Graybeard Outdoors banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,685 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Civil-liberties board struggles into existence

By Caroline Drees

A civil-liberties board ordered by the U.S. Congress last year has never met to discuss its job of protecting rights in the fight against terrorism, and critics say it is a toothless, underfunded shell with inadequate support from President Bush.

Lawmakers including some Republicans, civil-rights advocates, a member of the Sept. 11 Commission and a member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board have expressed concerns.

Lanny Davis, the only prominent liberal among the five people Bush nominated after a six-month delay, said he had not received a call from anyone related to the board since it was formally announced in June. Davis said he could not comment on specifics because the members had not yet met.

All four other panel members declined to comment.

The inactivity comes at a time when Congress is nearing reauthorization of several provisions of the Patriot Act, a controversial law that gave the government new powers to go after suspected terrorists.

Asked why it was taking so long to set the board up, Connecticut Republican Rep. Christopher Shays charged, "It's not a priority for the administration."

The intelligence reform law of December 2004 called for the oversight board in response to a recommendation from the Sept. 11 Commission, which feared increased governmental powers needed to fight terrorism could erode civil liberties.

Top White House officials have said the board would address those concerns, and get the resources needed to do the job.

But almost eight months after its inception, the critics say the panel still only exists on paper, and lacks the money, power and presidential backing to ensure the entire government respects Americans' rights.

The Bush-appointed panel "is a very watered-down board without the kinds of powers which I believe are necessary to provide credibility and authority, such as independent subpoena power ... and a bipartisan process in selection," said Richard Ben-Veniste, a former Sept. 11 commissioner.

"We don't think the board serves as a credible watchdog," said Tim Edgar, national security policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union.

One frequent complaint concerns the board's budget. Bush requested $750,000, which Congress doubled to $1.5 million.

The Department of Homeland Security's privacy office, with a similar mission limited to that department, alone has a roughly $13 million budget, said Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the U.S. House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee.

"I don't think you can do it for a million and a half," Shays said.

Critics, including Thompson, also ask why it took Bush half a year to nominate the five board members when it acted much faster to implement other, more complex parts of the 2004 law. The U.S. Senate must still confirm the chairman and vice chairman after it returns from its summer recess.

Shays, New York Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney and other lawmakers have proposed an amendment granting the panel greater independence and powers, including subpoena authority.

Right now, Maloney said, "It does not have teeth. It does not have enforcement. It does not have strength behind it."

Asked for comment, the White House sent a copy of a June letter to Republican Sen. Susan Collins and Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman that said it would ensure the board had the resources to fulfill its mission and would re-examine the issue once the panel was up and running.

The two senators had written to the White House expressing concerns about the board's budget, as well as delays in setting it up and implementing other parts of the 2004 law.

"As we work to make America safer, it is equally important that we are careful to preserve the very liberties that we seek to protect," Collins told Reuters. "The board is critical in this regard."

Mary Fetchet, whose son died in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, criticized the slow pace, "I am really shocked that in many instances in Washington I feel that there's this attempt to go back to the status quo, while I feel there should be a sense of urgency."

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...RTRIDST_0_POLITICS-SECURITY-USA-RIGHTS-DC.XML

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,772 Posts
Civil Liberties not a Bush administration p

:eek: :shock: :roll: ........no kidding...!!! Really, I'm sure civil rights is probably way down on the priority list with the Bush camp from my vantage point. Besides, they most likely believe too much civil rights is bad for the New World Corporatocracy, profits, and the Enronism of the global economy.


.........................................TM7
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,098 Posts
Civil Liberties not a Bush administration p

Never fear! The ACLU has determined that looking into the back-pack of a 20 year old Morrocan man before entering the NY subway is an invasion of privacy. Your grandma is similarly safe; until she boards that train... :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,685 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Civil Liberties not a Bush administration p

Article said:
A civil-liberties board ordered by the U.S. Congress last year has never met to discuss its job of protecting rights in the fight against terrorism, and critics say it is a toothless, underfunded shell with inadequate support from President Bush.

Asked why it was taking so long to set the board up, Connecticut Republican Rep. Christopher Shays charged, "It's not a priority for the administration."
I re-read the article several times, and I don't see where the ACLU is behind this news release.

This government was created for the specific purpose of protecting the rights of the citzens of this country.

And now, with regard to civil liberties, "It's not a priority for the administration."

Don't you find it curious that our government doesn't give a crap about attending to the main thing it was created to do?

:?
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top