Just to add to the discussion... <i>FBI might get greater spy leeway Proposal targets political, religious organizations By DAVID JOHNSTON and DON VAN NATTA Jr. New York Times WASHINGTON -- Attorney General John Ashcroft is considering a plan to relax restrictions on the FBI's spying on religious and political organizations in the United States, senior government officials said Friday. Attorney General John Ashcroft is considering a plan to relax restrictions on the FBI's spying on religious and political organizations in the United States, senior government officials said Friday. The proposal would loosen one of the most fundamental restrictions on the conduct of the FBI and would be another step by the Bush administration to modify civil liberties protections as a means of defending the country against terrorists, the senior officials said. The restrictions were imposed on the FBI in the 1970s after the death of J. Edgar Hoover and the disclosures that the FBI had run a widespread domestic surveillance program to monitor the Ku Klux Klan, the Black Panthers and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., among others. Since then, the guidelines have defined the FBI's operational conduct in investigations of domestic and overseas groups that operate in the United States. Some officials who oppose the change said the rules have kept the FBI out of politically motivated investigations, protecting the bureau from embarrassment and lawsuits. But others, including senior Justice Department officials, said the rules are outmoded and geared to obsolete investigative methods and have at times hobbled FBI counterterrorism efforts. Ashcroft and the FBI director, Robert Mueller, favor the change, the officials said. Most of the opposition comes from career officials at the FBI and the Justice Department. A Justice Department spokeswoman said Friday that no final decision had been reached. "As part of the attorney general's reorganization," said Susan Dryden, the spokeswoman, "we are conducting a comprehensive review of all guidelines, policies and procedures. All of these are still under review." An FBI spokesman said the bureau's approach to terrorism also is under review. "Director Mueller's view is that everything should be on the table for review," the spokesman, John Collingwood, said. The attorney general is free to revise the guidelines, but Justice Department officials said it was unclear how heavily they would be changed. There are two sets of guidelines, for domestic and foreign groups, and most of the discussion has centered on the largely classified rules for investigations of foreign groups. The relaxation of the guidelines would follow administration measures to establish military tribunals to try foreigners accused of terrorism; to seek out and question 5,000 immigrants, most of them Muslims, who have entered the United States since January 2000; and to arrest more than 1,200 people, nearly all of whom are unconnected to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, and hold hundreds of them in jail. On Friday, Ashcroft defended his initiatives in an impassioned speech to U.S. attorneys. "Our efforts have been deliberate, they've been coordinated, they've been carefully crafted to not only protect America but to respect the Constitution and the rights enshrined therein," Ashcroft said. Under the current surveillance guidelines, the FBI cannot send undercover agents to investigate groups that gather at places such as mosques or churches unless investigators first find probable cause, or evidence leading them to believe that someone in the group may have broken the law. Full investigations of this sort cannot take place without the attorney general's consent. Since Sept. 11, investigators have said, Islamic militants have sometimes met at mosques -- apparently knowing that the religious institutions are usually off limits to FBI surveillance squads. Some officials want broader authority to conduct surveillance of potential terrorists, no matter where. Senior career FBI officials complained that they had not been consulted about the proposed change .</i>
Terrifying column Before, suspension of civil liberties always took place on an emergency basis. Ashcroft wants to restrict them in statutory law. Perhaps he doesn't mean any harm, but can't he see what the implications of allowing greater leniency in spying on political groups? Or even religious ones? jeez... this sounds like a bad novel
Our own criminal justice system can not bear the burden of dealing with this. The security necessary would be unreal and it would put all the lawyers and court personnel in jeopardy, as clear and obvious targets of terrorism. Our courts are not the appropriate venue for these folks. Our legal system is quite burdened enough...I do not believe it's the forum for this situation. FDR's administration led the way on these tribunals back in WWII...the Supreme Court said it was OK then. FDR went much further than the Bush administration in this regard...oddly enough, many who criticize Bush put FDR up on a throne. Our own military personnel are subject to these sorts of tribunals all the time. They're necessary, particularly during times of war. If US citizens who are serving our country can stand accused in these venues, so too can those non-citizens suspected of planning and/or carrying out attacks against our nation. As someone pointed out earlier...there are still rules of evidence here. I think you guys have a very distorted version of what these proceedings actually look like. Hearsay rules??? please...there are sooo many exceptions to the hearsay rule that instances of excluding it as evidence even in our court system are few and far between. I find it quite odd that liberals are trumpeting the line trotted out by conservatives so often, "those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." How many times have I posted that here only to be ridiculed...now it's their calling card for this issue. Interesting. I, like Jeff, am concerned that once we hand over liberties, we'll never get them back...but history shows that is not necessarily the case during times of war. We aren't still imprisioning Japanese-American citizens...habeas corpus isn't still suspended from the Civil War... etc. Those two incidents in our history are far more radical than what this administration is proposing. I think this is one of the rare circumstances where it is necessary for the people to give a bit in order to allow the government to do it's Constitutionally-mandated duty. We're not talking about putting American citizens through tribunals...the due process guaranteed to you as a citizen is still there for you. The alarmist talk of our liberties being disturbed seems out of place...if you're a U.S. citizen, the Constitution protects you. The government has no duty to protect the due process rights of citizens of the world. Particularly those whom they suspect our plotting our demise. Our liberties, unfortunately, made the task of ramming planes into WTC quite easy for those who didn't count themselves as citizens of this country. I think we need to be careful and vigilant to make sure the rights of citizens aren't trampled, but I think we need to let the government proceed with military tribunas.
Well, since we obviously know who is connected to the terrorist attacks, according to David Johnston and Don Van Natta Jr., I guess these measures aren't neccessary.
