Slashdot Mirror

Debate and commentary from May, 2007. The mark-up is mine, as is the commentary on the entry page, but the rest of the files in the sub-site are verbatim XHTML mark-ups of The Congressional Daily Record, parsed from Government Printing Office served ASCII source files, and the links to the sources are given on each page.

I don't like hate crime laws, because they cross over a double jeopardy line in my mind. There is something wrong with being punished twice for the same criminal act, which is what hate crimes legislation does, but this has nothing to do with constitutionally protected speech, as many members of the House Republican Conservative Committee were alleging. The crime for being an accessory to an act of violence, for conspiratorial speech which was a part of a felony's commission, or speech which directly incited criminal behavior has never been protected speech. It does not matter that some assholes believe their religion teaches them to hate fags, or if a preacherman said it. It is still a crime, and this law does not change that. It only changes the sentence meted out if the victim of a violent felony was targeted, because they were a member in a listed group.

The argument made about special protected classes is lame too, when considering sentence guidelines promulgated by the DOJ. With violent crimes in which the victim was specifically targeted because of being a law enforcement officer, there is already a 6 step sentence enhancement. With victims targeted because of excessive vulnerability (aged, children, mentally or physically disabled, etc.), it is a 2 step sentence enhancement. For this specific hate crimes legislation, a 3 step sentence enhancement is proposed. It's covered in the entry page at the above link.

That's a lousy bit of reporting by the Washington Post. No proper sourcing at all. It took a little looking, but I found some data.

First, Senator Sessions (R-MS) is despicable human and an embarrassment to The Nation as a Senator. He was one of the Nine Reprehensible Republicans Senators who voted against the McCain anti-torture amendment to the Department Of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006, on October 5, 2005, which passed 90-9. During debate and commentary about the amendment, Sessions defamed West Point Graduate Captain Ian Fishback, 82nd Airborne Division, who had served in combat tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and had come forward, at the cost of his military career, to publicly make a statement with two anonymous Army NonComs about the use of human torture. More recently, Sessions rationalised the use of waterboarding in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing held February 27, 2008. Sessions a a lowlife scum, whose election reflects poorly upon Mississippi voters' discretion. May fortune be so kind that I toast to a better world upon hearing news of his death.

There is however, a bit of counterbalance given as a reason for the amendment. I am not well enough informed on the facts though to make a decent judgment regarding the merits.

The following three citations are from:
Senate Report 110-259 (GPO PDF) - Accompanied S. 1145: The Patent Reform Act Of 2007, January 24, 2008

Here's the official rationale given for the limiting the patent's reach:

Section 14: Limitation On Damages And Other Remedies With Respect To Patents For Methods In Compliance With Check Imaging Methods

Background

In 1994, the Federal Reserve proposed the idea of an electronic check image processing, archival, and retrieval system. In 1996, the American National Standard for Financial Image Interchange issued its architecture and design specification for such a system. The Federal Reserve implemented this technology in a check truncation pilot in 1999. Years later, this evolving technology became standard practice in the banking industry, and its importance became particularly noted in the days after September 11, 2001, when transporting paper checks by airplane was impossible for several days.[158] In 1999 and 2000, several inventors sought a series of patents relating to a system/process for imaging and storing documents, building their technology around what the government was already doing. The patent claims relate to a three-tiered system for imaging, transferring, and storing (archiving) paper checks tendered for processing via the electronic payment system. The 108th Congress enacted the Check 21 Act of 2003, P.L. 108- 100,[159] which allowed the recipient of a paper check to create a digital version to store and transfer (referred to as a "substitute check"),[160] thereby eliminating the need for further handling of the physical document.[161] The Check 21 Act requires all banks to recognize and accept the digital images of checks it receives from other banks.[162] The financial services industry (including banks) and their technology providers must be able to implement the Check 21 Act, which permits electronic check transfer based on technology developed by the federal government.[163]

Discussion of changes

Because Congress has mandated implementation of the Check 21 Act, the Committee accepted an amendment during the mark-up of the bill that declares practicing of the Check 21 industry standard should not constitute patent infringement. Section 14 of the Act amends section 287 of title 35 to limit the remedies available against a financial institution

That's a lousy bit of reporting by the Washington Post. No proper sourcing at all. It took a little looking, but I found some data.

First, Senator Sessions (R-MS) is despicable human and an embarrassment to The Nation as a Senator. He was one of the Nine Reprehensible Republicans Senators who voted against the McCain anti-torture amendment to the Department Of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006, on October 5, 2005, which passed 90-9. During debate and commentary about the amendment, Sessions defamed West Point Graduate Captain Ian Fishback, 82nd Airborne Division, who had served in combat tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and had come forward, at the cost of his military career, to publicly make a statement with two anonymous Army NonComs about the use of human torture. More recently, Sessions rationalised the use of waterboarding in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing held February 27, 2008. Sessions a a lowlife scum, whose election reflects poorly upon Mississippi voters' discretion. May fortune be so kind that I toast to a better world upon hearing news of his death.

There is however, a bit of counterbalance given as a reason for the amendment. I am not well enough informed on the facts though to make a decent judgment regarding the merits.

The following three citations are from:
Senate Report 110-259 (GPO PDF) - Accompanied S. 1145: The Patent Reform Act Of 2007, January 24, 2008

Here's the official rationale given for the limiting the patent's reach:

Section 14: Limitation On Damages And Other Remedies With Respect To Patents For Methods In Compliance With Check Imaging Methods

Background

In 1994, the Federal Reserve proposed the idea of an electronic check image processing, archival, and retrieval system. In 1996, the American National Standard for Financial Image Interchange issued its architecture and design specification for such a system. The Federal Reserve implemented this technology in a check truncation pilot in 1999. Years later, this evolving technology became standard practice in the banking industry, and its importance became particularly noted in the days after September 11, 2001, when transporting paper checks by airplane was impossible for several days.[158] In 1999 and 2000, several inventors sought a series of patents relating to a system/process for imaging and storing documents, building their technology around what the government was already doing. The patent claims relate to a three-tiered system for imaging, transferring, and storing (archiving) paper checks tendered for processing via the electronic payment system. The 108th Congress enacted the Check 21 Act of 2003, P.L. 108- 100,[159] which allowed the recipient of a paper check to create a digital version to store and transfer (referred to as a "substitute check"),[160] thereby eliminating the need for further handling of the physical document.[161] The Check 21 Act requires all banks to recognize and accept the digital images of checks it receives from other banks.[162] The financial services industry (including banks) and their technology providers must be able to implement the Check 21 Act, which permits electronic check transfer based on technology developed by the federal government.[163]

Discussion of changes

Because Congress has mandated implementation of the Check 21 Act, the Committee accepted an amendment during the mark-up of the bill that declares practicing of the Check 21 industry standard should not constitute patent infringement. Section 14 of the Act amends section 287 of title 35 to limit the remedies available against a financial institution

If you are really curious, here's a couple of links to Senate dissent against the immunity.

• Congressional Record: February 12, 2008 - Multiple Senators' statements
• Senator Richard Durbin - Congressional Record: February 28, 2008

If you are really curious, here's a couple of links to Senate dissent against the immunity.

• Congressional Record: February 12, 2008 - Multiple Senators' statements
• Senator Richard Durbin - Congressional Record: February 28, 2008

No, what I was attempting to convey is that for many Congressional member who claim their vote was not an all out declaration of war, the only proper evidence for which this can be judged is their statements entered into the Congressional Records during consideration of the AUMF. Using that standard, many of the politicians seem to be telling the truth.

I have a much better sense of what was actually entered into the Congressional Records during the consideration of the AUMF for a very easy to prove reason, although it makes me a bit uncomfortable using it often, because it feels like I am spamming. The following links are to my site, which I hand-coded personally:

• Authorization of Force
• Full TOC - including all inner links

The archive's pages have extensive inner links to expose a fairly fine specificity. If you search on the TOC page for individual Congresspersons, if they spoke anything substantial on those days, you will find a direct link to their words. (typo qualification, I just found a mispelled Kerry I was unaware of for over four years now that has three R's instead of two)

Kerry got seriously reamed about his statement undeservedly in 2004. Well he did kind of deserve it, because he is a verbose ponderous Yankee lurch, who preached 6550 words, but if you read it completely, and honestly, it's easy to comprehend what he meant when giving his assent to the AUMF, was exactly what he said it was during the election, even though it was falsely portrayed as a flip-flop. Sen Reid, although with a level of derogation, stated clearly that he expected GW to keep his word about consensus building and not rushing to war without proper cause, just like his daddy had done in the 1st gulf war.

There are many statements like this throughout the archive. Was their yea votes a mistake? Hell yes, but not for the reasons those adamantly opposed to the war claim. Again, the inherent flaw in their yea votes, was that an assumption that GW Bush would faithfully and honorably put ulterior motives behind him, and before entering into a foreign war, would assure it had been properly justified, and that an international consensus had been built around the evidence that provided him with this assurance of propriety.

This is the flaw, and the majority of blame is proper to place directly upon the GW Bush Administration.

No, what I was attempting to convey is that for many Congressional member who claim their vote was not an all out declaration of war, the only proper evidence for which this can be judged is their statements entered into the Congressional Records during consideration of the AUMF. Using that standard, many of the politicians seem to be telling the truth.

I have a much better sense of what was actually entered into the Congressional Records during the consideration of the AUMF for a very easy to prove reason, although it makes me a bit uncomfortable using it often, because it feels like I am spamming. The following links are to my site, which I hand-coded personally:

• Authorization of Force
• Full TOC - including all inner links

The archive's pages have extensive inner links to expose a fairly fine specificity. If you search on the TOC page for individual Congresspersons, if they spoke anything substantial on those days, you will find a direct link to their words. (typo qualification, I just found a mispelled Kerry I was unaware of for over four years now that has three R's instead of two)

Kerry got seriously reamed about his statement undeservedly in 2004. Well he did kind of deserve it, because he is a verbose ponderous Yankee lurch, who preached 6550 words, but if you read it completely, and honestly, it's easy to comprehend what he meant when giving his assent to the AUMF, was exactly what he said it was during the election, even though it was falsely portrayed as a flip-flop. Sen Reid, although with a level of derogation, stated clearly that he expected GW to keep his word about consensus building and not rushing to war without proper cause, just like his daddy had done in the 1st gulf war.

There are many statements like this throughout the archive. Was their yea votes a mistake? Hell yes, but not for the reasons those adamantly opposed to the war claim. Again, the inherent flaw in their yea votes, was that an assumption that GW Bush would faithfully and honorably put ulterior motives behind him, and before entering into a foreign war, would assure it had been properly justified, and that an international consensus had been built around the evidence that provided him with this assurance of propriety.

This is the flaw, and the majority of blame is proper to place directly upon the GW Bush Administration.

No, what I was attempting to convey is that for many Congressional member who claim their vote was not an all out declaration of war, the only proper evidence for which this can be judged is their statements entered into the Congressional Records during consideration of the AUMF. Using that standard, many of the politicians seem to be telling the truth.

I have a much better sense of what was actually entered into the Congressional Records during the consideration of the AUMF for a very easy to prove reason, although it makes me a bit uncomfortable using it often, because it feels like I am spamming. The following links are to my site, which I hand-coded personally:

• Authorization of Force
• Full TOC - including all inner links

The archive's pages have extensive inner links to expose a fairly fine specificity. If you search on the TOC page for individual Congresspersons, if they spoke anything substantial on those days, you will find a direct link to their words. (typo qualification, I just found a mispelled Kerry I was unaware of for over four years now that has three R's instead of two)

Kerry got seriously reamed about his statement undeservedly in 2004. Well he did kind of deserve it, because he is a verbose ponderous Yankee lurch, who preached 6550 words, but if you read it completely, and honestly, it's easy to comprehend what he meant when giving his assent to the AUMF, was exactly what he said it was during the election, even though it was falsely portrayed as a flip-flop. Sen Reid, although with a level of derogation, stated clearly that he expected GW to keep his word about consensus building and not rushing to war without proper cause, just like his daddy had done in the 1st gulf war.

There are many statements like this throughout the archive. Was their yea votes a mistake? Hell yes, but not for the reasons those adamantly opposed to the war claim. Again, the inherent flaw in their yea votes, was that an assumption that GW Bush would faithfully and honorably put ulterior motives behind him, and before entering into a foreign war, would assure it had been properly justified, and that an international consensus had been built around the evidence that provided him with this assurance of propriety.

This is the flaw, and the majority of blame is proper to place directly upon the GW Bush Administration.

No, what I was attempting to convey is that for many Congressional member who claim their vote was not an all out declaration of war, the only proper evidence for which this can be judged is their statements entered into the Congressional Records during consideration of the AUMF. Using that standard, many of the politicians seem to be telling the truth.

I have a much better sense of what was actually entered into the Congressional Records during the consideration of the AUMF for a very easy to prove reason, although it makes me a bit uncomfortable using it often, because it feels like I am spamming. The following links are to my site, which I hand-coded personally:

• Authorization of Force
• Full TOC - including all inner links

The archive's pages have extensive inner links to expose a fairly fine specificity. If you search on the TOC page for individual Congresspersons, if they spoke anything substantial on those days, you will find a direct link to their words. (typo qualification, I just found a mispelled Kerry I was unaware of for over four years now that has three R's instead of two)

Kerry got seriously reamed about his statement undeservedly in 2004. Well he did kind of deserve it, because he is a verbose ponderous Yankee lurch, who preached 6550 words, but if you read it completely, and honestly, it's easy to comprehend what he meant when giving his assent to the AUMF, was exactly what he said it was during the election, even though it was falsely portrayed as a flip-flop. Sen Reid, although with a level of derogation, stated clearly that he expected GW to keep his word about consensus building and not rushing to war without proper cause, just like his daddy had done in the 1st gulf war.

There are many statements like this throughout the archive. Was their yea votes a mistake? Hell yes, but not for the reasons those adamantly opposed to the war claim. Again, the inherent flaw in their yea votes, was that an assumption that GW Bush would faithfully and honorably put ulterior motives behind him, and before entering into a foreign war, would assure it had been properly justified, and that an international consensus had been built around the evidence that provided him with this assurance of propriety.

This is the flaw, and the majority of blame is proper to place directly upon the GW Bush Administration.

No, what I was attempting to convey is that for many Congressional member who claim their vote was not an all out declaration of war, the only proper evidence for which this can be judged is their statements entered into the Congressional Records during consideration of the AUMF. Using that standard, many of the politicians seem to be telling the truth.

I have a much better sense of what was actually entered into the Congressional Records during the consideration of the AUMF for a very easy to prove reason, although it makes me a bit uncomfortable using it often, because it feels like I am spamming. The following links are to my site, which I hand-coded personally:

• Authorization of Force
• Full TOC - including all inner links

The archive's pages have extensive inner links to expose a fairly fine specificity. If you search on the TOC page for individual Congresspersons, if they spoke anything substantial on those days, you will find a direct link to their words. (typo qualification, I just found a mispelled Kerry I was unaware of for over four years now that has three R's instead of two)

Kerry got seriously reamed about his statement undeservedly in 2004. Well he did kind of deserve it, because he is a verbose ponderous Yankee lurch, who preached 6550 words, but if you read it completely, and honestly, it's easy to comprehend what he meant when giving his assent to the AUMF, was exactly what he said it was during the election, even though it was falsely portrayed as a flip-flop. Sen Reid, although with a level of derogation, stated clearly that he expected GW to keep his word about consensus building and not rushing to war without proper cause, just like his daddy had done in the 1st gulf war.

There are many statements like this throughout the archive. Was their yea votes a mistake? Hell yes, but not for the reasons those adamantly opposed to the war claim. Again, the inherent flaw in their yea votes, was that an assumption that GW Bush would faithfully and honorably put ulterior motives behind him, and before entering into a foreign war, would assure it had been properly justified, and that an international consensus had been built around the evidence that provided him with this assurance of propriety.

This is the flaw, and the majority of blame is proper to place directly upon the GW Bush Administration.

Look around on this very thread, and you'll find another post of mine listing the Congressional votes for AUMF, and it clearly shows that there was less than half the Democrats voting assent.

Additionally, try actually reading the statements made by the politicians about their votes in favor of the AUMF, before you absurdly make the claim that it was a vote "for war". Furthermore it was not just the Democrats who did not read the the prewar NIE, very few Republicans read it either, nor was this primarily a fault of Congress as BuShills love to imply. It was instead another of the many obscene acts of this executive, that restricted even Congressional members' open access to it under false predicates of classification. Republicans have never been willing to step up to the plate when it was their turn to face fast-balls hight and tight. They are weasels and cowards who have stolen the people's liberty, all because the the derelict ass of a president officially responsible for the nation's defense on September 11, 2001, was one of them.

Lastly, might want to poke around about here, after noting the listed URL for home listed in the header of this note, before you go round making puffed up claims about my lack of knowledge in a ditto-headed fashion. Lies, Damn Lies, and the Terminally Republican fools who promulgate them. Continue on with your flatworlder revisionary distortions of reality, based upon a non-validating linear model of politics, never once understanding your predicament, nor coming close to comprehending the who what where when and how of it all. Are you really so stupid that you actually believe I was ever some limp-wristed hand-wringer from the left-side of the bipolar polity? Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

49 D - 49 R - 2 I

Reid is the majority leader by virtue of Lieberman's two-timing hide. Care to guess which side of the isle he votes on FISA and telecom immunity?

You also need to consider that cloture votes (an agreement to end debate and go to a vote on a bill or specific debated issue in a bill, requires a super-majority of 60%. Back when the Democrats used this to block a handful of Bush's most activist of right-wing judge appointees, they were criticised as being undemocratic. Now that Republicans have have used the tactic to effectively shut down any attempts by Democrats to right wrongs from the last 7 years, the Democrats are called inept or in collusion.

A fine example of this tactic is : Roll Call Vote #340 on September 19, 2007. It was a cloture to vote on Senator Specter's Amendment #2022 to The Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 - the purpose of which was to restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States. The voted count was 56-Yea -- 43 Nay -- 12 NoVote. The Party affiliation of the vote was:
Yea - 49 D - 6R - 1 I (Sanders)
Nay - 42 R - 0D - 1 I (Lieberman)

Habeas corpus is a Natural Right, which the Constitution states can only be suspended in times of domestic invasion or public insurrection. To assert that a sneak attack by 20 detemine F**ks, which to this Nation's great misfortune, coincided with an administration so arrogant, ignorant and derelict, it failed at its primary duty to defend America constitutes an "invasion", is to chase after a well dressed bunny down into a dark hole in the ground. This should not be a partisan issue, and REAL conservatives understand this clearly. Read Kenneth Starr's written opinion to The Senate.

My question to you is: did you actually look last time or did you just accept what you were told?

You are far from reality on this. A primary anti-terror bill from congress during the Clinton administration was the:

Public Law 104-132 April 24, 1996
Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act Of 1996

It took two years to get passed, and the phrase "Effective Death Penalty" was added to the legislation's title between 1995 and 1996, because it turned out to be a gutted terror prevention bill that primarily rescinded habeas corpus rights of convicted Federal prisoners. Hatch's dream since becoming a US Senator has been to gut Habeas Corpus. Of especially note is the GOP's refusal to allow multi-point wiretaps, approved only after judicial oversight, to be allowed in cases of terror investigations.. This had been already allowed for RICO investigations. When debating the Bill after it had been sent over from The Senate, the Majority GOP members, led by Bob Barr, claimed this was unconstitutional and excised it from the legislation. Orin Hatch defended this. (1, 2 and 3)

The GOP also opposed:

• Synchonising The Statute of Limitations on National Firearms Act Violations to be the same as other crimes by extending it from three years to five years.
• Criminalising Distribution Of Information Relating To Explosive Materials, when it was intended for or known it would be used for criminal acts.
• Taggants added to Eplosives and explosive precursors

The GOP used this Bill as a launching pad for their attacks on the government over Waco and Ruby Ridge, and their soapbox was comprised of the victims bodies from the Oklahoma City Bombing. None of these arguments were used by the GOP politicians when considering the Patriot Bill, and that legislation went far beyond any proposals offered in the 1996 Bill.

Hatch was still defending the Reagan era policy of arming the Arab "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan, even after the Khobar Towers, and Africa Embassy Bombings:

Though he has come to represent all that went wrong with the CIA's reckless strategy there, by the end of the Afghan war in 1989, bin Laden was still viewed by the agency as something of a dilettante - a rich Saudi boy gone to war and welcomed home by the Saudi monarchy he so hated as something of a hero.

In fact, while he returned to his family's construction business, bin Laden had split from the relatively conventional MAK in 1988 and established a new group, al-Qaida, that included many of the more extreme MAK members he had met in Afghanistan.

Most of these Afghan vets, or Afghanis, as the Arabs who fought there became known, turned up later behind violent Islamic movements around the world. Among them: the GIA in Algeria, thought responsible for the massacres of tens of thousands of civilians; Egypt's Gamat Ismalia, which has massacred western tourists repeatedly in recent years; Saudi Arabia Shiite militants, responsible for the Khobar Towers and Riyadh bombings of 1996.

Indeed, to this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intellige

You are far from reality on this. A primary anti-terror bill from congress during the Clinton administration was the:

Public Law 104-132 April 24, 1996
Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act Of 1996

It took two years to get passed, and the phrase "Effective Death Penalty" was added to the legislation's title between 1995 and 1996, because it turned out to be a gutted terror prevention bill that primarily rescinded habeas corpus rights of convicted Federal prisoners. Hatch's dream since becoming a US Senator has been to gut Habeas Corpus. Of especially note is the GOP's refusal to allow multi-point wiretaps, approved only after judicial oversight, to be allowed in cases of terror investigations.. This had been already allowed for RICO investigations. When debating the Bill after it had been sent over from The Senate, the Majority GOP members, led by Bob Barr, claimed this was unconstitutional and excised it from the legislation. Orin Hatch defended this. (1, 2 and 3)

The GOP also opposed:

• Synchonising The Statute of Limitations on National Firearms Act Violations to be the same as other crimes by extending it from three years to five years.
• Criminalising Distribution Of Information Relating To Explosive Materials, when it was intended for or known it would be used for criminal acts.
• Taggants added to Eplosives and explosive precursors

The GOP used this Bill as a launching pad for their attacks on the government over Waco and Ruby Ridge, and their soapbox was comprised of the victims bodies from the Oklahoma City Bombing. None of these arguments were used by the GOP politicians when considering the Patriot Bill, and that legislation went far beyond any proposals offered in the 1996 Bill.

Hatch was still defending the Reagan era policy of arming the Arab "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan, even after the Khobar Towers, and Africa Embassy Bombings:

Though he has come to represent all that went wrong with the CIA's reckless strategy there, by the end of the Afghan war in 1989, bin Laden was still viewed by the agency as something of a dilettante - a rich Saudi boy gone to war and welcomed home by the Saudi monarchy he so hated as something of a hero.

In fact, while he returned to his family's construction business, bin Laden had split from the relatively conventional MAK in 1988 and established a new group, al-Qaida, that included many of the more extreme MAK members he had met in Afghanistan.

Most of these Afghan vets, or Afghanis, as the Arabs who fought there became known, turned up later behind violent Islamic movements around the world. Among them: the GIA in Algeria, thought responsible for the massacres of tens of thousands of civilians; Egypt's Gamat Ismalia, which has massacred western tourists repeatedly in recent years; Saudi Arabia Shiite militants, responsible for the Khobar Towers and Riyadh bombings of 1996.

Indeed, to this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intellige

You are far from reality on this. A primary anti-terror bill from congress during the Clinton administration was the:

Public Law 104-132 April 24, 1996
Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act Of 1996

It took two years to get passed, and the phrase "Effective Death Penalty" was added to the legislation's title between 1995 and 1996, because it turned out to be a gutted terror prevention bill that primarily rescinded habeas corpus rights of convicted Federal prisoners. Hatch's dream since becoming a US Senator has been to gut Habeas Corpus. Of especially note is the GOP's refusal to allow multi-point wiretaps, approved only after judicial oversight, to be allowed in cases of terror investigations.. This had been already allowed for RICO investigations. When debating the Bill after it had been sent over from The Senate, the Majority GOP members, led by Bob Barr, claimed this was unconstitutional and excised it from the legislation. Orin Hatch defended this. (1, 2 and 3)

The GOP also opposed:

• Synchonising The Statute of Limitations on National Firearms Act Violations to be the same as other crimes by extending it from three years to five years.
• Criminalising Distribution Of Information Relating To Explosive Materials, when it was intended for or known it would be used for criminal acts.
• Taggants added to Eplosives and explosive precursors

The GOP used this Bill as a launching pad for their attacks on the government over Waco and Ruby Ridge, and their soapbox was comprised of the victims bodies from the Oklahoma City Bombing. None of these arguments were used by the GOP politicians when considering the Patriot Bill, and that legislation went far beyond any proposals offered in the 1996 Bill.

Hatch was still defending the Reagan era policy of arming the Arab "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan, even after the Khobar Towers, and Africa Embassy Bombings:

Though he has come to represent all that went wrong with the CIA's reckless strategy there, by the end of the Afghan war in 1989, bin Laden was still viewed by the agency as something of a dilettante - a rich Saudi boy gone to war and welcomed home by the Saudi monarchy he so hated as something of a hero.

In fact, while he returned to his family's construction business, bin Laden had split from the relatively conventional MAK in 1988 and established a new group, al-Qaida, that included many of the more extreme MAK members he had met in Afghanistan.

Most of these Afghan vets, or Afghanis, as the Arabs who fought there became known, turned up later behind violent Islamic movements around the world. Among them: the GIA in Algeria, thought responsible for the massacres of tens of thousands of civilians; Egypt's Gamat Ismalia, which has massacred western tourists repeatedly in recent years; Saudi Arabia Shiite militants, responsible for the Khobar Towers and Riyadh bombings of 1996.

Indeed, to this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intellige

You are far from reality on this. A primary anti-terror bill from congress during the Clinton administration was the:

Public Law 104-132 April 24, 1996
Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act Of 1996

It took two years to get passed, and the phrase "Effective Death Penalty" was added to the legislation's title between 1995 and 1996, because it turned out to be a gutted terror prevention bill that primarily rescinded habeas corpus rights of convicted Federal prisoners. Hatch's dream since becoming a US Senator has been to gut Habeas Corpus. Of especially note is the GOP's refusal to allow multi-point wiretaps, approved only after judicial oversight, to be allowed in cases of terror investigations.. This had been already allowed for RICO investigations. When debating the Bill after it had been sent over from The Senate, the Majority GOP members, led by Bob Barr, claimed this was unconstitutional and excised it from the legislation. Orin Hatch defended this. (1, 2 and 3)

The GOP also opposed:

• Synchonising The Statute of Limitations on National Firearms Act Violations to be the same as other crimes by extending it from three years to five years.
• Criminalising Distribution Of Information Relating To Explosive Materials, when it was intended for or known it would be used for criminal acts.
• Taggants added to Eplosives and explosive precursors

The GOP used this Bill as a launching pad for their attacks on the government over Waco and Ruby Ridge, and their soapbox was comprised of the victims bodies from the Oklahoma City Bombing. None of these arguments were used by the GOP politicians when considering the Patriot Bill, and that legislation went far beyond any proposals offered in the 1996 Bill.

Hatch was still defending the Reagan era policy of arming the Arab "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan, even after the Khobar Towers, and Africa Embassy Bombings:

Though he has come to represent all that went wrong with the CIA's reckless strategy there, by the end of the Afghan war in 1989, bin Laden was still viewed by the agency as something of a dilettante - a rich Saudi boy gone to war and welcomed home by the Saudi monarchy he so hated as something of a hero.

In fact, while he returned to his family's construction business, bin Laden had split from the relatively conventional MAK in 1988 and established a new group, al-Qaida, that included many of the more extreme MAK members he had met in Afghanistan.

Most of these Afghan vets, or Afghanis, as the Arabs who fought there became known, turned up later behind violent Islamic movements around the world. Among them: the GIA in Algeria, thought responsible for the massacres of tens of thousands of civilians; Egypt's Gamat Ismalia, which has massacred western tourists repeatedly in recent years; Saudi Arabia Shiite militants, responsible for the Khobar Towers and Riyadh bombings of 1996.

Indeed, to this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intellige

You are far from reality on this. A primary anti-terror bill from congress during the Clinton administration was the:

Public Law 104-132 April 24, 1996
Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act Of 1996

It took two years to get passed, and the phrase "Effective Death Penalty" was added to the legislation's title between 1995 and 1996, because it turned out to be a gutted terror prevention bill that primarily rescinded habeas corpus rights of convicted Federal prisoners. Hatch's dream since becoming a US Senator has been to gut Habeas Corpus. Of especially note is the GOP's refusal to allow multi-point wiretaps, approved only after judicial oversight, to be allowed in cases of terror investigations.. This had been already allowed for RICO investigations. When debating the Bill after it had been sent over from The Senate, the Majority GOP members, led by Bob Barr, claimed this was unconstitutional and excised it from the legislation. Orin Hatch defended this. (1, 2 and 3)

The GOP also opposed:

• Synchonising The Statute of Limitations on National Firearms Act Violations to be the same as other crimes by extending it from three years to five years.
• Criminalising Distribution Of Information Relating To Explosive Materials, when it was intended for or known it would be used for criminal acts.
• Taggants added to Eplosives and explosive precursors

The GOP used this Bill as a launching pad for their attacks on the government over Waco and Ruby Ridge, and their soapbox was comprised of the victims bodies from the Oklahoma City Bombing. None of these arguments were used by the GOP politicians when considering the Patriot Bill, and that legislation went far beyond any proposals offered in the 1996 Bill.

Hatch was still defending the Reagan era policy of arming the Arab "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan, even after the Khobar Towers, and Africa Embassy Bombings:

Though he has come to represent all that went wrong with the CIA's reckless strategy there, by the end of the Afghan war in 1989, bin Laden was still viewed by the agency as something of a dilettante - a rich Saudi boy gone to war and welcomed home by the Saudi monarchy he so hated as something of a hero.

In fact, while he returned to his family's construction business, bin Laden had split from the relatively conventional MAK in 1988 and established a new group, al-Qaida, that included many of the more extreme MAK members he had met in Afghanistan.

Most of these Afghan vets, or Afghanis, as the Arabs who fought there became known, turned up later behind violent Islamic movements around the world. Among them: the GIA in Algeria, thought responsible for the massacres of tens of thousands of civilians; Egypt's Gamat Ismalia, which has massacred western tourists repeatedly in recent years; Saudi Arabia Shiite militants, responsible for the Khobar Towers and Riyadh bombings of 1996.

Indeed, to this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intellige

You are far from reality on this. A primary anti-terror bill from congress during the Clinton administration was the:

Public Law 104-132 April 24, 1996
Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act Of 1996

It took two years to get passed, and the phrase "Effective Death Penalty" was added to the legislation's title between 1995 and 1996, because it turned out to be a gutted terror prevention bill that primarily rescinded habeas corpus rights of convicted Federal prisoners. Hatch's dream since becoming a US Senator has been to gut Habeas Corpus. Of especially note is the GOP's refusal to allow multi-point wiretaps, approved only after judicial oversight, to be allowed in cases of terror investigations.. This had been already allowed for RICO investigations. When debating the Bill after it had been sent over from The Senate, the Majority GOP members, led by Bob Barr, claimed this was unconstitutional and excised it from the legislation. Orin Hatch defended this. (1, 2 and 3)

The GOP also opposed:

• Synchonising The Statute of Limitations on National Firearms Act Violations to be the same as other crimes by extending it from three years to five years.
• Criminalising Distribution Of Information Relating To Explosive Materials, when it was intended for or known it would be used for criminal acts.
• Taggants added to Eplosives and explosive precursors

The GOP used this Bill as a launching pad for their attacks on the government over Waco and Ruby Ridge, and their soapbox was comprised of the victims bodies from the Oklahoma City Bombing. None of these arguments were used by the GOP politicians when considering the Patriot Bill, and that legislation went far beyond any proposals offered in the 1996 Bill.

Hatch was still defending the Reagan era policy of arming the Arab "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan, even after the Khobar Towers, and Africa Embassy Bombings:

Though he has come to represent all that went wrong with the CIA's reckless strategy there, by the end of the Afghan war in 1989, bin Laden was still viewed by the agency as something of a dilettante - a rich Saudi boy gone to war and welcomed home by the Saudi monarchy he so hated as something of a hero.

In fact, while he returned to his family's construction business, bin Laden had split from the relatively conventional MAK in 1988 and established a new group, al-Qaida, that included many of the more extreme MAK members he had met in Afghanistan.

Most of these Afghan vets, or Afghanis, as the Arabs who fought there became known, turned up later behind violent Islamic movements around the world. Among them: the GIA in Algeria, thought responsible for the massacres of tens of thousands of civilians; Egypt's Gamat Ismalia, which has massacred western tourists repeatedly in recent years; Saudi Arabia Shiite militants, responsible for the Khobar Towers and Riyadh bombings of 1996.

Indeed, to this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intellige

Judging from the server logs relevant to a section of a site I am a primary of, there has been a slowly increasing interest in habeas corpus. Maybe I misinterpret but I believe it represents an increasing concern also.

The US is at war with Al Qaeda. (Yes, at war. See below*.) There isn't much of anything going on here that President Roosevelt didn't do in WW2, and in many ways there is less. We seem to have survived that war.

This of and by itself speaks loudly to the moral relativism which runs rampant within modern conservative thought. No Real Conservative would ever justify an overreaching Executive's actions by grounding their arguments into the thoughts, words or deeds of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Besides that, it is a clear-cut violation of the US Constitution for Mr. Bush, of and by his own unlawful claim to war powers that exist without the Supreme Law of the Land, to have abrogated habeas corpus:

Article. I. of the US Constitution defines the duties of the legislative branch of our government. Habeas Corpus is only mentioned once in The US Constitution: Article I, section 9; clause 2:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

It was not within Mr. Bush's rightful powers to rescind habeas corpus, he should have instead requested it from Congress.

Even Kenneth Starr wrote a letter of opposition to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, because it unlawfully would rescind habeas corpus rights:

Although the Rasul Court limited its holding to statutory habeas rights, which may be limited by the Congress, the Supreme Court nevertheless viewed Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as a territory within the control and jurisdiction of the United States. Accordingly, the Eisentrager case may no longer be relied upon with confidence to rule out constitutional habeas protections for Guantanamo detainees. One of the Eisentrager factors that limited constitutional habeas rights for aliens in military custody was whether the detainee was held outside of the United States. Based on the finding of the Rasul case that Guantanamo Bay falls within U.S. territorial jurisdiction, Guantanamo detainees likely have a different constitutional status than the alien detainees in Eisentrager, who were held in Landsberg, Germany.

Article 1, section 9, clause 2 of the United States Constitution provides that "[t]he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The United States is neither in a state of rebellion nor invasion. Consequently, it would problematic for Congress to modify the constitutionally protected writ of habeas corpus under current events.

Kenneth Starr, letter to Senator Specter, entered into the Congressional Daily Record September 27, 2006

So here, a Republican Majority Congress defended a GOP president's unconstitutional usurpation of their duties with their unconstitutional act, rescinding habeas corpus in absence of any "Cases of Rebellion or Invasion" . Not only that, the same enactment conferred immunity to the executive branch for past violations they committed, which is another constitutional violation in itself:

Article 1, section 9, clause 3 of the United States Constitution states:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

You defend tyranny, and you add to this offensiveness by implying the Mr. Bush's War Upon Iraq was in some convoluted rationalisation, a war upon our real enemy, al Qaeda.

Pass this trash upon some FREEPing board which may yet still fall for the distortions, ok?

I haven't given much thought to who is a likely in the as the GOP candidate in '08.

I firmly believe that one of the biggest weaknesses in any democracy-styled electoral society is that the persons who actually desire to hold political office are unsuitable, simply because they desire it. At the same time, if your choice in a political election was predicated upon a lesser of two evils decision, you have by your own admission chosen evil.

My solution actually started out as a joke, but seems more appropriate as i grow older. It is to end all elections immediately, and instead begin to choose our politicains they way the draft lottery worked or juror pool selection works; purely randomised picking out of the entire population base of eligible citizens, and all adult citizens are in the pool, excepting of course, people who actually desire to hold political office, because they have psychological ailments which make them unfit.

A possible strong GOP candidate is still Chuck Hagel, but he cannot have my vote irregardless of the other candidates. He weaseled during the heat of the BuShilling Anal Navigators lies in '04; went MIA in Africa on a 'factfinding' trip. He damn well knows that Kerry would still stand up for him if the tables were reversed too. There's a real wannabe in Brownback. He's got the fever, and has been keeping pretty quiet of late. He's the choice of Pat Robertson, although it's hard to believe that he would receive staunch backing from a vast majority of the religious right. He's Catholic, and many evangelicals are still very anti-papist.

It is also extremely difficult to launch a winning presidential run from the Senate or the House. To much easily obtainable ammo that can be used nationally against them.

That would seem to indicate another governor. Who is able? Tough for any Atlantic Seaboard Yankee to carry the essential by GOP South, so the Mass frat boy from hell is a probable no go. Maybe Perry from Texecution, but I have a feeling that after the Delay mess is finished down there, he's going to be carrying one hell of a foot locker himself. The only two Western States that have a big enough population base, and enough credence with the GOP would be Arizona (Dem Gov and a Woman), and California, and we both know that The Kindergarten Konan hasn't a prayer. Someone must have an old copy or two of pumping iron around to scare the bejeezus out of the repressed right. Arnold was quite fond of the ladies when he was young, and it's pretty easy to understand why this runs counter to the instincts of many rightards.

Taft is screwed, Ohio is one mess of political mud for the GOP presently. Your Gov isn't much of a darling these days with the conservative pundits, and being a New Yorker, he'd have to have them on his side.

My take on the GOP for '08 is that it's wide open for a midwestern or semi-southern GOP governor. Didn't I read something about Iowa's Gov the other day?

That's about it for a rambling muse from me presently on the GOP. I have been working a bit on marking up the Gates Chapter in the Walsh Iran/Contra report, but started playing with a different idea for displaying footnotes, so it isn't finished yet. All that is left is the CSS though, so it should be up either early morn your time, or late afternoon mine today, depending on what I get accomplished before crashing. Look for a reference to the file at: History at Liberated Text

Oh yeah, almost forgot; two more Brzezinski refs:

• David Corn, "Anthrax, Mujaheddin and the CIA", AlterNet, October 19, 2001.
• The National Security Archive, "Interview with Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, for CNN's Cold war Series

Why do you just copy and paste a small excerpt of what Kerry said during the comment and debate regarding the Authorisation of the Use of Force against Iraq. Tell me, Mr. A. Coward, are you just slothfully lazy or a GOP shill?

On October 9, 2002, Senator John Kerry spoke for 45 minutes on the Authorisation of Force, and yet little of it is actually cited. This is another of the many examples of distortions and outright dishonesty that the immoral GOP has shown itself capable of, yet still its Rank and Defiled refuse to look at the truth. Here are some excerpts from Senator Kerry's speech that day which GOP shills fail to cite:

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

[. . .]

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

[. . .]

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize ``yet.'' Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

That the GOP lies is well evidenced in the record. That GOP partisans refuse to see the truth is a grave danger to my country, and must be resisted.

There's no need to seek the facts. The evidence leaves no doubt...you are absolutely wrong. Bush wasn't given authorisation to fix the evidence and facts around his plan for war, nor did many legisaltors back war not authorised by the Security Council.

Here's just a few of the many remarks by Senators, which seem to contradict your assertion:

• "Was it clear to the Senator that the President showed the American people that every option is being explored before a military option is exercised? I ask this question because I hear time and again from many Americans, who either are opposed to any military intervention or have not made up their minds, that they seem not to have confidence that the President is exercising every option. He is coming to Congress to get approval from both Houses of Congress. We have had significant debate, and we will have significant debate.
  
  We are working at the Security Council level. We are making it absolutely clear that tomorrow Saddam Hussein, if he did away with his weapons of mass destruction, destroyed the laboratory and allowed complete and comprehensive inspections, would probably remove the threat he now faces. It is Saddam Hussein who has continued for the last 11 years.
  
  My question to the Senator is, Do you think the President's speech last night went some distance in convincing the American people that neither the President nor the Senator from Connecticut, nor I, nor the Senator from Virginia, nor the Senator from Indiana, choose the military option? We are sending young Americans into harm's way. As successful as this operation may be, we will still lose some brave young Americans' lives. That is the reality. That is why we avoid it at all costs. "
  
  Senator McCain

• "This is the last option. What we are doing in the Senate today, tomorrow, and when that vote comes is to vote our conscience, 100 individuals, to do our very best to deter the use of force but to make it clear that our Constitution has given this President and every President who has preceded him, and every President who will come after, the authority to utilize all the assets of our Nation, principally the men and women of the Armed Forces, to secure our interests and protect our people.
  
  [. . .]
  
  Last night, we listened carefully to our President as he addressed the Nation to provide the leadership necessary with regard to this very serious issue of Saddam Hussein and eliminating his weapons of mass destruction. Speaking just for myself, but I think it is shared by other Senators, this President has shown remarkable courage. We would not be here today in this debate, we would not be watching the debate in the United Nations on a possible 17th resolution, we would not be seeing our country focusing on this issue, had it not been for George Bush, our President, having the foresight to see the essential need for the United States to lead at this time. Not tomorrow, not the next day, not the next month, not the next year, but now in the effort of the free world to rid Saddam Hussein of the weapons of mass destruction.
  
  We owe a debt of gratitude to that President, who, in clear, forthright, and often soft tones of voice, last night addressed the Nation with the need for action now. :
  
  Senator Warner

• "I support this resolution not because I favor a resort to war but because I believe this resolution gives our country the best chance to maintain peace.
  
  I support this resolution not because I favor America acting unilaterally, unless we must, but because I believe this resolution gives us the best opportunity to rally our allies and convince the United Nations to act with us, and in so doing give that international institution meaning for the resolutions that it adop

There's no need to seek the facts. The evidence leaves no doubt...you are absolutely wrong. Bush wasn't given authorisation to fix the evidence and facts around his plan for war, nor did many legisaltors back war not authorised by the Security Council.

Here's just a few of the many remarks by Senators, which seem to contradict your assertion:

• "Was it clear to the Senator that the President showed the American people that every option is being explored before a military option is exercised? I ask this question because I hear time and again from many Americans, who either are opposed to any military intervention or have not made up their minds, that they seem not to have confidence that the President is exercising every option. He is coming to Congress to get approval from both Houses of Congress. We have had significant debate, and we will have significant debate.
  
  We are working at the Security Council level. We are making it absolutely clear that tomorrow Saddam Hussein, if he did away with his weapons of mass destruction, destroyed the laboratory and allowed complete and comprehensive inspections, would probably remove the threat he now faces. It is Saddam Hussein who has continued for the last 11 years.
  
  My question to the Senator is, Do you think the President's speech last night went some distance in convincing the American people that neither the President nor the Senator from Connecticut, nor I, nor the Senator from Virginia, nor the Senator from Indiana, choose the military option? We are sending young Americans into harm's way. As successful as this operation may be, we will still lose some brave young Americans' lives. That is the reality. That is why we avoid it at all costs. "
  
  Senator McCain

• "This is the last option. What we are doing in the Senate today, tomorrow, and when that vote comes is to vote our conscience, 100 individuals, to do our very best to deter the use of force but to make it clear that our Constitution has given this President and every President who has preceded him, and every President who will come after, the authority to utilize all the assets of our Nation, principally the men and women of the Armed Forces, to secure our interests and protect our people.
  
  [. . .]
  
  Last night, we listened carefully to our President as he addressed the Nation to provide the leadership necessary with regard to this very serious issue of Saddam Hussein and eliminating his weapons of mass destruction. Speaking just for myself, but I think it is shared by other Senators, this President has shown remarkable courage. We would not be here today in this debate, we would not be watching the debate in the United Nations on a possible 17th resolution, we would not be seeing our country focusing on this issue, had it not been for George Bush, our President, having the foresight to see the essential need for the United States to lead at this time. Not tomorrow, not the next day, not the next month, not the next year, but now in the effort of the free world to rid Saddam Hussein of the weapons of mass destruction.
  
  We owe a debt of gratitude to that President, who, in clear, forthright, and often soft tones of voice, last night addressed the Nation with the need for action now. :
  
  Senator Warner

• "I support this resolution not because I favor a resort to war but because I believe this resolution gives our country the best chance to maintain peace.
  
  I support this resolution not because I favor America acting unilaterally, unless we must, but because I believe this resolution gives us the best opportunity to rally our allies and convince the United Nations to act with us, and in so doing give that international institution meaning for the resolutions that it adop

From The Congressional Record of September 29, 2006:
Senators Kennedy, Sessions and McCain in support; Senator Leahy's Dissent

How times have changed. What the Republicans refused to give the Clinton administration has been extended exponentially to bhe Bush Administration. The Republicans are not better at protecting America, they are just partisan hacks. On April 16, 1996 Sen. Hatch (R-Utah) explained why posse comitatus would not be excepted even in the event of a terrorist biological or chemical attack upon the USA in the 1995 terror Prevention bill:

--------Begin Congressional Record excerpt---------

From this country's earliest days, the American people have sought to limit military involvement in civilian affairs. In the wake of the terrible tragedy in Oklahoma, with the heightened sensitivity to the threat of terrorism this country faces, some feel like giving the military a more prominent role in combating terrorism both here and abroad. This is not a policy we should rush into.

I must add, I support the provision, which is known as the Nunn- Thurmond provision, in the Senate bill. Americans have always been suspicious of using the military in domestic law enforcement, and rightly so. Civilian control of the military and separation of the military from domestic law enforcement feature prominently in the early history of this country, from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence listed among our grievances against the King of England that he had "kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislature," and had "affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."

It was abuse of military authority in domestic affairs, especially in the South after the Civil War, that motivated Congress to impose the first so-called posse comitatus statute. The term "posse comitatus" means power of the country and has as its origin the power of the sheriff through common law to call upon people to help him execute the law.

The statute, in 18 U.S.C. 1385, prevents the Federal Government from using the Army or Air Force to execute the law, except where Congress expressly creates an exception. Domestic law enforcement thus remains as is, in the hands of local communities.

Currently, as I understand it, Congress has created only limited exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act. The President can call out the military if terrorists threaten the use of nuclear weapons or if the rights of any group of people are denied and the State in which they reside is unable or unwilling to secure their lawful rights.

The military is also authorized to share intelligence information with Federal law enforcement in attempts to combat drug trafficking. These are limited exceptions to the act, however, and do not generally empower the military to be actively involved in the enforcement of domestic laws. We have done well with a separation between military authority and domestic law enforcement. Although this proposal seems sensible and appears simply to expand upon the military's preexisting authority, to become involved if the use of nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons is threatened, it may, in fact, be unnecessary.

The premise underlying this amendment is that there does not exist among civilian law enforcement the expertise to deal effectively with chemical or biological agents. However, I believe that such expertise is available outside of the military. Particularly in the area of chemical agents, civil authorities and even the private sector have considerable experience in containing these substances.

Moreover, the military can already assist civil authorities in all aspects of responding to the type of crisis contemplated by this amendment but one: The actual use of military personnel to disable or contain the device. The military can lend equipment, it can provide instructions and technical advice on how to disable or contain a chemical or biologi