Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (6868)	9/20/2001 5:24:27 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Senate Democrat Proposes Alternative Antiterrorism Plan September 20, 2001 From The New York Times SAFETY AND LIBERTY By NEIL A. LEWIS and PHILIP SHENON WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 — The Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said today that he opposed the Bush administration's proposals to broaden the government's powers to detain and deport immigrants suspected of terrorism and offered a separate package of counterterrorism legislation. Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the panel's chairman, said he still hoped to work with the administration to develop bipartisan legislation to combat terrorism after last week's attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. "We probably agree on more than we disagree on," he said in an interview after meeting today with Attorney General John Ashcroft. But his comments left open the possibility of a conflict between the White House and members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, who have warned that parts of the administration's proposal could erode basic constitutional rights. And Mr. Leahy made clear that he would not be rushed, noting that Congress took almost two months to pass antiterrorism legislation in response to the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. "We do not want the terrorists to win by having basic protections taken away from us," he said. On several issues, there seemed to be widespread agreement between the administration and the Senate's Democratic leaders. Mr. Leahy's draft proposal includes several items contained in the bill circulated today by the Justice Department, including a major expansion of the government's ability to carry out electronic surveillance of terrorism suspects. Mr. Leahy and the Justice Department have recommended that law enforcement officials be given broader authority for wiretapsthat permit surveillance of suspects as they move from telephone to telephone, as opposed to surveillance of a specific telephone. But Mr. Leahy singled out the administration's immigration provisions as especially troublesome. The White House has proposed that authorities be able to detain or deport immigrants who are suspected of terrorism without presenting any evidence in court. On Tuesday, the Justice Department said it had rewritten federal regulations to double the length of time that the government may detain immigrants without charging them — to 48 hours from 24 hours — and to permit indefinite detention in a national emergency. President Bush declared such an emergency last week. "On the immigration question, if we change from 24 to 48 hours before deciding whether to charge someone, well, I can understand that," Mr. Leahy said. "But I don't think we need to talk about indefinite detention." He said that it could be akin to the abrogation of the rights of Japanese- Americans during World War II if law enforcement authorities were allowed to "take some Arab-looking person and hold him for as long as they want while they investigate." He spoke as civil liberties and privacy groups stepped up their criticism of the administration's legislative package. Since last week, Democratic and Republican lawmakers have been eager to demonstrate their resolve to pass legislation that would help prevent terrorist attacks. But a growing alliance of lawmakers and advocacy groups — liberal and conservative — has questioned whether the government is moving too quickly on legislation that would place new limits on civil liberties and privacy rights in the name of combating terrorism. The American Civil Liberties Union expressed alarm today at the Justice Department's proposals on immigration, especially its request that the attorney general be authorized to detain and deport immigrants without presenting any evidence to a court. The A.C.L.U. suggested that the provision would allow for serious abuses of immigrants who entered the United States legally and became swept up in a large counterterrorism investigation. "There would be no hearing whatsoever and no opportunity to contest the attorney general's decision and no meaningful criteria for him to follow in making the decision," the A.C.L.U. said in a statement today. "We remain concerned that the administration still appears to want to jettison even the most basic judicial oversight in the areas of wiretapping and immigration." Representative Bob Barr, a conservative Georgia Republican, said he had serious reservations about the administration's proposal to expand the ability of law enforcement agents to monitor the Internet and other types of electronic communication. Mr. Barr said he was also concerned about the administration's demand for quick passage of its legislative package. "If we are faced with a true emergency, the government has plenty of authority to do what needs to be done," he said. Prospects for the administration's legislative package in the House were not clear. The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, and the ranking Democrat, Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, pledged to move quickly on the package. But in statements, they did not directly endorse the Bush proposals. "I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee on this most important proposal in the days and weeks to come," Representative Conyers said. But he cautioned that "as we fight terrorism, we must ensure that we do not become the enemy ourselves — it is essential that we do not let this horrendous act destroy our fundamental freedoms." nytimes.com