"A country that restricts freedom in the name of security shall neither
have the latter nor deserve the former." - Alexander Hamilton 
As we watch the clock wind down on the year 2002, it is difficult not to
experience an ominous sense of dread regarding the rapid passage in the
past two weeks of the Homeland Security Act - a sweeping piece of
legislation that virtually rewrites fundamental foundations and protections
of our Constitution, all for the sake of keeping us purportedly more secure
against terrorism. Less than one month after the November elections made G.W. Bush the first
Republican since Eisenhower to control the House, the Senate, and the White
House, it is apparent that our country is now headed upon a dangerous
trajectory that gives Bush not only his 'mandate' for war, but also the
unfettered opportunity to turn our government into one big private
corporation. Yet, with all the talk of the 'Republican Landslide' in November, a few
rather telling statistics need to be reinforced. First, only about 20% of
the American people went to the polls last month to vote for a Republican.
Approximately 19% voted for a Democrat, while a whopping 61% basically said
'We have no choice' and refused to show up at all to vote. Essentially, this confirms the biggest concern following the 2000
Presidential election debacle, which is simply that the majority of
Americans would give up and not see any value in voting after Florida
proved that not only do votes not count, but even if people do vote, they
won't bother to be counted. Of course, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the gang are thrilled that the
majority of Americans have apparently 'given up', which is why now it is
more important than ever to stand up against the nefarious violations to
our civil liberties contained in the new Homeland Security Act. As it currently stands, few people fully understand all the provisions
contained in this sweeping government reorganization bill. While Democrats put up a valiant effort to amend this legislation in the
11th hour, gaining significant bipartisan support, their endeavors failed
by a mere five votes. "We needed to look at details and know what is in this bill," commented
Michigan's Senator Debbie Stabenow. "It is a different bill that came back
and I was deeply disturbed as I looked through it." "I want to support homeland security. I support developing a department. We
all share that. This is not a partisan issue. We want to have maximum
safety, security and ability, communicate it effectively and efficiently,
and create the kind of confidence people expect us to create in terms of
the ability to respond and ideally prevent attacks," she continues. "But my fear is that under the name of homeland security we are saying
special interest provisions are put in this bill which are outrageous and
should not have the light of day. I think it is our responsibility to shine
the light of day on those provisions." Perhaps the most eloquent opponent to the Homeland Security Act was Senator
Robert Byrd, of West Virginia. Upon listening to his remarks during the
Senate debate, which was televised on the Government Channel, I searched up
the text from the Congressional Record, which I feel it significant to
re-print below, unedited: "I remember years ago, when I was in the House of Representatives, sending
out a little booklet to the people in my then-congressional district of how
our laws are made. We all remember how those laws are made according to the
script as prepared there in those handsome little booklets that we send
out. That is how the American people expect this Congress to operate. That
is the way we are supposed to operate." "But the way this bill was brought in here, less than 48 hours ago, a
brand-new bill. It had not been before any committee. It had undergone no
hearings, not this bill. It is a bill on our desks that has 484 pages.
There are 484 pages in this bill." "It has not been before any committee. There have been no hearings on this
bill. There have been no witnesses who were asked to appear to testify on
behalf of the bill or in opposition to it. It did not undergo any such
scrutiny." "It was just placed on the Senate Calendar. It was offered as an amendment
here. And so here it is before the Senate now. There it is." "That is not the way in which our children are taught how we make our
laws--not at all. The American people expect us to provide our best
judgment and our best insight into such monumental decisions. This is a
far, far cry from being our best. This is not our best. As a matter of
fact, it is a mere shadow of our best. Yet we are being asked, as the
elected representatives of the American people, those of us who are sent
here by our respective States, are being asked to invoke closure on these
484 pages." "If I had to go before the bar of judgment tomorrow and were asked by the
eternal God what is in this bill, I could not answer God. If I were asked
by the people of West Virginia, 'Senator Byrd, what is in that bill', I
could not answer. I could not tell the people of West Virginia what is in
this bill." "There are a few things that I know are in it by virtue of the fact that I
have had 48 hours, sleeping time included, in which to study this
monstrosity. If there ever were a monstrosity, this is it. I hold it in
my hand, a monstrosity. I don't know what is in it. I know a few things
that are in it, and a few things that I know are in it that I don't think
the American people would approve of if they knew what was in there." "Even Senator Lieberman, who is chairman of the committee which has
jurisdiction over this subject matter, even he saw new provisions in this
legislation as he looked through it yesterday and today. As his staff
looked through it, they saw provisions they had not seen before, that they
had not discussed before, that had not been before their committee before." "Yet we are being asked on tomorrow to invoke cloture on that which means
we are not going to debate in the normal course of things. We are going to
have 30 hours of debate. That is it, 30 hours. That is all, 30 hours; 100
Senators, 30 hours of debate." "And this is one of the most far-reaching pieces of legislation I have seen
in my 50 years. I will have been in Congress 50 years come January 3...
Never have I seen such a monstrous piece of legislation sent to this body." "And we are being asked to vote on that 484 pages tomorrow. Our poor staffs
were up most of the night studying it. They know some of the things that
are in there, but they don't know all of them." "It is a sham and it is a shame.
We are all complicit in going along with it. I read in the paper that
nobody will have the courage to vote against it. Well, ROBERT BYRD is going
to vote against it because I don't know what I am voting for. That is one
thing." "And No. 2, it has not had the scrutiny that we tell our young people, that
we tell these sweet pages here, boys and girls who come up here, we tell
them our laws should have." "Listen, my friends: I am an old meatcutter. I used to make sausage. Let me
tell you, I never made sausage like this thing was made. You don't know
what is in it. At least I knew what was in the sausage. I don't know what
is in this bill. I am not going to vote for it when I don't know what is in
it." "We ought to demand that this piece of legislation stay around here a while
so we can study it, so our staffs can study it, so we know what is in it,
so we can have an opportunity to amend it where it needs amending." "What the people of the United States really care about is their security.
That is what we are talking about. We don't know when another tragic event
is going to be visited upon this country. It can be this evening; it can be
tomorrow, or whatever. But this legislation is not going to be worth a
continental dime if it happens tonight, tomorrow, a month from tomorrow; it
is not going to be worth a dime. There are people out there working now to
secure this country and the people. They are the same people who are
already on the payroll. They are doing their duty right now to secure this
country." "This is a hoax. To tell the American people they are going to be safer
when we pass this is to hoax. We ought to tell the people the truth. They
are not going to be any safer with that. That is not the truth." "I was one of the first in the Senate to say we need a new Department of
Homeland Security. I meant that. But I didn't mean this particular hoax
that this administration is trying to pander off to the American people,
telling them this is homeland security." "That is not homeland security. Mr. President, the Attorney General and
Director of Homeland Security have told Americans repeatedly there is an
imminent risk of another terrorist attack. Just within the past day, or few
hours, the FBI has put hospitals in the Washington area, Houston, San
Francisco, and Chicago on notice of a possible terrorist threat." "This bill does nothing--not a thing--to make our citizens more secure
today or tomorrow. This bill does not even go into effect for up to 12
months. It will be 12 months before this goes into effect. The bill just
moves around on an organizational chart. That is what it does--moves around
on an organizational chart." "The Senate Appropriations Committee, on which Senator Stevens and I sit,
along with 27 other Senators, including the distinguished Senator who
presides over the Chamber at this moment, the Senator from Rhode Island,
Mr. Reed, tried to provide funds to programs to hire more FBI agents, to
hire more border patrol agents, to equip and train our first responders, to
improve security at our nuclear powerplants, to improve bomb detection at
our airports." "That committee of 29 Senators--15 Democrats and 14 Republicans--voted to
provide the funds for these homeland security needs. Those funds have been
in bills that have been out there for 4 months. But the President said
no--no, he would not sign it." "President Bush is the man I am talking about. He would not sign that as an
emergency. A unanimous Appropriations Committee has reported these moneys.
But this administration said no. So that is what happened." "These are actions that would make America more secure today. Did the
President help us to approve these funds? No. Instead, the President forced
us--forced us--to reduce homeland security funding by $8.9 billion, and he
delayed another $5 billion." "This is shameful; this is cynical; this is being irresponsible. It is
unfair to the American people. And then to tell them Congress ought to pass
that homeland security bill--that is passing the buck." "Mr. President, I call attention to a column in the New York Times. This is
entitled ``You Are A Suspect.'' It is by William Safire. I will read it: "If the homeland security act is not amended before passage, here is what
will happen to you: Every purchase you make"-- Hear me now-- "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.'' "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." "If the American people, if the American public is to believe what they
read in this week's newspapers, the Congress stands ready to pass
legislation to create a new Department of Homeland Security. Not with my
vote." "Passage of such legislation would be the answer to the universal battle
cry that this administration adopted shortly after the September 11
attacks: Reorganize the Federal Government." "How is it that the Bush administration's No. 1 priority has evolved into a
plan to create a giant, huge bureaucracy? How is it that the Congress
bought into the belief that to take a plethora of Federal agencies and
departments and shuffle them around would make us safer from future
terrorist attacks?" IMPORTANT THINGS WE DO KNOW According to The Pentagon, "A massive database that the government will use
to monitor every purchase made by every American citizen is a necessary
tool in the war on terror."
Edward Aldridge, undersecretary of Acquisitions and Technology, told
reporters that the Pentagon is developing a prototype database to seek
"patterns indicative of terrorist activity."
Aldridge said the database would collect and use software to analyze
consumer purchases in hopes of catching terrorists before it's too late. "The bottom line is this is an important research project to determine the
feasibility of using certain transactions and events to discover and
respond to terrorists before they act," he said. Aldridge said the database, which he called another "tool" in the war on
terror, would look for telltale signs of suspicious consumer behavior. Examples he cited were: sudden and large cash withdrawals, one-way air or
rail travel, rental car transactions and purchases of firearms, chemicals
or agents that could be used to produce biological or chemical weapons. It would also combine consumer information with visa records, passports,
arrest records or reports of suspicious activity given to law enforcement
or intelligence services.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is home to the Pentagon's
brightest thinkers -- the ones who built the Internet. DARPA will be in
charge of trying to make the system work technically. Rear Adm. John Poindexter, former national security adviser to President
Reagan, is developing the database under the Total Information Awareness
Program. Poindexter was convicted on five counts of misleading Congress and making
false statements during the Iran-Contra investigation. Those convictions
were later overturned, but critics note that his is a dubious resume for
someone entrusted with so sensitive a task. Aldridge said Poindexter will only "develop the tool, he will not be
exercising the tool." He said Poindexter brought the database idea to the
Pentagon and persuaded Aldridge and others to pursue it. "John has a real passion for this project," Aldridge said.
TIAF's office logo is now one eye scanning the globe. The translation of
the Latin motto: knowledge is power. Some say, possibly too much power. "What this is talking about is making us a nation of suspects and I am
sorry, the United States citizens should not have to live in fear of their
own government and that is exactly what this is going to turn out to be,"
said Chuck Pena, senior defense policy analyst at the Cato Institute. Pena and others say the database is an even greater violation of privacy
rights than Attorney General John Ashcroft's nixed proposal to turn postal
workers and deliverymen into government tipsters. No matter what protections Congress requires, Pena fears a database big
enough and nimble enough to track the entire nation's spending habits is
ripe for abuse. "I don't think once you put something like this in place, you can ever
create enough checks and balances and oversight," Pena said. But proponents say big business already has access to most of this data,
but don't do anything with it to fight terrorism. "I find it somewhat counter intuitive that people are not concerned that
telemarketers and insurance companies can acquire this data but feel
tremendous trepidation if a government ventures into this arena. To me it
just smacks of paranoia," said David Rivkin, an attorney for Baker &
Hostetler LLP. The database is not yet ready and Aldridge said it would not be available
for several years. Fake consumer data will be used in development of the
database, he said.
When it's ready, Aldridge said individual privacy rights would be
protected. But he could not explain how the data would be accessed. In some cases, specific warrants would give law enforcement agencies
access, he said. But in other cases the database might flag suspicious
activity absent a specific request or warrant, and that suspicious activity
could well be relayed to law enforcement or intelligence agencies. "I don't know what the scope of this is going to be," Aldridge said. "We
are in a war on terrorism. We are trying to find out if this technology can
work." One thing is for certain. If Republicans thought that this
legislation would help 'unclog' the Court Systems, they were definitely
mistaken. Numerous Civil Liberties organizations have already stated they will test
the constitutional legality of these sweeping changes in the court system;
however, if Bush succeeds in gaining approval for numerous judicial
appointments that were successfully blocked back when we had a system of
'checks & balances' in this country, than perhaps we indeed have just
witnessed the end of Democracy, and America, as we know it. | 
