OT: For those of you who listened to Hannity today....

[Karl Magnus <magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Republican relativism: wiretap flip-flop
From: Republicans Table | Discussion Tables
By PseudoCyAnts

Congressional Republicans were against wiretapping, before they were for
it. To posit that a president's power waxes and wanes according to his
party affiliation is to engage in moral relativism, an immoral act that
Conservatives in America have long claimed was only practised by the
left-side of the Political BiPolarity.

Still, many of the same Republican legislators who defend Bush's rampant
wiretapping, were adamantly opposed to any expansion of wiretapping
during the the Clinton Presidency.

The following quotations are but a few of the total, taken from the 1996
Congressional Record, as a divided Congress ineffectually attempted to
help the government stop acts of terrorism, after the first bombing of
the World Trade Tower, and the Bombing in Oklahoma City.

     * Congressional Record: March 13, 1996 (House) - Pages H2129-H2190
     * Government Printing Office's Online Records: DOCID:cr13mr96-94]

Comprehensive Antiterrorism Act of 1995

Dan Burton (R-Ind): Mr. Chairman, this is one of our major concerns
among the groups called the conservative action team in the House. I
just want to make absolutely clear to all of our colleagues what the
gentleman is saying right now, and I want them to understand it. This is
going to expand the ability for people to be wiretapped way beyond where
it is right now.

Mr. Barr: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.

Dan Burton (R-Ind): So any citizen of the United States might be subject
to this good-faith exception which would allow the Government to find
something out about them inadvertently through a wiretap that could
cause them unbelievable problems.

Mr. Barr: The gentleman is correct.

Dan Burton (R-Ind): I think my colleagues ought to think long and hard
about that. One of the things we are concerned about is expanding the
Government's ability to spy on or to find out everything about any
individual in this country. Expanding this wiretap provision, I think,
is something that is very, very disconcerting to me and many of my
colleagues.

     * Congressional Record: April 18, 1996 (House) - Pages H3605-H3618
     * [Government Printing Office's Online Records: DOCID:cr18ap96-43]

Conference Report on s. 735, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996

Dan Burton (R-Ind): If the Government of the United States can through,
quote-unquote, good faith tap our phones and intrude into our lives,
they violate our constitutional liberties, and that is something that we
should not tolerate, and that is in section 305 and section 307. The FBI
can gain access to individual phone billing records without a subpoena
or a court order. Once again I believe that infringes upon our
constitutional rights and liberties, and while we are trying to deal
with terrorism, and we should, we should not violate our constitutional
rights and liberties, and I believe this bill in its present form does.
And that is why I think the Barr amendment is absolutely essential if we
are going to pass something that will really deal with terrorism crime,
but protect the liberties that we fought so hard for in the
Revolutionary War.

Wayne Allard (R-Colo) Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference
report.

Today I am going to vote in favor of S. 735, the Terrorism Prevention
Act conference report. As I stated throughout debate on the
antiterrorism bill I have had concerns that the bill might be used as a
vehicle to expand Federal power over law-abiding citizens. This was my
reason for opposing the original House bill, I was concerned that a
House-Senate conference would add a number of undesirable Senate
provisions. A number of bad ideas were in play, including expansive
Federal wiretapping authority, included in the Senate bill, excessive
power for certain Federal law enforcement agencies, and excessive
spending. I have followed the conference closely, and I am now satisfied
that the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens are protected, and that
Federal authority is appropriately restricted. The bill focuses on
international terrorist organizations, a matter of Federal jurisdiction.

(Note Wayne Allard is now a Senator from Colorado, and one of the nine
shameful Senators who voted against the McCain AntiTorture Amendment on
October 5, 2005)

     * Congressional Record: April 17, 1996 (Senate) - Pages S3454-S3478
     * [DOCID:cr17ap96-153]

Terrorism prevention Act--Conference Report

Orrin Hatch: Mr. President, again, in the real world, in the case of the
Unabomber or a terrorist where there is a real threat or an immediate
concern, you do not need this provision to get an emergency wiretap. All
the Senator's motion does is expand the number of crimes that would
trigger the wiretap statute. This amendment was offered during the
Senate debate. It was defeated. It was not a part of the Senate bill. It
was not a part of the House bill. It is not a part of our conference
report, and rightly so. I oppose this provision that could expand
emergency wiretap authority to permit the Government to begin a wiretap
prior to obtaining court approval in a greater range of cases than the
law presently allows. I personally find this proposal troubling. I am
concerned that this provision, if enacted, would unnecessarily broaden
emergency wiretap authority. Under current law, such authority exists
when life is in danger, when the national security is threatened, or
when an organized crime conspiracy is involved. In the real world, we do
not need this amendment to get emergency wiretap authority, and that is
a fact.

Let me also say that this authority is constrained by a requirement that
surveillance be approved by the Court within 48 hours, but that
authority already exists in those areas I have addressed.

     * Congressional Record: August 2, 1996 (House) - Pages H9877-H9886
     * [DOCID:cr02au96-151]

Providing for Consideration of a Certain Motion to Suspend the Rules

Porter Goss (R-Fla): Mr. Speaker, this effort comes in the wake of three
horrible tragedies: The bombing of a military installation in Saudi
Arabia, the loss of TWA flight 800 out of New York's JFK Airport, and
the recent pipe bomb explosion in Atlanta at the Olympics. While we
haven't had time to thoroughly assess these tragedies and the
effectiveness of the antiterrorism law Congress passed earlier this
year, these attacks tell us that our society remains vulnerable to
terrorism. Unfortunately, terrorism is a fact of life. In response to
recent events, a series of proposals were offered to solve the
problem--some with merit, and some that could cause more problems than
they might solve by cutting deeply--and unnecessarily--into the
constitutional freedoms of American citizens. I include in that category
certain proposals for expanded wiretapping authority for Federal law
enforcement. This is a dangerous proposition--and one that would be
ceding victory to terrorists, whose goal is to disrupt our society,
create anxiety and constrain our freedoms. That's the way terrorism
attacks a free open society. Let me be clear, this bill does not--I
repeat, does not--expand wiretapping authority. In fact, it goes the
other direction, strengthening penalties for misuse of Government's
existing authority. That's good news for all Americans--especially the
many southwest Floridians who urged us not to succumb to the pressure to
diminish our liberties. For this we owe our thanks to our able policy
committee chairman, Chris Cox.

[. . .]

Charles Schumer (D-NY): Mr. Speaker, if we want to know why people are
sick and fed up with Congress, look at this debate. On Sunday the
President asked and all the law enforcement people asked for two things,
the top two things they needed to fight terrorism. One, taggants.
Identifiers in explosives, particularly black power and smokeless; and
two, multipoint wiretaps. Neither are in this bill.

Neither are in this bill because the NRA did not want it. Neither are in
this bill because forces on the extreme dictated what the Republican
Party was going to put forward.

This bill is a sham. It does a few good things, but it does not give law
enforcement what they want, plain and simple. We all know that.

All the other provisions are an elaborate smokescreen to hide what
everyone in this Chamber knows: that the majority party is not doing
what the FBI, the ATF and all the other law enforcement experts have
asked for. Mr. Kallstrom, long before this conference, the FBI man in
the lead at TWA, said please give us multipoint wiretaps. The majority
says no.

Mr. Freeh, the head of the FBI, says please give us taggants so we can
trace the kind of pipe bomb that blew up at the Olympics. The majority
says no.

And last night, when we had agreement from the President, the Republican
leaders of the Senate, the Democratic leaders of the Senate and the
Democratic side of the House, only the Republican majority in the House
refused to go along.

Members, this bill is what should make us ashamed of our inability to
pull together and fight terrorism.

[. . .]

Joe Moakley (D-Mass): Over a year ago President Clinton started the
whole process by coming up with an antiterrorism proposal and beginning
discussions with Republicans. When negotiations broke down, House
Republicans wrote this bill on their own, under cover of night, and they
left out one of the most important parts of President Clinton's
bill--the provisions granting wiretapping authority.

Because Mr. Speaker, rather than just punishing terrorists, we need to
prevent terrorism. And the one thing law enforcement officers have asked
for time and again, is wiretapping authority.

But my Republican colleagues refuse to give it to them.

Instead, Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues have decided to make even
the issue of terrorism political.

I would at least expect my Republican colleagues to allow us to offer
amendments to this bill, but apparently they will not.

Mr. Speaker, as today's Washington Post reports, this important
antiterrorism legislation has been slowed down because of conservative
Republicans' refusal to allow law enforcement officers the wiretapping
capability they ask for and President Clinton and the Democrats are
trying to give them.

As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to combating
terrorism, we should give law enforcement officers any and every
reasonable tool they need, including wiretapping authority.

[. . .]

Nita Lowey (D-NY): Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill,
and on behalf of a constituent whose daughter was lost in TWA flight
800, because this bill is an outrage and a disgrace to that family, and
an outrage and a disgrace to this body.

This bill should include both taggants and enhanced wiretapping
provisions. Instead, it has neither. Law enforcement has repeatedly
asked for these critical tools to combat terrorism. Yet this Congress
has repeatedly denied them.

When, Mr. Speaker, when are we going to say enough is enough? How many
bombs have to go off? How many daughters do we have to lose? How many
Americans have to die before the GOP leadership will give us a tough
antiterrorism bill?

Once again we had an opportunity today to protect Americans from
terrorism, and once again the Republican leadership took its marching
orders from the National Rifle Association and gutted the bill. The NRA
opposes taggants because it says they will be placed in the types of
gunpowder that hunters and marksmen use. Taggants will also be placed in
the gunpowder that terrorists use in bombs like the ones that killed and
injured more than 100 in Atlanta last weekend.

The taggants in these bombs will lead us to the terrorists who planted
them. Today, this Congress has hoisted the white flag of surrender in
the fight against terrorism. It is a repeat of the last time we
considered terrorism legislation, when the Republican leadership talked
tough and acted weak. Those responsible for weakening this bill yet
again should be ashamed of themselves, because they have put Americans
at risk.

Chris Cox (R-Calif.): The truth is that the administration wanted
wiretapping language in this bill and, as the Washington Post points out
in its editorial today, we have not included it because caution and
deliberation are necessary on that topic. But we have included
everything else that they wanted.

[. . .]

Chris Cox: of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Florida for yielding.

What we just heard the gentleman from New York tell us is essentially
true; that if we had included in this bill everything that is before us
and one other thing, and that is multipoint and warrantless wiretaps,
then there would have been agreement. And the truth is that because
wiretaps are not in this bill, the gentleman is disappointed.

I have to say that this gentleman is disappointed because there is not a
good faith exception to the exclusionary rule in this bill, something
that would have helped us in the Oklahoma City prosecution. We passed it
through this House five times. It ought to be acceptable to our body,
but it was objected to by the Senate.

Now, imagine our predicament if we had brought this bill with everything
in it; the only difference was it also had warrantless wiretaps and
multipoint wiretaps. That is a very serious issue I think Members
deserve more time to consider. And for that reason, above all, it is not
put in a bill that is coming to us under a suspension of the rules that
we have not had an opportunity to read.