So, the left's against protecting the US, huh?

[zbdent]

Check out this drivel from 1995.

I ain't gonna give the source, let the turd claim it.

---------------------------------------------
Vol.59/No.18 May 8, 1995


`Counterterrorism' Bill Would Trample Hard-Won Liberties

BY XXXXX XXXX


Democrats and Republicans in Congress wasted no time after the Oklahoma City bombing in pledging their support to a so- called counterterrorism bill sent to the legislators earlier by President Bill Clinton. If the bill becomes law it will deal a crippling blow to the rights of noncitizens and citizens alike. Politicans of both parties promised to put the measure on the "fast track," expecting the bomb blast will silence objections to the trampling of civil liberties it contains.

These are some of the provisions of the bill:
* The president would be given the power to arbitrarily declare an organization "terrorist." There would be no way to appeal this.

* Noncitzens accused of "terrorism" could be tried by a special court in secret session.

* The accused could be held without bail in preventive detention.
* If no country will accept a person ordered deported, that person can be kept in jail indefinitely.

* Illegally obtained evidence could be used against the accused.
* The government's right to use wiretaps would be expanded. * People could be convicted on the basis of secret evidence.

The draft bill specifically names the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as "terrorist," even while Washington and Tel Aviv negotiate Gaza and West Bank autonomy with it.

Entitled the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, the measure was introduced into Congress February 24 at Clinton's request.

In the Senate, it was presented by a bipartisan team of Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter and Delaware Democrat Joseph Biden. It was introduced in the House by two Democrats, Charles Schumer of Brooklyn, New York, and Norman Dicks of Tacoma, Washington.

The House judiciary committee held a public hearing on the bill April 6. Gregory Nojeim of the American Civil Liberties Union told the committee that the bill "does substantial damage to the U.S. Constitution."


CIA rails against slaughter
Acting CIA chief William Studeman urged passage of the bill. He testified that "terrorists" were committing "indiscriminate slaughter of innocent men, women, and children." His testimony coincided with new revelations of the murderous role of the CIA and its hirelings in Guatemala.

An analysis of the bill has been made by the Arab American Institute and the Center for National Security Studies.

It explains that the bill creates a new federal crime - "international terrorism." But this does not cover anything not already deemed a crime. Rather it is intended to bypass those democratic safeguards that may exist in the statutes it supersedes.

Federal jurisdiction would apply in any case where the alleged victim of terrorism, or the alleged offender, is not a U.S. national. This would be the first time national origin would provide the basis for federal jurisdiction over a crime. It aims a blow at the guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Those charged with terrorism who are here with no documents or with temporary visas would be subject to preventive detention without even the right to a hearing. Permanent residents so detained would be allowed a hearing, but the government could use "classified" - secret - information against them.


Bill creates new crime
The bill does create a new crime - "terrorist fund- raising." The president's new powers would include prohibiting individuals and organizations in the United States from raising funds for organizations in other countries declared to be terrorist. This, too, would not be subject to appeal.

And, according to the analysis, disruption of commerce could be defined as a "terrorist" activity. This is sweeping enough to include striking pickets, antinuclear demonstrators, and more.

In many respects, this ominous new bill sets out to establish by legislation what Washington has been trying to accomplish with the eight-year prosecution of the Los Angeles Eight.

Since these Palestine solidarity activists were first rounded up, the government has been working to get a court decision that they should be deported for allegedly supporting "terrorist" activity of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), an affiliate of the PLO. And it wants a court decision officially stamping the PFLP a terrorist organization.

In the protracted legal fight, a federal judge has ruled that all noncitizens have the same constitutional rights as citizens and has also ruled that secret evidence cannot be used against the eight. The government is now trying to get these key decisions overturned by the court of appeals.

[bossfish]

1. Lemme guess

Trent Lott..

[zbdent]

3. Nope. This is not a contest.

Just a note about how the Repukes and their demonspawn were screaming about the dictatorship that we would be under if Clinton had his way.

A lot of the proposals sound a lot like the stuff that the bushbots suckled up to, huh?

[Bandit]

2. If I remember correctly this was the precurser to the Patriot Act

And Clinton and the Democrats were for it. You don't think they thought up the Patriot Act overnight do you? Republicans just did not want that kind of power in the hands of a Democrat. If a Democrat wins (Kerry) you can bet your bottom dollar they will take up railing aghainst the Patriot Act and the Democratic President he gets to use it. Americans (both Democrats and Republicans) should be against this shit.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. I would hardly call Clinton, Biden and Specter "leftists".

More like a cabal of right leaning centrists. The bill itself is an indication of how far such a combination would go to stifle dissent.