http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/svfront/ellsn092301.htm Broaching a controversial subject that has gained visibility since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Oracle Chairman and CEO Larry Ellison is calling for the United States to create a national identification card system -- and offering to donate the software to make it possible.

Your new id card. http://www.templetons.com/brad/oracard.html

http://www.msnbc.com/news/648339.asp?0dm=C13UO> Law and Order John Dean: 'Liberties lost: unintended consequences of the anti-terror law' Posted on Sunday, October 28 @ 08:47:15 EST ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By John W. Dean, MSNBC When President Bush signed the sweeping new anti-terrorism legislation into a law, providing federal law enforcement officials with powerful new weapons to more effectively fight terrorism, he proved Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor prescient. A little less than a month earlier, Justice O'Connor advised a law school audience in Manhattan that as part of the country's response to terrorism, "we're likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country." While this new anti-terrorism law was certainly not designed to take away civil liberties of Americans, its unintended consequences threaten fundamental constitutional rights of people who have nothing to do with terrorism. The well-meaning but careless exuberance of our lawmakers is alarming. A 'HIGH-FLYING ACRONYM' More attention appears to have been given finding a title for the new law than the substance of its provisions. The "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required To Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act," as Rep. Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, noted during the House debate, is a truly "high-flying acronym, it is the PATRIOT bill, it is the USA bill, it is the stand up and sing the 'Star Spangled Banner' bill." It is also a law, Frank lamented, that was processed by Congress "in the most undemocratic way possible, and it is not worthy of this institution." No hearings were held in either the House or Senate on the USA PATRIOT Act, and few -- if any -- members of Congress were really aware of what was actually in this massive, complex, highly technical 30,000-word statute, which is divided into ten titles, with more than 270 sections and endless subsections that cross-reference and amend a dozen, or more, different laws. There is a concept in the legislative process called "regular order." It is the time- tested procedure to make certain that our laws are carefully considered. The USA PATRIOT Act was jammed through the House and Senate, with those calling for regular order being labeled unpatriotic. In fact, the 66 Republicans and Democrats in the House and the one member of the Senate who refused to be railroaded believed that law enforcement officials should have the tools needed to fight terrorists, but they should not be created at the expense of basic American freedoms.

"In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist." "Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew." "Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist." "Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant." "Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up." Pastor Martin Niemoller, 1892-1984

The Detroit Free Press has an article on what the FBI wants law enforcement to ask the 5,000 Middle Eastern men they are supposed to question Visitors to U.S. can expect probing terrorism questions http://www.detroitfreepress.com/news/metro/quest24_20011124.htm a summary of the questions http://www.detroitfreepress.com/news/metro/qlist24_20011124.htm and the actual memo http://www.detroitfreepress.com/gallery/2001/interviews/index.htm

From a lead story in the Sunday NYT: ------------- As Pentagon officials begin designing military tribunals for suspected terrorists, they are considering the possibility of trials on ships at sea or on United States installations, like the naval base in Guant�namo Bay, Cuba. The proceedings promise to be swift and largely secret, with one military officer saying that the release of information might be limited to the barest facts, like the defendant's name and sentence. Transcripts of the proceedings, this officer said, could be kept from public view for years, perhaps decades ... President Bush's authorization of secret military tribunals for noncitizens accused of terrorism and the systematic interviewing of 5,000 young Middle Eastern men in the country on temporary visas is well known. But broad new powers are also contained in more obscure provisions. A recent rule change published without announcement in the Federal Register gives the government wide latitude to keep noncitizens in detention even when an immigration judge has ordered them freed. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/25/politics/25LEGA.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/24/international/europe/24SPAI.html?pagewanted=prin t November 24, 2001 Spain Sets Hurdle for Extraditions By SAM DILLON with DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. MADRID, Nov. 23 -- Spain will not extradite the eight men it has charged with complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks unless the United States agrees that they would be tried by a civilian court and not by the military tribunals envisioned by President Bush, Spanish officials said today. The officials said the United States was informed this week of the Spanish stance, and several experts predicted today that other countries in the 15-nation European Union would balk at handing prisoners over to the Americans without similar guarantees. ..........

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=4230&mode=thread&order=0 Overstepping sovereignty: Antiterror law gives U.S. sweeping Internet power

FBI computer surveillance plans: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1436-2001Nov22.html

Biometrics is going to skyrocket in the next few years. A good stock buy might be biometric companies.

Newsday Ashcroft Ignores the Lessons of the Last Roundup November 29, 2001 TODAY THEIR names do not instill fear. They include Scalia and D'Amato, DiMaggio and Stallone, Grasso and Gallo. These names are shared now by people who hold positions of high public trust, or guarantee high gross at the box office. They are leaders of business, or legends for all time. In another day, these were names of people - dark people with exotic customs - who were officially branded by the U.S. government as a threat to the nation. They were roused from their jobs and from their sleep. They were dragged in without charge or guarantee of ever hearing one. They were brought before special tribunals, prohibited from seeing secret evidence against them. They were ripped from their families and held indefinitely. Their reputations were ruined; their livelihoods destroyed. They were, after all, aliens. Italy, their country of origin, was the enemy. It was war. And so it was ordered. The report of the U.S. Justice Department on the treatment of Italian Americans during World War II is either perfectly timed or perfectly ill-timed, depending on your point of view. It was released this week because Congress ordered it a year ago. Lawmakers could not have known, then, how exquisitely apt the study would be now. The law requiring the report has in its title a presumption by Congress that there was something terribly wrong about this ensnarement due to ethnicity. The law is "The Wartime Violation of Italian-American Civil Liberties Act." It assumes a clear violation, even though it was wartime. History's voice speaks through these pages. It has a tone of truth not heard from the current Justice Department, with its policy toward Mideastern immigrants that bears such resemblance to this ugly ancestor. In the immediate aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the roundup not only of Japanese Americans, but of German and Italian Americans, some of whom had lived and worked in the United States for 40 or 50 years. But even before that, in the 1930s, J. Edgar Hoover had prepared. "The Federal Bureau of Investigation drew up a list of those thought to be security risks to the nation," the report states. Those thought to be "most dangerous" were leaders of ethnic and cultural organizations. Others were deemed suspicious because they belonged to these clubs or simply because they were "known to support" them. Then, as now, the questions put to the immigrants (some already had become U.S. citizens) bore no discernible relation to risk. One young woman's father was asked why his daughter spoke French and Italian so well; she lost her job at Saks Fifth Avenue, where she sometimes interpreted for foreign customers, because of his detention. Today's FBI wants to ask 5,000 legal aliens from Mideastern countries how they "felt" when they heard news of the attack. The lawmen would also like to know whether these immigrants noticed anyone who reacted "in a surprising or inappropriate way." Then, as now, arrest could come on minor violations, overlooked if commited by someone who was not ethnically suspect. Theresa Borelli was arrested repeatedly for violating curfews that applied to Italian Americans in California. Her crime: making hospital visits to her paralyzed son, who'd been wounded in the Army overseas. Then, as now, it was government policy to detain immigrants as a way of soothing public nerves. The act of wartime apprehensions, according to an Immigration and Naturalization Service document cited in the report, "served two important purposes: [It] assured the public that our government was taking firm steps to look after the internal safety of the nation, thereby preventing the growth of war hysteria; and it took out of circulation men and women whose loyalty to the United States was doubtful and who might therefore commit some inimical act against the nation." Congress required this history to be revealed. It told the Justice Department to use the review "to determine how civil liberties can be better protected during national emergencies." This clause is mostly ignored by John Ashcroft, who signed the report. Instead, the current attorney general merely states his belief that his department is doing just fine, this time. http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpcoc292486477nov29.story

Will Safire warns The universal use and likely abuse of the national ID -- a discredit card -- will trigger questions like: When did you begin subscribing to these publications and why were you visiting that spicy or seditious Web site? Why are you afraid to show us your papers on demand? Why are you paying cash? What do you have to hide? ... Beware: It is not just an efficient little card to speed you though lines faster or to buy you sure-fire protection from suicide bombers. A national ID card would be a ticket to the loss of much of your personal freedom. Its size could then be reduced for implantation under the skin in the back of your neck. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/24/opinion/24SAFI.html

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-agent-removed1227dec27.story Bush Agent Removed From Flight By DOUGLAS KIKER Associated Press Writer December 27, 2001, 1:42 PM EST BALTIMORE -- An Arab-American Secret Service agent assigned to President Bush's security detail was removed from an American Airlines flight after the pilot questioned his credentials, the Secret Service said Thursday. American Airlines spokesman Todd Burke said "inconsistencies" in paperwork filled out by the armed agent prompted his removal Tuesday. The captain decided a more thorough check was needed to confirm the identity of the agent, the spokesman said. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said Thursday that the agent told him he felt he had been kicked off the Baltimore-to-Dallas flight because of his religion and ethnicity. FBI spokesman Pete Gullota said an incident similar to the one Tuesday occurred shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Gullota said an armed, off-duty FBI agent from the Baltimore office was not allowed to board a plane by a pilot despite following the security procedures for armed agents. Gullota refused to identify the airline but said the issue was cleared up and resulted in the pilot's suspension. "This, unfortunately, is not the first time something like that has happened," Gullota said. "In most instances the airlines are very happy to have us on-board. We don't just don't show up at gate armed. We go through routine and a whole lot of people are notified."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/28/opinion/28FRI2.html?todaysheadlines The New York Times December 28, 2001 The Antiterror Bandwagon Since the Bush administration announced plans to proceed with military tribunals and other limitations on liberties in the war against terror, foreign leaders have used the American example to justify all manner of repressive acts at home. It is a lamentable � and predictable � response to misguided American leadership in this area. Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, has repeatedly used the events of Sept. 11 and the campaign against terror to demand a free hand to use scorched-earth policies in what is essentially a domestic separatist conflict in Chechnya. Washington has obliged by muting its criticism. In Egypt, government officials have muzzled the political opposition in the name of fighting terror, policies now praised by the Bush administration. The misuse of Washington's antiterror campaign, however, is not limited to countries where terror is a problem. Unscrupulous governments and militaries are invoking the threat to tar their opponents or create draconian new laws. One example is Guatemala. The greatest potential terrorist threat in Guatemala today comes from military and retired military officials. These men have long been behind a policy of intimidation and even murder of activists for human rights and Mayan Indians. Yet in the wake of Sept. 11, this group has acquired enhanced powers. In November, at the urging of the United States, Guatemala established a new antiterror commission, which will be led by a retired military officer. The commissioner will direct a new interagency security committee dominated by military men. President Alfonso Portillo also recently switched Defense Minister Eduardo Ar�valo Lacs, a retired general, to the post of interior minister. Mr. Ar�valo Lacs has denounced human rights groups as bent on the country's destabilization. In Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe has been even more brazenly opportunistic. Mr. Mugabe � who receives oil and financial help from the Libyan dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi � is desperate to win a fifth term in elections likely to be held in February or March. He has begun to tar as terrorists his democratic political opposition, white farmers who object to the expropriation of their land, foreign and local journalists and even the British government. His government has proposed a new security bill that punishes terrorism and other vague offenses with the death penalty. Too many leaders in the world are looking for excuses to limit the liberties of their adversaries. It is inevitable that America's new policies would provide powerful new justifications. The Bush administration can limit the damage by demanding high standards of conduct from America's allies and conducting the war on terrorism with minimum damage to civil liberties at home. Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information