made it to Bush's desk because officials determined that the attorney general, as the nation's chief law enforcement officer, should control the premier law enforcement agency, the official said. Also, the new department never was intended to be a law enforcement agency.

Some options reviewed were discarded quickly, such as moving the National Guard out of the Defense Department. It was considered too difficult to segregate guardsmen, who are potential soldiers in combat, and give two agencies responsibility for overseeing such U.S. troops, the official said.

Turning over the State Department's power to issue visas was looked at, too. Bush's proposal will give the new department jurisdiction over who gets visas but continues to let foreign service officers issue them and abides by rules set forth in treaties.

Thought was given to bringing the Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites) under the new department. The president's plan does put the Transportation Security Administration, created after the Sept. 11 attacks and handling most of the FAA's security functions, into Homeland Security.

That new agency's presence accounts for what probably will become a sharply higher number of Homeland Defense employees than the 169,000 Bush suggested. That number includes current projections for staffing at the Transportation Security Administration for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, but most administration officials expect the agency's work force to grow by 30,000 to 40,000 once it is fully staffed to meet congressional requirements.

As proposed in Bush's speech to the nation Thursday night, the new department would consolidate the federal bureaucracy's widely scattered domestic security functions under one Cabinet-level umbrella. His plan would exclude the largest intelligence bureaucracies, not only the FBI but the CIA (news - web sites) and the National Security Agency.

In Gephardt's response for Democrats to the president's radio address, the Missouri congressman said the nation would give the best possible tribute to victims of last year's terror attacks by creating the department by Sept. 11, the first anniversary of their deaths.

Sen. Richard Shelby (news, bio, voting record), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Sept. 11 is a realistic goal for creating the new department.

"I think we could do this - this is very important - if the Democrats and the Republicans work together," the Alabama Republican said during an appearance Saturday on CNN.

"I believe the thrust of it, the central part of it, should be enacted; I'll do everything I can to bring it about," Shelby said. "That doesn't mean we won't change a few things for the better as we get into the details of it."

The employees of the new department will unite in efforts to keep terrorists and their weapons out of the country and "produce a single, daily picture of threats against our homeland," Bush said in his radio talk.

While the thrust of the Bush proposal quickly gathered bipartisan support from Gephardt, Shelby and other lawmakers, the president remained leery that the effort could be sidetracked by lawmakers worried over loss of turf and personal power.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020609/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_homeland_security_7

White House Correspondent Ron Fournier contributed to this report.



"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

U.S.: Detection Machines Unreliable
Sat Jun 8, 2:26 AM ET
By JONATHAN D. SALANT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - One of the two brands of explosive detection machines being installed at airports often breaks down, but federal officials say the company is fixing the problems.


The machines are built by L-3 Communications of New York City, which received a federal contract in April to provide up to 500 more machines.

"It breaks down and you want it to keep going," said Susan Hallowell, who directs the Transportation Security Administration's research into new ways to stop bombs and guns from getting on airplanes.

The company says its machines have been vastly improved and that any problems occurred in older models.

The government plans to meet a Dec. 31 deadline for inspecting airline passengers' checked baggage for explosives by using 1,100 of the minivan-sized explosive detection equipment built by both L-3 and InVision Technologies of Newark, Calif., as well as 4,700 smaller machines that detect traces of explosives.

The Transportation Security Administration on Friday awarded a $508 million contract to a division of the Boeing Co. to install explosive detection machines at airports. The company will buy the machines from both suppliers.

Congress has required the government to buy the L-3 machines, which are built in the congressional district of House Appropriations Committee chairman C.W. (Bill) Young, R-Fla. A spokesman for Young, Harry Glenn, said the committee staff and not the lawmaker pushed for the provision.

LAA has spent $938,000 over the last two years to hire lobbyists such as former Deputy Federal Aviation Administrator Linda Daschle, wife of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., records show.

The provision, part of the 2000 spending bill, required the government to buy an equal number of explosive detection machines from both companies. "We wanted to ensure there was some competition," said Rep. John Sweeney (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., a member of the House Appropriations transportation subcommittee.

Hallowell and Facility Manager Ronald Poullo said the earlier L-3 machines had been unreliable but the company made repairs. To see if the problems have been fixed, newer equipment is undergoing tests at the Transportation Department's William J. Hughes Technical Center, at the Atlantic City, N.J., International Airport, Poullo said.

No problems have been reported with InVision's machines, officials said.

Both the National Research Council (news - web sites) and the Transportation Department inspector general have found problems with L-3's equipment.

Inspector General Kenneth Mead reported last October that a machine at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport broke down an average of once every four days and took an average of six hours to fix each time. The airport no longer has the machine.

The National Research Council said in April, "The machines themselves are considered too unreliable to deploy in airports, where downtime for unplanned maintenance can wreak havoc with flight schedules."

Paul Hudson, a member of a Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites) advisory committee on airline security, said he has also heard of problems with L-3. "They're not really proven the way the InVision (machines) are," he said.

Still, the chairman of the National Research Council's committee reviewing aviation security technologies, Thomas Hartwick, said he expected the L-3 machines to become more reliable.

"It's like a new automobile the first year out," Hartwick said. "They'll get corrected in time."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020608/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/airline_security_3



"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878