jwhop,

I doubt you would call William Safire, the former army correspondent and Nixon aide, a typical liberal. Maybe you'll want to call him a press airhead. Or maybe you'll just want to call me that. I'm proud of my press credentials. I also have agreed with some of what you have said in this forum. But it's crazy to pretend there aren't privacy rights threats in the Homeland Security Bill.

Heeeeeeeere's William:

New York Times Editorial Op/Ed
November 14, 2002

You Are a Suspect
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

WASHINGTON — If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before passage, here is what will happen to you:

Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database."

To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you — passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance — and you have the supersnoop's dream: a "Total Information Awareness" about every U.S. citizen.

This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the unprecedented power he seeks.

Remember Poindexter? Brilliant man, first in his class at the Naval Academy, later earned a doctorate in physics, rose to national security adviser under President Ronald Reagan. He had this brilliant idea of secretly selling missiles to Iran to pay ransom for hostages, and with the illicit proceeds to illegally support contras in Nicaragua.

A jury convicted Poindexter in 1990 on five felony counts of misleading Congress and making false statements, but an appeals court overturned the verdict because Congress had given him immunity for his testimony. He famously asserted, "The buck stops here," arguing that the White House staff, and not the president, was responsible for fateful decisions that might prove embarrassing.

This ring-knocking master of deceit is back again with a plan even more scandalous than Iran-contra. He heads the "Information Awareness Office" in the otherwise excellent Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which spawned the Internet and stealth aircraft technology. Poindexter is now realizing his 20-year dream: getting the "data-mining" power to snoop on every public and private act of every American.

Even the hastily passed U.S.A. Patriot Act, which widened the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and weakened 15 privacy laws, raised requirements for the government to report secret eavesdropping to Congress and the courts. But Poindexter's assault on individual privacy rides roughshod over such oversight.

He is determined to break down the wall between commercial snooping and secret government intrusion. The disgraced admiral dismisses such necessary differentiation as bureaucratic "stovepiping." And he has been given a $200 million budget to create computer dossiers on 300 million Americans.

When George W. Bush was running for president, he stood foursquare in defense of each person's medical, financial and communications privacy. But Poindexter, whose contempt for the restraints of oversight drew the Reagan administration into its most serious blunder, is still operating on the presumption that on such a sweeping theft of privacy rights, the buck ends with him and not with the president.

This time, however, he has been seizing power in the open. In the past week John Markoff of The Times, followed by Robert O'Harrow of The Washington Post, have revealed the extent of Poindexter's operation, but editorialists have not grasped its undermining of the Freedom of Information Act.

Political awareness can overcome "Total Information Awareness," the combined force of commercial and government snooping. In a similar overreach, Attorney General Ashcroft tried his Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS), but public outrage at the use of gossips and postal workers as snoops caused the House to shoot it down. The Senate should now do the same to this other exploitation of fear.

The Latin motto over Poindexter"s new Pentagon office reads "Scientia Est Potentia" — "knowledge is power." Exactly: the government's infinite knowledge about you is its power over you. "We're just as concerned as the next person with protecting privacy," this brilliant mind blandly assured The Post. A jury found he spoke falsely before.
--------------------

And some letters to the editor in response:

New York Times Editorial Op/Ed
November 15, 2002

Homeland Security and Your Privacy
To the Editor:

I seldom agree with William Safire, but his Nov. 14 column, "You Are a Suspect," was absolutely vital.

Most Americans agree that we must all pay a price in our war against terrorism, but few know that the small print in the Homeland Security Act calls for unprecedented destruction of our personal privacy aiming, as Mr. Safire puts it, at "the power to snoop on every public and private act of every American."

Anything you buy, any telephone call, any book you take out of the library can go into your computer dossier.

This is not a question of being a conservative or a liberal. Mr. Safire defines himself as a proud conservative who worked ardently for President Richard M. Nixon. But there must be boundaries in government oversight, and the American people should discuss and define and decide those boundaries. Liberty and privacy are part of the blood and bone of our democracy. If we lose that now, then what are we fighting for?
RALPH G. MARTIN
Westport, Conn., Nov. 14, 2002
•
To the Editor:

In "You are a Suspect" (column, Nov. 14), William Safire describes the "computerized dossier on your private life" that the Defense Department hopes to install by way of the Homeland Security Act.

Included in the file, presumably, will be every letter you write and have published in The New York Times — a chilling effect on freedom of speech if there ever was one.
ELAINE MICHETTI
London, Nov. 14, 2002
-------------------

Time to pay attention, folks...

Maria

Thanks Maria.

Dani had just forwarded me this editorial when I looked on the site and noticed you had already posted it!

I really have nothing to add, except to underscore your closing line. This is no longer conspiracy freaks or radicals of one stripe or another who are saying watch out for what's happening to freedom in America. This is mainstream Americans, conservatives and liberals, folks who vote and salute the flag and cry at Veterans Day parades.

The blunt fact of the matter is that there is a REAL THREAT TO FREEDOM IN AMERICA, and it is coming not from outside our borders but from within ... from the folks insistently pushing the War on Terrorism with "patriotism" as every other word out of their mouths, and using it as a justification for - call a spade a spade - seizing power.

It's happened before in the world. Anyone who says "it can't happen here" is asleep at the wheel.

As Maria put it so eloquently, "Time to pay attention folks..."

Love,
Greg

Yes, I saw this discussed rather heatedly on CNN Thursday.
I couldn't believe the people who said "if you don't have anything to hide, it shouldn't matter!"

Well, I have nothing to hide but it does matter. There's just the simple respect due as a tax paying American and every single book I read, movie I rent, web site I read, etc is no one's business but mine. But if people don't care then they should not complain when they wake up to the world of 1984. IF they truly don't understand...read the book or watch the movie.
The thing is I think alot of people KNOW something is wrong.
They just cannot believe it has really truly come to this.
But I am seeing more and more things like this reported on "mainstream" news and people like Walter Cronkite and other respected Americans are voicing their concern.

As the line that W. had such a hard time reciting goes.
Fool me once...shame on you.
Fool me twice...shame on me.

We've been fooled, folks.

Hello WriteOn

Specifically, which section of the Homeland Security Act subjects citizen to the following that are not already a part of the pubic records? Or is it your objection that all the information would be available in one place, file or computer system?:

In reply to:

---

Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database."

To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you — passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance — and you have the supersnoop's dream: a "Total Information Awareness" about every U.S. citizen.

---

Hmmm, my comment concerning the airhead press was reserved for those members who are supremely uninformed, incompetent and persist in asking questions based on their particular supremacy.

We can discuss Poindexter, Ollie North, the Boland Amendment, Central America, the Contra's and that little Communist bastard Daniel Ortega's attempt to spread Communism through violent revolution in Central America later---if you wish.

For those opposed to a Homeland Security Dept. (even with the language you have already objected to removed), the war on terrorism and possible war with Iraq, I wonder what you would say if a nuclear device were to be exploded in a major American City, or VX nerve agent, small pox, or Anthrax released in aerosol form which killed a hundred thousand American or so. Whoops?

I would plan ahead if I were you because if the terrorists and Saddam Hussein aren't stopped one or more of those scenarios are a distinct possibility.

jwhop

Jwhop said - "For those opposed to a Homeland Security Dept. (even with the language you have already objected to removed), the war on terrorism and possible war with Iraq, I wonder what you would say if a nuclear device were to be exploded in a major American City, or VX nerve agent, small pox, or Anthrax released in aerosol form which killed a hundred thousand American or so. Whoops?"

No, NOT whoops! A terrible terrible tragedy. But not one that can be necessarily prevented by the Homeland Security (no matter how draconian it becomes), the war on terrorisim, or a war with Irag. Prior to 9-11, wasn't the worst act of terrorism in the USA the Federal building bombing in Oklahoma? And what about the UniBomber? Weren't those American citizens doing the dirty work? Look too at the Isreali/Palestinian conflict. No matter how tough a stance Isreal takes - the bombing doesn't stop. And it won't - not until the conditions in this world that breed terrorisim are addressed. Lack of security isn't one of those conditions. Terrorists don't commit acts of terrorism, based purely on the ability to 'get away with it'. There needs to be a massive shift in how the western world deals with developing nations before we will ever see a stop to these actions directed against us. IMHO, of course!

Love,
Terri

Wait a minute, jwhop ... your answer to civil liberties concerns is "what if a terrost explodes a nuclear bomb or releases anthrax in America?"

In other words, to hell with our liberties, the threat of terrorism is so scary that it overrides everything else?

Do you think this is some kind of magical mantram that you and the administration can just "chant" and make it have some meaning? In the past year, the administration's answer to EVERYTHING has been "be afraid of Terrorists" ... and now, when thoughtful people are raising serious concerns about civil liberties you have nothing to say about it except "what if Terrorists do bad things in America" ... as if it were somehow completely self-evident that allowing the government to assume gargantuan big brother police powers to snoop on and record and cross-reference every aspect of our lives, will somehow prevent terrorists from releasing anthrax?

Perhaps you were once a libertarian, jwhop, but listen to yourself now: you are sweeping aside the gravest threat to civil liberties we have ever faced without so much as a single word of concern or regret, while at the same time actively supporting the creation of the largest centralized government police/spy agency that has ever existed in the history of the world! How is this unprecedented expansion of government power compatible with the sentiment "that government which governs least, governs best?" There is some twist of logic here that eludes me.

Love,
Greg

Maria, thanks SO much for posting that! I had read it this AM but didnt have time to comment.

Terri made a comment on the other thread which I will elaborate on.
Some are meant to know
Some are not meant to know
Some are meant to not understand yet..(those ones I and others, will try and help out in order to "see")
Some are meant to delude our thinking.

I will not apologize for that comment, other than to say Im sorry if anyone doesnt understand it. Ive been shown a dozen scriptural verses which support it, and I see those energies in people,although its taken me a while to learn about it! With Venus in Pisces, and other Neptunian aspects, I get deluded at times..lol
I will not waste time arguing or debating "loss of privacy" issues anymore either.
Theres too much coming, work to do,and time is a wastin'.

Hi jwhop,

Thanks for clarifying about airheads. I'm not looking to pick a fight with you, truly. I do have a lot of faith in the NYT and Washington Post in terms of those institutions staying vigilant about government encroachments on individual rights, and when those guys start waving the red flags, I definitely sit up and take notice.

Things which are "public records" are those things which any member of the public has the right to see about anyone. Journalists rely extensively on public records, and an excellent source as to what is and is not public record is published by IRE -- Investigative Reporters and Editors Inc., associated with the University of Missouri School of Journalism. Compiled under the editorship of John Ullmann and Jan Colbert, the book is called The Reporter's Handbook: An Investigator's Guide to Documents and Techniques. That book would answer your questions if your questions concerned more obscure records. But the ones cited by Safire that you asked me about, are ones that no reporter with any experience would have to wonder about. ALMOST NONE OF THOSE THINGS SAFIRE CITED ARE PUBLIC RECORD! Cops need a warrant, issued by a court that has considered the probable cause and relevance to the investigation versus the person's privacy rights, to get them. Reporters can't get them at all unless they get them from the law enforcement sources who are ready to roll with a prosecution.

1. Credit card purchases: Nope. These are between you and the places of businesses directly connected. Reporters can't get them; cops need warrants and judicial approval to reach them.
2. Magazine subscriptions: Nope. These are between you and the magazine publishers. Reporters can't get them; cops need warrants and judicial approval to reach them.
3. Medical prescriptions: Nope. These are between you and your doctors and pharmacists. If a particular drug is found in your system and is implicated in the investigation of a particular crime or accident, that information is often made public, but that's because of its bearing on the particular investigation, and there are rules of protocol involving that information's release to law enforcement and news sources.
4. Every web site you visit and e-mail you send and receive. Nope. These are between you and your ISP. Reporters can't get them; cops need warrants and judicial approval to reach them.
5. Every academic grade you receive. Nope. The IRE book says, "Because of federal and state privacy laws, little information is available about individual students unless they, or in some cases their parents, grant permission. In general, the school or university will provide dates of attendance and degree, if any, that was awarded. Other information varies greatly from state to state and even within the state, depending on how the institution has responded to privacy legislation." You know how, when you apply for a job, the form might say the employer is going to send away for your transcripts and you have to sign that form to allow it? That's why. Cops also need permission and judicial warrants, although there may be some variance here state to state.
6. Every bank deposit you make. Nope. You didn't actually think this was already public record did you? Same deal as above...reporters can't get them; cops need warrants with judicial approval.
7. Every trip you book. Nope. Reporters can't get this info; cops need warrants and judicial approval.
8. Every event you attend. Nope. You would have to have a reporter or cop following you around 24/7 for this information to get into their hands now.
9. The things in the second paragraph: passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I. -- of these, ONLY your judicial and divorce records are public information available for perusal by reporters, or the kid across the street, or your ex-wife's sister, except that very rarely a judge will close them for privacy reasons. The other things mentioned, drivers license information, etc., are records the government agencies have, and there are laws regarding how those agencies may and may not share that information with one another when engaging in investigations of criminal wrong-doing and/or when making administrative decisions regarding individuals' applications for government programs.

As Safire said, the portion of the bill that would set up this VERY INVASIVE, presently VERY ILLEGAL gathering of all this information is the portion that would permit and fund the "Total Information Awareness" databank under Poindexter.

It's a VERY BAD IDEA, and snooping invasively on 300 million Americans is not germane to stopping terrorist plots. There are already many agencies with police powers who ought to be on-the-ball enough to make their cases to warrant-issuing judges to get the specific information they need on the specific suspects without making us all suspects and making every commercial company in the U.S. (ISPs, banks, etc.) be de facto FBI informants.

PLUS, Safire says the bill undermines the Freedom of Information Act in ways that no one has thoroughly examined yet. That's another TREACHERY, as FOIA is the only way the free press has been able to get information to expose to the people what the government has actually been doing in many important cases.

I think we should all start sending messages of outrage to our representatives in the House of Representatives and Senate.

Maria

Why did the democrats lose? Fund raising? Bush popularity? Nope. All about 9/11. 9/11 returned the US to a world of danger. After the end of the cold war and fear of nuclear attack, we didn't think so much about national security - no need to. Our homeland seemed pretty secure with no obvious enemies. 9/11 made most of us care again - ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY. The homeland-security bill asked the question: In times of emergency, should national security be top priority? Well, the democrats lost badly. The people of the United States of America have spoken. They answered, YES. We are at war, a similar feeling to the Cold War. Might not feel it every day, but it is always there. There are enemies out there arming and organizing against us. Until we win the war on terrorism, all elections will be about 9/11. Not about patriotism as much as seriousness on national security. It's the Terrorism.

Joyce

If it wasnt so ridiculous, it would be almost funny...Now "they" are going to examine your heads!

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Northeast/11/16/logan.profiling.ap/index.html

As Maria said...start those letters to congress!!

Yes Joyce, you're absolutely right. And little wonder that we are so security minded. We should be.

But it is either an error in thinking or a deliberate fraud that guides those in power to exploit this very understandable fear and priority on security, by equating a massive shift toward police-state invasiveness and control with the security that we so fervently desire.

In fact, there is no reason to believe that such a shift will result in greater security at all! Can anyone point to a current government where the citizens actually enjoy greater security as a result of strong centralized police powers and domestic spy agencies? I don't believe so ... I believe we will see to the contrary that the people who live under governments of that kind are inherently LESS secure, both internally and externally. But we don't hear any discussion about that ... we only hear flat assertions that this or that increase of federal power or decrease of individual rights or privacy is "needed" to make us "secure" from the looming danger of "terrorism." Understandably, for a long time most Americans took the president's assertions about this and other facets of the war on terrorism at face value, and pulled together behind whatever he suggested. United we stand!

At first it was only the radicals, the peaceniks, the political fringe that questioned these assertions and motives. But gradually more and more Americans have started saying, "hey wait a minute, maybe all this ISN'T necessary or effective to buy us the 'security' it is claimed to be 'needed' for. Maybe this is a serious mistake ... or even a serious con job." It is now to the point where some of the most responsible watchdogs for the American people, our major newspapers and political journalists, are expressing these concerns. If we blow them off and don't listen, it's at our own grief.

I think this marks the turning of the tide.

The majority of Americans are right to be primarily concerned with security. We'd be crazy if we weren't! But we do ourselves no favors if we do not demand to know whether what we are asked to support in the name of security will actually enhance our security - or if it might rather curtail our precious freedoms while yet plunging us into a far more unstable and insecure world. We've been told that asking those questions is unpatriotic, but significantly fewer of us are willing to take that answer at face value.

Time will tell.

Love,
Greg

Aries, you're welcome. Thank Dani. She's the one who called it to my attention.

I've written both my senators and my representative in the House, using the link Sabra provided. Nice site, Sabra! Then I figured, I've written these same three guys twice now (the first time was against opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling) so I might as well keep their addresses handy. They don't actually have e-mail addresses you can add to your address book. You have to use their web forms. But I went through www.house.gov and bookmarked the page for the House e-mail system, where you can put in your zip code and use the form to e-mail your representative. On the Senate side, www.senate.gov will let you click to your two senators' individual web pages, and I bookmarked each of their web-mail form pages. So now I've got a folder in my Favorites where I can go "click, click, click" and write those guys.

Maria

The democrats figured they could block the Department of Homeland Security over a dispute about job protection. Big mistake. Unions. Unions protect many crummy workers. Not about the best people getting hired for the best pay. Not about merit pay increases. Smacks of socialism. I saw this years ago as a high school teacher. Some of the worst teachers in the world were going to keep their jobs forever. Teacher union. I felt some of these teachers' attitudes were even damaging to students' social and mental development. Their god given right, though, their job - no matter how poorly they performed it. Why does the US import more and more? The unions > the cost of our products. So we buy elsewhere.

Now, under Homeland Security, there will be flexibility - no longer have to just hire government union employees. Better chance of getting the best possible people for the job. Homeland Security is not about keeping secrets from people. It is about moving all separate agencies into one streamlined agency. More efficient. Less duplication of workers (same work done with fewer people). Takes out levels of red tape, so faster action - if necessary. Keeping secrets? There have always been secrets. Our law enforcement should be able to keep secrets. How else to you catch the bad guys and protect the good guys? The tide might turn a bit - Individuals' rights? Yes. Criminals' rights? No. Let's not get paranoid here.

The democrats will continue to lose elections until they can pass the test: trust on national security. After the Vietnam mess, the Democratic Party was viewed as uncertain and unreliable on national security. Which is why, between the late 60s and the end of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Democrats were denied the presidency - except in 1976 - after Watergate. Clinton got in in 1992. At that time, there was no threat to national security. Now there is. National security was the staple of the Republican campaign. Made a lot of sense to a lot of people. Including me.

Joyce

Hi Terri

In reply to:

---

Terrorists don't commit acts of terrorism, based purely on the ability to 'get away with it'. There needs to be a massive shift in how the western world deals with developing nations before we will ever see a stop to these actions directed against us.

---

It always gets back to being our fault for the terrorist attacks doesn't it? So in the minds of some, we deserve it and that's a sentiment that's been expressed on this site in the past and one that gives the terrorists some nice cover for their murderous activities.

In reply to:

---

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (Nov. 17) - A statement attributed to al-Qaida threatened more attacks in New York and Washington unless America stops supporting Israel and converts to Islam , an Arab TV reporter who received the unsigned document said.

---

The President has a quite different option available to him and the people of the US broadly support his plan.

jwhop

Jwhop, you stated: "It always gets back to being our fault for the terrorist attacks doesn't it? So in the minds of some, we deserve it and that's a sentiment that's been expressed on this site in the past and one that gives the terrorists some nice cover for their murderous activities."

That's how I see it, as well.

Historically, the US has been slow to roll to war. WW2 - arguably too slow. Many more lives might have been saved it we hadn't waited so long to get involved.

Same holds true now. Seems like some smart posturing is going on. Overall, I like how the Bush administration is handling the terrorism crisis.

We don't DESERVE the terrorists attacks. I live in a nice home in a beautiful neighborhood. Some people don't have this. So am I bad? Does this justify terrorist attacks? Saddam Hussein and Osasma Bin Laden are filthy rich, and their people are dirt poor. Yet, they denounce materialism. Seems like a double standard to me.

Joyce

Thanks for your post, jwhop.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (Nov. 17) - A statement attributed to al-Qaida threatened more attacks in New York and Washington unless America stops supporting Israel and converts to Islam , an Arab TV reporter who received the unsigned document said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greg, you stated:

"Keep throwing out the hate and fear statements, jwhop, that's a great contribution to world peace and understanding. Dig a little deeper, I'm sure you can find some even more loathesome stuff that Al Quaeda has said, this is kid stuff"

Doesn't your daughter live in NY, Greg? Your reactions right after the 9/11 attack were a lot different than they are now - as I recall. Shall we ignore this threat on NY? Is that what you would like? Doesn't make sense to me. We need to investigate and pay attention to these threats. Loathesome stuff? Yes. Loathesome. These threats are loathesome. Did jwhop make hate and fear statements? NO! Al Quaeda made those statements. Not Jwhop.
I don't get it.

Joyce

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (Nov. 17) - A statement attributed to al-Qaida threatened more attacks in New York and Washington unless America stops supporting Israel and converts to Islam , an Arab TV reporter who received the unsigned document said.


Greg, should US citizens be kept in the dark about the above statement? Should it be hushed up?
After all, according to you:


"Keep throwing out the hate and fear statements, jwhop, that's a great contribution to world peace and understanding. Dig a little deeper, I'm sure you can find some even more loathesome stuff that Al Quaeda has said, this is kid stuff. Gotta work ourselves up into a killing frenzy, wouldn't want the terrorists to get ahead of us in the hate department, would we?"

Maybe we should keep those statements a government secret, Greg. Do you think? Wouldn't want to chance any outrage of US citizens. Better off that we don't know about it. Right? After all, we don't want people getting mad at Al Quaeda. The little guy. The underdog. So unfair.

Joyce

Hello Greg

You said:
"Wait a minute, jwhop ... your answer to civil liberties concerns is "what if a terrost explodes a nuclear bomb or releases anthrax in America?"

In other words, to hell with our liberties, the threat of terrorism is so scary that it overrides everything else?"

No Greg, that's your characterization of what I said but it isn't what I said.

My characterization of what you and some others are saying is:

We object to the Homeland Security Act in any form. We object to any efficient use of information and resources that enhances the governments ability to find, apprehend and prosecute those in our country for the purposes of blowing up our buildings, destroying our institutions, our economy and killing our citizens. Oh, we guess you can call it Homeland Security if you wish, as long as you make damned sure it can't get the job done.

Yes Greg, I'm a Libertarian and of the worst type. I actually go the the source when I want information instead of having it spoon fed to me by some reporter or whacko with an ax to grind who has tied a nice "red" ribbon around the package.

I'm the kind of Libertarian who asks questions when I see something that doesn't square with what I think is the truth. Generally, of the questions I've asked here, I've gotten a demur attached to an attack that questions my intelligence, my compassion, my spiritual development and now, the status of my Libertarian ideals.

I'm the kind of Libertarian who has actually read the Constitution of the United States, understands the Separation of Powers doctrine it contains and the reasons they were instituted, while at the same time realizing the number one responsibility of the Federal Government is to protect the lives and property of "American" citizens.

Much of the information sought is already in "a" federal computer somewhere. The rest is covered by Section 204 of the Homeland Security Act. Notice the "voluntary" aspects of Section 204. If you know anything about the Internal Revenue code, you will recognize the "voluntary compliance" aspects of Sec 204 of this Act.

SEC. 204. INFORMATION VOLUNTARILY PROVIDED
Information provided voluntarily by non-Federal entities or individuals that relates to infrastructure vulnerabilities or other vulnerabilities to terrorism and is or has been in the possession of the Department shall not be subject to section 552 of title 5, United StatesCode. (Privacy Act of 1974)
Analysis
This section encourages the sharing of information with the Department of Homeland Security by the private sector, state and local governments, and individuals. It provides that information voluntarily provided by non-federal parties to the Department of Homeland Security that relates to infrastructure vulnerabilities or other vulnerabilities to terrorism is not subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Also, such information would not lose its protected character if forwarded by the Department of Homeland Security to other federal departments or agencies.

There are parts of this Act that clearly don't pass the muster of the 4th Amendment and those will be challenged in every Federal Court in America if they aren't struck prior to the Act being passed by Congress and signed by the President.

As for the voluntary aspects of the Act, "stop volunteering" and make sure no one else volunteers on your behalf.

jwhop

* Sigh *

Of course I'm concerned, Joyce. I'm not suggesting ignoring any credible threats or sticking our heads in the sand, not by any means. Unspecified threats to attack major US cities have been standard fare for a long time now ... this is nothing either new or specific, it's just a continuation of the same tired propaganda war, just making sure we don't forget there's a threat. I'm not forgetting, and I doubt if you and jwhop are, and a non-specific threat with the condition of compliance as the US "converting to Islam" certainly doesn't fall into the "credible" category, would you say? I'd say it's laughable!

The thing that frustrates me about all this is that there doesn't seem to be any room for intelligent discussion ... it always comes down to the same throwing out of dire threats, reminding us of fearful possibilities, and continuously reminding us of the irrational intentions of these terrorist groups as the whole answer to everything. jwhop makes long and seemingly thoughtful posts in which he vehemently denies any abrogation of civil liberties, and challenges people to show him where those abrogations lie ... but when folks DO respond as if they were actually in a discussion aimed at ferreting out truth, and show what those abrogations are, he ignores the posts and goes back to the tried-and-true formula of repeating the horrible threats and actions of the terrorists and asserting that we will deal with them by force!

If someone suggests that there are inequities in the world that might have a bearing on the hostility that some radical groups have for the US, and that we should at least consider what these are and whether there's any merit to them or any possibility of addressing them in such a way as to improve the chances for peace through means OTHER than kicking the crap out of them, not only is that suggestion ignored but it's ignored in a way that implies that if ANYBODY has ANY beef with ANYTHING the US has done or is doing, that they are "blaming us for the terrorist attacks," and so hell no we won't discuss it!

It's a whoe mindset that, through choosing what to ignore and by having a limited nmber of "stock responses" for anything, effectively closes off any reasoned discussion of any options other than giving the administration all the power it asks for, and solving all the problems through the exercise of military might alone.

NO DOUBT military strength in the face of hostile aggression is needed. NO DOUBT in times of genuine crisis people are - and should be - willing to make do with restrictions and privations they would not be happy with in less challenging times. Those are good points and I for one agree with them. But they are NOT the be-all and end-all of any possible consideration. There ARE genuine issues about real gripes that third world countries have had with some Western policies and actions (some of which the American people largely have not approved or might not even know about). Those things TOO need to be discussed as part of a comprehensive solution to bringing lasting peace to the world. There ARE genuine issues of civil rights protections that are valid and essential to consider - after all our civil rights and liberties are the very thing that make America WORTH defending - questions like, how much invasive big-brother surveillance is really necessary to provide real security advantages? For those that ARE truly necessary (if any) how can we structure the laws to assure that they are a temporary response to an emergency situation, rather than permanently giving up major aspects of the way of life we value? Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. But the viewpoint of this aggressive pro-administration, pro-war, pro-expanded police/intelligence/executive-power point of view is that everything is black and white. There is no discussion, nothing else to consider except giving the administration everything it asks for and stomping terrorists across the globe. If anyone questions ANYTHING about that, the only response is some threat or anti-American statement made by terrorists or some warning about horrible consequences of biological or nuclear terror ...

It's not that those things are not real or important, they ARE. But they are not the only things in the world worth considering about this situation, it is not so black-and-white that everything else is worthy of nothing but ridicule or contempt or being ignored. That's a childish, two-dimensional representation of what is in fact a VERY complex and multi-dimensional set of worldwide problems, and such unrealistic two-dimensional representations are in fact the very tools that demagogues use to sway the masses. That is a real danger, and you bet I'm upset that the very people who believe themselves to be the strongest supporters of freedom don't see how they are playing right into the hands of those who DON'T believe in freedom - who believe in "belief management" and Orwellian omnipresent surveillance and behavior control - by their insistence that there is nothing else to consider here except: 1) Terrorists are evil 2) We have the power to wipe them out and we will 3) Whatever our leaders say is necessary to accomplish this, IS necessary, and questioning it in any way is de-facto evidence of treasonous intentions, sympathising with the enemy, or blamig Americans. Or at best, simply being a stupid airhead.

That just ain't a comprehensive picture of reality. It's a dangerous picture of reality.

Love,
Greg

Hi Joyce

Glad to see you back and posting again

Thanks for joining in and bringing some balance to the
discussions.

Strange isn't it that those who say they are in favor of free speech attempt to muzzle those who say things they don't agree with, regardless of the absolute truth and documented source of the statement?

A little PC music Maestro

OK, as a member of the Capitalist oppressors of the downtrodden, I have to go out now and attempt to make some (dare I say it ) money

All I can say is "Right on Sister"


jwhop

I have a question I'd LIKE for Joy and/or Jwhop to address IF they feel like it. Please understand this is NOT meant as a confrontation at all, I'm just wanting to understand ONE thing that we have been talking about.

Ok, here's the question. How do you feel about the fact that's it's Poindexter (who is a convicted felon) that has been chosen to "head up" this super citizen database?

Doesn't this smack of "good ole boy" syndrome??? Now believe me I know "good ole boy syndrome" extends to both parties or better yet all parties, but this one just really seems "blantant".

Maybe it wouldn't be as upsetting if it were someone without a criminal history but I can't figure out why he's being considered for the job at all?? (Honestly, for me at least, it would still be upsetting but that's just because I strongly believe in the right to privacy but that's just me.)

Does it bother you? IF not will you please tell me why not?
Again, only if you feel like answering.

Peggy, I can't speak for Joyce or jwhop, but I can tell you why Poindexter was selected for this role. It's because he is the inventor of the gargantuan database/data-mining/data-sifting technology that this aspect of the new agency is to be built on. It's his baby, and has been his pet project for many years.

Love,
Greg

What did you say that anyone tried to muzzle you from saying, jwhop? If I wanted to muzzle you, it would take me about 2 seconds to erase you and your posts from this website without a trace.

But of course I would not do that, and you count on me not to do that, because it wouldn't be right. That would be a "might makes right" approach, wouldn't it? Certainly I will say so if I think what you are saying is counterproductive or irrational or changing the subject, but please don't confuse that with anyone trying to muzzle you.

In reply to:

---

Yes Greg, I'm a Libertarian and of the worst type. I actually go the the source when I want information instead of having it spoon fed to me by some reporter or whacko with an ax to grind who has tied a nice "red" ribbon around the package.

---

I see, so William Safire, one of the most prominent conservative political commentators in America, is pushing a "red" agenda by voicing his civil liberties concerns over this act? As are all the other responsible journalists and commentators who have voiced urgent and sober concerns about this assault on our rights, all "whackos with an axe to grind?" Umm, yeah, right.

In reply to:

---

I'm the kind of Libertarian who has actually read the Constitution of the United States, understands the Separation of Powers doctrine it contains and the reasons they were instituted, while at the same time realizing the number one responsibility of the Federal Government is to protect the lives and property of "American" citizens.

---

Are you truly unaware that the second half of your sentence negates the first? You claim to understand and support constitutional law, yet the most fundamental principle of that document is that expediency and "special circumstances" MAY NOT override its provisions. Period. Powers which are not explicitly granted to the Federal government in the constitution are EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN to it. Period. You cannot support those aspects of the constitution that you like while ignoring or undermining others that prohibit what YOU think is "necessary" to protect America, and yet call yourself a supporter of the constitution. In those circumstances it's not a statement of fact but just an emotional appeal that sounds good.

In reply to:

---

There are parts of this Act that clearly don't pass the muster of the 4th Amendment and those will be challenged in every Federal Court in America if they aren't struck prior to the Act being passed by Congress and signed by the President.

---

I will give you credit for admitting that there are parts of the act that are unconstitutional - which you vehemently denied in your reply to WriteOn. So that puts you in the position of vocally supporting an act that you know violates constitutional rights, but say you're not worried about it because they'll be challenged anyway! Now why would that be? Why would the administration do such a thing ... unless they were hoping to get away with it ... hoping that maybe it won't be challenged if the climate of fear is strong enough, or that sympathetic judges might obstruct challenges and delay removal of the illegal provisions? In short, why would unconstitutional provision be in the law AT ALL unless the intent of the law's framers was to subvert the constitution?

In reply to:

---

As for the voluntary aspects of the Act, "stop volunteering" and make sure no one else volunteers on your behalf.

---

Sounds so simple, doesn't it? Several problems with that simple solution: It is only "voluntary" on the part of those who collect the information, not on the part of those who are being tracked ... and in practical terms how likely is it that any business that depends on government permits or that operates under federal regulation, which most do in one way or another these days, is going to stand up to the Feds and say "no, you can't have our database" when they come calling? If the credit reporting agency who has my records "volunteers" to hand over its database to the super-snooper system, neither I nor any of the hundreds of thousands of other people whose "confidential" records are in that database have any choice in the matter whatsoever. What's more, once that information has been "voluntarily" given to the feds, it becomes exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. That means that I have NO RIGHT to demand to see what's in the copy of my credit report that was given to Homeland security. In fact I have no right to see MOST of the information about me in that database -- including hearsay or allegations "voluntarily" made against me by my neighbor who "suspects" I am a terrorist. It all goes into a black hole never to be seen again -- except whoever the Homeland Security folks choose to share it with, which is something else that neither I nor the courts will have any control over.

Significantly, although its been mentioned several times here, none of the supporters of this abomination have had one word to say about the fact that this super-database tracking every aspect of every citizen's life is the brainchild of, and will be directly managed by, William Poindexter, who was CONVICTED in Federal court of five counts of lying to the US Congress and obstructing a congressional investigation, who proudly asserted his right to place his own personal judgment above the law, above the US Congress, and above the people of the United States -- to say nothing of selling deadly missiles to our enemies and using the criminal proceeds to finance a foreign military operation that Congress had specifically forbidden. Doesn't anybody have any qualms about this at all? Have we reached the state of such fear that what we really want is outlaw mavericks calling the shots, in the hope that they will be "strong" enough to keep the enemy away from the gates? Are we now so panicky that we are willing to simply "hope" that he has more integrity now than before, are we actually willing to hand over complete management of intelligence about every facet of our lives to a person who DEMONSTRABLY sees nothing wrong with breaking the law if he personally feels it's the right thing to do for "American interests"?

An interesting anecdote from one of the Washington Post editorials reporting on Poindexter. He currently sits in his defense subcontrator's office beneath "a stylized variation of the great seal of the United States: An eye looms over a pyramid and appears to scan the world. The motto reads: Scientia Est Potentia, or 'knowledge is power.'" No bones about what he's after! Doesn't this give anyone else the willies?

Even putting aside all the genuine concerns about civil liberties and unconstitutional concentration of executive power, the fact is that there is no credible evidence that this massive department will in fact enhance our security one iota! Although the biggest argument for establishing it in the first place was "information sharing" and eliminating the inefficiencies of separate organizations, in fact the CIA and FBI will continue to operate as separate organizations ... without any guaranteed access to each others information, or to the new mega-agency's information, or vice-versa. If anything this will exacerbate the information sharing problem by introducing a NEW player to "compete" with the FBI and CIA. In terms of improving efficiency in the smaller agencies that it DOES subsume, even its supporters admit that it will probably be several years before there is any significant improvement in operating efficiency or information-flow. Yet once again, this whole thing is being sold to the American public under the simplistic argument: there is an urgent terrorist threat, and this is what we need to protect America, and we need it now.

There is no compelling reason to believe that this massive new bureaucracy will have any positive effect on national security whatsoever ... nor, to my knowledge, has any meaningful cost-benefit analysis or informed public discussion of its necessity or effectiveness ever been done, aside from anecdotal remarks and ceaseless assertions from the administration that this is what we "need" to "fight terrorism." Pretty flimsy basis on which to inaugurate a massive new bureaucracy that will significantly alter our relationship to government in major - and at least potentially very dangerous and ominous - ways.

Love,
Greg