The Michael Lynn Mincy United States Liberty Page

"OLD" History of the Mighty Eighth

Barksdale Air Force Base - Home of the Eighth Air force

"NEW" History of the Mighty Eighth

TRIBUTE TO THE 8th USAAF in NORFOLK - A tribute to the 8th USAAF in Norfolk ,England in WWII

THE WAR POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

WAR Laws of the United States SOURCE: WWW.FINDLAW.COM - http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/terrorism/laws.html

INTERNATIONAL LAW

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction

For the International and Defense Sources Below and Many More - Visit The International Affairs Section of The WWW Virtual Library system created, edited and maintained, by Wayne A.Selcher, Professor of International Studies, Department of Political Science, Elizabethtown College, Elizabethtown, PA 17022-2288 U.S.A.
E-mail: [email protected]

Also Use The WWW Virtual Library: International Affairs Resources

American Foreign Policy

Foreign Relations of the United States From the Office of the Historian in the U.S. Department of State, a series of volumes in the official documentary historical record of major U.S. foreign policy decisions and significant diplomatic activity. Recently-released volumes contain declassified records from all the foreign affairs agencies. Volumes online in full-text cover 1945-1968.
Foreign Service Journal From the American Foreign Service Association, "foreign affairs from an insider's perspective," including Foreign Service officers, ranking academics, and diplomatic correspondents. Contents and some articles online, plus online archive. AFSA is the professional association of the United States Foreign Service.
World Affairs Councils of America

History of World Affairs Councils System

"WACA (World Affairs Councils of America) is a network of citizen
education organizations that focus on international issues and ideas.
Its strength derives from its ability to unite and enhance the efforts
and achievements of all of its constituent world affairs councils and
associate members."

"The Council on Foreign Relations in New York, founded in 1921,
was probably the first "community" group engaged in world affairs
education using the name "council," with the Chicago Council on
Foreign Relations close behind in 1922....."

"A small office has been maintained in Washington, DC since 1986.
This office has served as the contact point for the eighty councils
in the United States and the international and diplomatic communities
in Washington..... At the 1997 national conference in November, the
membership voted to change the name to World Affairs Councils of America.(WACA)
.....WACA today has 80 member councils and 24 affiliated organizations
including 6 international members."

"World Affairs Councils nationwide have 83,000 members and reach
1,534,000 teachers and students with their programs.
Total outreach for the world affairs council system is
24 million people per year."

Origins of the World Affairs Council Movement
Council on Diplomacy and International Affairs "Independent, nonprofit organization dedicated to preparing young men and women...in becoming leaders, diplomats, and peacemakers..." Much information on U.S. foreign policy and diplomatic careers.
America's Global Role From Public Agenda, a guide to the global role of the U.S., with an issue section on the facts and policy alternatives, and a public opinion section with a detailed profile of public thinking about the issue.
American Diplomacy A free, quarterly "electronic journal of commentary, analysis, and research on American foreign policy and its practice," run largely by retired U.S. diplomats, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Includes an archive of past articles.
American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1999 The online (PDF) full-text version of the latest Chicago Council on Foreign Relations' authoritative quadrennial study of the American public's and leadership's attitudes on international matters.
Coalition for American Leadership Abroad Non-profit organization of 39 member organizations to further public debate about international issues affecting U.S. interests. Site provides basic information about major foreign affairs issues, and argues that engagement abroad is important to the U.S.
Cold War Much information about and from the excellent 1998 CNN TV series on the history of the Cold War.
Cold War International History Project From the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, works for release of historical materials by governments on all sides of the Cold War, and publicizes new information and perspectives on Cold War history. Has a large, searchable virtual library of documents.
Foreign Affairs and Defense Issues U.S. public opinion data on international questions, from a variety of sources, from Polling Report.com.
Foreign Policy Association Provides objective publications, programs, and forums, to increase community-level awareness of international matters that shape the U.S.'s future, and to promote citizen involvement in those issues. Information on the Great Decisions program, online discussion forum, readings and resources, reference maps.
Foreign Policy In Focus A searchable, progressive gateway to American foreign policy issues, by topic or region, from the Interhemispheric Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies. Note the In Focus Briefs, Special Reports, Project Information, and The World in Numbers, among other features. Much material online.
Free Trade Area of the Americas "Official home page of the Free Trade Area of the Americas process or FTAA. This site follows the process initiated in the 1994 Summit of the Americas to integrate the economies of the Western Hemisphere into a single free trade arrangement."
Gallup Organization This Social Issues and Policy section, International Affairs, of the Gallup Poll presents recent survey results on American attitudes toward international matters, and some data from non-U.S. publics.
Noam Chomsky Archive From Z Magazine, full text of many of the major works of this prominent political dissident and critic of American and corporate foreign policies, plus complete audio of several important lectures, and numerous articles, interviews, and speeches. Also a discussion forum.
North American Institute Trinational organization founded to deepen understanding of, and to promote new approaches to, all aspects of the North American regional relationship. Some publications online.
Program on International Policy Attitudes At the University of Maryland, does "research on [American] public attitudes on international issues by conducting nationwide polls, focus groups and comprehensive reviews of polling conducted by other organizations." Some reports available free online, and links to other sources of polling information. Note their excellent Americans and the World website, that reports on US public opinion on a broad range of international policy issues, integrating all publicly available polling data, to build a comprehensive resource on U.S. public opinion on international issues.
Public Agenda Online "A nonpartisan, nonprofit public opinion research and citizen education organization based in New York City." Posts results and analyses of United States public opinion on various topics, including U.S. foreign policy issues. Note the Special Edition on Terrorism and Public Opinion.
Public Diplomacy Web Site Sponsored by the USIA Alumni Association and the Public Diplomacy Foundation, shows the role public diplomacy has played in U.S. foreign policy.
Researching U.S. Treaties and Agreements By Marci Hoffman, a feature of the Law Library Resource Xchange as a how-to guide on the topic.
U.S. Defense Policy Fine collection of online documents, analyses, commentary, and links on the topic, with archive, from the Global Reporting Network at New York University's Department of Journalism and Mass Communication. Note also their similar files on regional issues, including NATO expansion, Balkan conflicts, East Asian security, South Asian security, the Middle East, and nuclear weapons & proliferation.

Vox PopuliProject of the Center on Policy Attitudes, to research and analyze public opinion on key public policy issues. Note especially the section on American Public Attitudes on America's Role in the World.

Department of Defense Official News Releasese:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/releases.html

American Defense and National Security Policy

U.S. Defense PolicyFrom the Global Reporting Network at New York University's Department of Journalism and Mass Communication. Note also their similar files on regional issues, including NATO expansion, Balkan conflicts, East Asian security, South Asian security, the Middle East, and nuclear weapons & proliferation.

US Commission on National Security/21st CenturyThe Hart-Rudman Commission "government-sponsored" review of US national security. Includes scenarios to the year 2025. Major reports and feedback form online.

National Security Archive "A research institute on international affairs, with a library and archive of declassified U.S. documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act," located at the George Washington University. Many documents and reports available online
The September 11th Source Books, "National Security Archive Online Readers on Terrorism, Intelligence and the Next War."

National Security.org The conservative Heritage Foundation, for access to publications and links on a range of national security issues.

American Military Policy

United States Military Operations
By the Federation of American Scientists ( http://www.fas.org/ )

FAS Site Index

United States Military Operations

United States Military Strategy

[ INTRO ]
Supporting the National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement requires that the United States maintain robust and versatile military forces that can accomplish a wide variety of missions, as delineated in the Bottom-Up Review:. US forces must be able to offset the military power of regional states with interests opposed to those of the United States and its allies. To do this, the United States must be able to credibly deter and, if required, decisively defeat aggression, in concert with regional allies, by projecting and sustaining US power in two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts (MRCs). The Quadrennial Defense Review's (QDR) redefined this requirement as the ability to fight two nearly simultaneous major theater wars (MTWs).
The focus of US planning for major regional conflict is based on the need to be able to project power and to deter, defend against, and defeat aggression by potentially hostile regional powers. US military strategy calls for the capability, in concert with regional allies, to fight and decisively win two MRCs that occur nearly simultaneously. This is the principal determinant of the size and composition of U.S. conventional forces. A force with such capabilities is required to avoid a situation in which an aggressor in one region might be tempted to take advantage of a perceived vulnerability when substantial numbers of US forces are committed elsewhere.
A successful campaign requires the orchestration of many missions with many different forces, coordinated to have a strong combined effect in unraveling and defeating the enemy.

[ Basic Strategy ] - Force Structure

The Quadrennial Defense Review's (QDR) retained a force posture similar to that adopted by the 1992 Bottom-Up Review (BUR). Overall force structure goals are as follows:

The requirements of these major combat operations drive the overall size and structure of Army and Marine forces. Total Army Analysis (TAA) is the doctrine-based process to determine the Army support force structure required to execute the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) Illustrative Planning Scenarios (IPS). To handle a single MRC, the Bottom-Up Review concluded that the United States needs a force of two Army corps, four to five Army divisions, four to five Marine brigade-equivalents, and enhanced readiness brigades from the Army National Guard (ARNG). The Army plans to deploy a 5-division corps, together with the required support structure, 8,700 miles-from fort to foxhole-in 75 days. The lead Brigade must be on the ground by C+4, the lead Division by C+12. The first heavy division must be operational by C+24. Two heavy Divisions (via sealift) arrive from CONUS by C+30 (Armored, Mechanized, Air Assault, [mix per CINC]). The full Corps (five Divisions and a COSCOM) closes by C+75. In order to prevail in two nearly simultaneous MRCs, based on the BUR analysis the Department programmed ten active component Army divisions; fifteen enhanced readiness brigades of the Army National Guard, each capable of deploying within 90 days, and three Marine Expeditionary Forces (MEFs), augmented and reinforced by units from the Marine Reserve.
Existing war plans envision sending eight of the fifteen ARNG Enhanced Separate Brigades (eSBs) to fight in the second MTW within 140 days after mobilization. The eSBs first-to-fight status requires a higher state of readiness than many other large Reserve Component [RC] units. This applies particularly in terms of equipment and manning levels, so that the brigades can achieve full combat proficiency more quickly. The Army plans to send the mobilized eSBs in sequential waves to the four major post-mobilization training sites the Army maintains for use during war time. Three sites, Fort Irwin, California, Fort Hood, Texas, and Yakima, Washington, would be used to train heavy brigades. The fourth site, Fort Polk, Louisiana, would be used to train light brigades. Existing plans envision training and validating the 15 eSBs at these training sites. With current resources, only four brigades can be trained and validated at one time, hence four eSBs will be ready 90 days after mobilization and four additional eSBs will be mobilized 35 days later. The remaining seven eSBs would cycle through the training and validation sites using the same timelines. Each eSB is expected to be ready for deployment 90 days after its mobilization.
About 10 Air Force FWEs (72 aircraft each), augmented by 100 long-range bomber aircraft, would be needed to prosecute a single MTW. This force building block leads to a total objective of 20 FWEs, plus bomber aircraft, for two nearly simultaneous MTWs.
Four to five carrier air wings, plus the aviation elements of one to two Marine expeditionary forces or MEFs (four to five brigade-equivalents), would be needed for a single MRC. Carrier air wing warfighting contributions and deployments associated with peacetime presence requirements generate a need for 10 Navy active carrier air wings and one composite Navy/Marine Corps reserve air wing. The ability of expeditionary forces to redeploy quickly over large distances has led to the determination that three MEFs (seven brigade-equivalents) are sufficient for two nearly simultaneous MTWs.

Mobility forces would be key to the deployment and sustainment of US forces in any MTW. Should a conflict erupt with little warning, the United States would want to respond promptly and with sufficient strength to help indigenous forces halt the aggression and restore the peace. Airlift, augmented by prepositioning, would carry out the initial deployments. These first flights would deliver primarily aviation and light ground forces, plus some heavier ground elements. The remaining heavy combat forces would deploy by sea.

The Four Main Divisions and Levels of Current United States Military Strategy

Major Theater War

The Air Campaign

Small-Scale Contingency (SSC)

Stability Operations (SASO)[ MILITARY POLICE Activities in CIVILLIAN Areas ]

The Units and Tactics of the United States Military Services

Overview of the US Military Structure

Intro
Operations

Tactics

Joint DOD Coperations

The US Army
Army Units
The US Navy
Navy Units
The US Air Force
Air Force Units
The US Marine Corps

Operation Enduring Freedom

War on Terrorism

Visit these sites for more information about the war on terrorism:

US Army Official Site Official US Army Site

Stratford

The Center for Strategic & International Studies

CSIS Board, Counselors, and Advisers
CSIS Trustee

Cable News Network's Military Analysts

Military Desk of CNN - [ Complete Archives on the Progress of the War ] http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/retal.section.html

Afghanistan
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/afghan.section.html

ANTHRAX
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/anthrax.section.html

Osama bin Laden
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/binladen.section.html

United States War News & Reports:

"Dangerous citizens..."

".................one of the best ways to get
yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to
go about repeating the very phrases which our founding
fathers used in the struggle for independence."

--
Charles A. Beard (1874-1948), U.S. historian

WAR POLL SOURCE: WWW.FINDLAW.COM -

Do you worry that new anti-terror legislation will violate your civil
liberties?
Yes 71.83 % 561 votes
No 28.16 % 220 votes
Total: 781 votes
This FindLaw News Poll is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only
those Internet users who have chosen to participate. It does not represent
the opinions of FindLaw or the Internet users as a whole.
[ As of 10/27/2001 - MLM ]

Big Brother is Already Here: NRA Spokesman Says;
Liberator Online, Vol. 7, No. 6, March 26, 2002:

No one can accuse National Rifle Association (NRA) executive vice president Wayne LaPierre of being a knee-jerk anti-Bush liberal. But in a fiery February speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference, LaPierre courageously blasted the staggering increase in regulation, government spending, speech restrictions and privacy invasions that have followed September 11.
Here are some excerpts from his speech, which was entitled "Frightened, or Free?":
"Since [September 11], we've watched social and political marketers jockey for position, seeking advantage on the back of tragedy for more government regulation, intrusion and expansion. We've witnessed a fire sale of American liberties at bargain basement prices, in return for the false promise of more security.
"Freedom is the first bargaining chip of a scared people. But it's always a losing bet.

Also:
Too often when we dictate who will lead
another country, we only replace one group of thugs with another- as we just did
in Afghanistan- with the only difference being that the thugs we support are
expected to be puppet-like and remain loyal to the US, or else.

Although bits and pieces of the
administration's plans to wage war against Iraq and possibly Iran and North
Korea are discussed, we never hear any mention of the authority to do so. It
seems that Tony Blair's approval is more important than the approval of the
American people!

Congress never complains about its lost
prerogative to be the sole declarer of war. Astoundingly, Congress is only too
eager to give war power to our presidents through the back door, by the use of
some fuzzy resolution that the president can use as his justification. And once
the hostilities begin, the money always follows, because Congress fears
criticism for not "supporting the troops." But putting soldiers in
harm's way without proper authority, and unnecessarily, can hardly be the way to
"support the troops."

Let it be clearly understood- there is
no authority to wage war against Iraq without Congress passing a Declaration of
War. HJ RES 65, passed in the aftermath of 9/11, does not even suggest that this
authority exists. A UN Resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq, even if it
were to come, cannot replace the legal process for the United States going to
war as precisely defined in the Constitution. We must remember that a covert war
is no more justifiable, and is even more reprehensible.

Only tyrants can take a nation to war
without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a
Declaration of War is illegal. It is unwise because of many unforeseen
consequences that are likely to result. It is immoral and unjust, because it has
nothing to do with US security and because Iraq has not initiated aggression
against us.

We must understand that the American
people become less secure when we risk a major conflict driven by commercial
interests and not constitutionally authorized by Congress. Victory under these
circumstances is always elusive, and unintended consequences are inevitable.

NOTES:
These 'excerpts' are from " Liberator Online, Vol. 7, No. 6"

SOURCE: US House of Representatives
(Source: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr022602.htm )

Chicago Tribune - Wednesday, January 30, 2002 - BUSH'S 'AXIS OF EVIL.'
Warning that terrorist networks and hostile
nations still threaten America, President Bush vowed in his State
of the Union address that "our war against terror is only
beginning." Details, reaction, analysis, full text, audio, video
and more:
http://tm0.com/daywatch/sbct.cgi?s=210333204&i=457104&m=1&d=2251180

Bush urges Americans to commit "at least two years -- 4,000 hours
over the rest of your lifetime -- to the service of your
neighbors and your nation":
http://tm0.com/daywatch/sbct.cgi?s=210333204&i=457104&m=1&d=2251181

Chicago Tribune - Friday, November 2, 2001 BUSH'S SECRETS PLAN. President Bush signed an executive order
giving him unprecedented power to keep secret even presidential
papers that would have been released after the 12-year wait now
required by law. Historians speculate the White House might be
worried the war on terrorism could generate documents the
administration would rather not see exposed. Bob Kemper reports:
http://tm0.com/daywatch/sbct.cgi?s=210333204&i=414292&d=1975228

Chicago Tribune - Friday, November 2, 2001 ENEMY'S TOP LEADERS ELUDE ATTACKS. U.S. air strikes in
Afghanistan have not killed the top cadre of the Taliban military
and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld says. Michael Killian reports:
< href="http://tm0.com/daywatch/sbct.cgi?s=210333204&i=412480&d=1953832"> http://tm0.com/daywatch/sbct.cgi?s=210333204&i=412480&d=1953832

Chicago Tribune - Friday, November 2, 2001
ANTHRAX CONTAMINATION SPREADS. Add Indianapolis to the list of
cities whose postal facilities bear traces of anthrax
contamination. Continual updates:
http://tm0.com/daywatch/sbct.cgi?s=210333204&i=414292&d=1975220
Chicago Tribune - Friday, November 2, 2001
ANTHRAX CONTAMINATION SPREADS. Add Indianapolis to the list of
cities whose postal facilities bear traces of anthrax
contamination. Continual updates:
http://tm0.com/daywatch/sbct.cgi?s=210333204&i=414292&d=1975220

Chicago Tribune - Wednesday, October 31, 2001

By Charlie Meyerson, Tribune staff reporter

'FOR THE DURATION.' Bob Greene dissects that phrase's meaning:
"The hard translation is that this will take as long as it takes.
The fuzziness is that no one has any idea what that means."
http://tm0.com/daywatch/sbct.cgi?s=210333204&i=413023&d=1960939

CONFESS ... OR ELSE. Clarence Page weighs the use of truth serum
and other questionable interrogation tactics in the war on
terrorism: "A nation ... pays a heavy moral price whenever it
sacrifices its highest principles of human rights, even
temporarily."
http://tm0.com/daywatch/sbct.cgi?s=210333204&i=413023&d=1960940
BEHIND TERROR ALERT. The terrorist warning issued by the Bush
administration Monday was based on intelligence involving
Afghanistan and known supporters of Osama bin Laden elsewhere in
the world, including Canada, officials say. Continual updates:
http://tm0.com/daywatch/sbct.cgi?s=210333204&i=413023&d=1960935

THE LIBERATOR ONLINE - [ www.theadvocates.org]

October 30, 2001
Vol. 6, No. 17
Circulation: 54,866 in 102 countries

Published by the Advocates for Self-Government.
Created and edited by Paul Schmidt, mailto:[email protected]
Co-edited by James W. Harris, mailto:[email protected]

* Advocates joins civil liberties coalition: The Advocates
for Self-Government has joined "In Defense of Freedom." This
is a coalition of over 150 organizations from across the
political spectrum who have united to urge that civil
liberties not be sacrificed in the name of fighting
terrorism. "We need to consider proposals calmly and
deliberately with a determination not to erode the liberties
and freedoms that are at the core of the American way of
life," says a 10-point statement by the coalition. Other
organizations in the coalition include the ACLU, Gun Owners
of America, and the Libertarian Party. You can read the
coalition's statement -- and sign it yourself, if you wish --
at: http://www.indefenseoffreedom..org/

* Advocates terrorism Web site: immediately after the Sept.
11 attacks, the Advocates created a Web page collecting
libertarian statements on the attack, suggested activities,
and resources for further information. The Web page is
periodically updated with new material. The page received
almost 10,000 hits within 24 hours. Over 20,000 people now
have visited the site, and the numbers continue to grow.
Visit it at: http://www.self-gov.org/

GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS

by James W. Harris

< font size+1>Surprise: Much of New Anti-Terrorism Law Won't Expire - [ "PATRIOT" Bill aka HR 3162 - MLM]

Legislators have rushed to assure Americans that "sunset
provisions" in the broad new anti-terrorism bill will insure
that the controversial new emergency powers granted the
federal government will expire in four years.

As Senate Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) put
it, the four-year expiration date "will be crucial in making
sure that these new law enforcement powers are not abused."

However, according to Wired magazine journalist Declan
McCullagh, that's simply not true.

The Dec. 2005 expiration date actually applies only to a tiny
part of the huge anti-terrorism bill.

According to McCullagh, "...police will have the permanent
ability to conduct Internet surveillance without a court
order in some circumstances, secretly search homes and
offices without notifying the owner, and share confidential
grand jury information with the CIA.

"Also exempt from the expiration date are investigations
underway by Dec. 2005, and any future investigations of
crimes that took place before that date.

"Other sections of the [bill] [ HR 3162 - MLM]...that do not expire include
the following:
* Police can sneak into someone's house or office, search
the contents, and leave without ever telling the owner.
This would be supervised by a court, and the notification
of the surreptitious search "may be delayed"
indefinitely. (Section 213)
* Any U.S. attorney or state attorney general can order the
installation of the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system
and record addresses of Web pages visited and e-mail
correspondents -- without going to a judge...(Section
216)
* An accused terrorist who is a foreign citizen and who
cannot be deported can be held for an unspecified series
of "periods of up to six months" with the attorney
general's approval. (Section 412)
* Biometric technology, such as fingerprint readers or iris
scanners, will become part of an "integrated entry and
exit data system" with the identities of visa holders who
hope to enter the U.S. (Section 414)
* Any Internet provider or telephone company must turn over
customer information, including phone numbers called --
no court order required -- if the FBI claims the "records
sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to
protect against international terrorism." The company
contacted may not "disclose to any person" that the FBI
is doing an investigation. (Section 505)
* Credit reporting firms like Equifax must disclose to the
FBI any information that agents request in connection
with a terrorist investigation -- without police needing
to seek a court order first... (Section 505)."

McCullagh lists several other major exemptions from the
sunset provision in his article "Terror Act Has Lasting
Effects" at the URL below.

(Source:
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47901,00.html)

* * *

Warning: Don't Federalize Airport Security

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, we are increasingly hearing
calls to turn responsibility for airport security over to the
federal government.

This would be a big mistake, according to both the
libertarian Reason Foundation and the conservative magazine
National Review. Not only would it be costly, it could
actually make U.S. airports less safe than they could, and
should, be.

Europe, Japan and Israel (a country that has certainly
explored the most effective ways to deal with airport
terrorism) have all found private contractors to be the best
way to handle airport security problems.

One major reason should be obvious: it's a lot easier to fire
and replace ineffective private contractors than it would be
to get rid of and replace equally ineffective but entrenched
federal employees.

Other reasons to oppose airport security federalization: it
would lead to the creation of a new federal agency that would
add tens of thousands of people to the federal payroll, at an
estimated cost of around $2 billion. And this new agency
would most likely be funded by taxes -- which is to say, by
both those who fly and those who do not.

The Reason Foundation points out that one thing America
lacks, that many other countries have, is a single
owner/operator responsible for such matters as airport
security. Privatization (partial or full) and the
accompanying responsibility would provide great incentives
for meeting the huge consumer demand for effective,
reasonable airline security

Says the Reason Foundation's Robert Poole:

"In Europe today, an airport is seen as a business: an
enterprise run by qualified (and highly paid) professionals,
serving a number of different customers, and expected to make
a profit... A growing number of these airports have been
shifted into private ownership over the past decade. Since
Margaret Thatcher converted the former British Airports
Authority into the publicly traded BAA in 1987, a total of 17
U.K. airports have shifted into the private sector. On the
continent, privatized airports include Athens, Copenhagen,
Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Naples, Rome, Turin, Vienna,
and Zurich, with Amsterdam and Berlin soon to follow. In each
case, the corporate model has led to more professional
management and increased resources for meeting numerous
customer needs -- including security."

(Sources: Reason Foundation: http://www.rppi.org/rr106.html ;
National Review Online:
http://www.nationalreview.com/search-results/comment/comment-klick101101.shtml )

* * *

National ID Card Has Many Powerful Supporters

So far, the idea of a national ID card seems to be on the
national back burner.

But beware: the concept has some powerful and wealthy
supporters. And huge numbers of Americans favor it.

Among those in Congress sympathetic to the idea are U.S. Sen.
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who chairs the Senate subcommittee
on terrorism and who has long called for detailed national
IDs; House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO.); Rep.
George Gekas (R-PA.), chairman of the House Immigration
Subcommittee; and many others.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer recently said he
would personally volunteer to get a card. Alan Derschowitz
and syndicated Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen are
among many opinion leaders who have recently endorsed it.

Some polls and surveys have found support for a national ID
among large percentages of the American public. A poll by the
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, taken a few
days after the Sept. 11 attacks, found 70 percent of the
public favoring a national identity card to curb terrorism.

Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush stated his
opposition to a national ID card, and there has been no
official change on that position. However, on Wednesday,
October 24, according to the San Jose Mercury newspaper,
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said he wasn't
aware of President Bush's position on a national ID or any
White House discussions about it.

The idea has received enthusiastic backing from many in the
computer industry. A national ID would mean billions of
dollars spent by the government in the high-tech sector. The
San Jose Mercury recently noted: "Industry observers say a
U.S. ID card system could cost $2 billion to $10 billion for
the cards alone. The associated infrastructure and systems
integration could cost 10 times as much..."

It's been widely reported that Oracle Chairman and CEO Larry
Ellison is a strong advocate of a national ID, so much so
that he has offered to donate the necessary database
software. Ellison acknowledges his company would charge for
maintenance and upgrades and related costs, a potentially
huge profit opportunity.

New technology makes the idea of a national ID (and/or other
surveillance/identification laws) more ominous than ever
before. As the libertarian Cato Institute notes: "The
prospect of massive computer databases or registries,
software data collection systems, digital fingerprinting,
handprint scans, facial recognition technologies, voice
authentication devices, electronic retinal scans, and other
"biometric surveillance technologies" have suddenly become
realistic options for government identification purposes."

While terrorism is the justification today for such a card,
that's just the latest in a long line of excuses. In recent
years, proponents have called for national IDs for fighting
drugs, controlling immigration, instituting national health
care, preventing teenage drinking, aiding in gun control...
you name it. Seems like just about any cause will do for
those who want to see Americans forced to show their papers
on demand.

The good news is that there's no overt strong push for a
national ID card. The bad news is that many powerful and
influential people do support the idea, and a majority of
citizens may be ready to go along with them. And if the
current crisis worsens, many will use that as a justification
for such a card.

As always, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

(Sources: San Jose Mercury,
http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/depth/idcard102501.htm;
Cato Institute: http://cato.org/tech/tk/010928-tk.html )

* * *

"Dangerous citizens..."

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get
yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to
go about repeating the very phrases which our founding
fathers used in the struggle for independence."

--
Charles A. Beard (1874-1948), U.S. historian

Chicago Tribune - October 30, 2001 ENEMY'S TOP LEADERS ELUDE ATTACKS. U.S. air strikes in
Afghanistan have not killed the top cadre of the Taliban military
and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld says. Michael Killian reports:
http://tm0.com/daywatch/sbct.cgi?s=210333204&i=412480&d=1953832

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,37368,00.html
Bush Signs Anti-Terror Bill
FNC - Friday, October 26, 2001
WASHINGTON — President Bush signed the new anti-terrorism bill into law
Friday, granting law enforcement sweeping new investigative powers to
pursue terrorists.
Flanked by Vice President Dick Cheney, Bush welcomed the law — dubbed the
PATRIOT Act — [ HR 3162 - MLM ]- in a White House East Room ceremony, where
he thanked his cabinet members, law enforcement agents, and congressional
leaders who ushered the bill through Congress.
Acknowledging that the law, targeted at the terrorists responsible for the
Sept. 11 hijackings and recent anthrax attacks, had raised civil liberty
concerns, the president told observers that the law will fight terror on
the home front while still affording Americans their civil rights.
"Today, we take an essential step in defeating terrorism while protecting
the constitutional rights of all Americans," he said.
Bush said the new law will help "counter a threat like no other our nation
has ever faced."
"This government will enforce this law with all the urgency of a nation at
war," he said.
The ceremony comes more than six weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks and less
than a day after the Senate passed the legislation on a 98-1 vote.
And from the president's point of view, not a moment too soon.
"These terrorists must be pursued, they must be defeated and they must be
brought to justice and that is the purpose of this legislation," Bush said.
The terror bill has many provisions to help law enforcement track down and
detain suspected terrorists. Among the provisions, the bill will:
— enhance intelligence sharing between federal agencies and local and state
law enforcement, and make available grand jury evidence from foreign
intelligence services
— increase to seven days the amount of time a foreign suspect can detained
before deportation procedures or release
— expand roving wiretap authority to allow investigators to target
all phones used by a suspect rather than just one phone line, and
— create broader penalties for bioterrorism crimes.
Legislators also added a sunset provision to phase out the laws in
four years.
President Bush said the laws will update previous measures that were
written before technology used by the terrorists even existed.
"Existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law
that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communicatiosn used by
terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet and cell phones. As of today,
we will be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this
proliferation of communications technology," he said.

Emboldened by such new tools, Attorney General John Ashcroft vowed to
exploit them to the fullest.

"If you overstay your visa by even one day, we will arrest you. If you
violate a local law, we will work to make sure you are put in jail and kept
in custody. We will use every available statute. We will seek every
prosecutorial advantage. We will use all our weapons within the law and
under the Constitution to protect life and enhance security for America,"
Ashcroft told the U.S. Conference of Mayors Thursday.

One senator, along with a handful of civil libertarians and privacy
advocates, said he was unhappy with the final product.

"This bill does not strike the right balance between empowering law
enforcement and protecting civil liberties," said Sen. Russ Feingold,
D-Wis.

Sponsors of the bill said they added provisions to ensure that Americans
were not subjected to baseless investigations. Those provisions included a
four-year expiration date on the wiretapping and electronic surveillance
portion, a requirement that authorities get court permission before
snooping into suspects' formerly private educational records and court
oversight over the FBI's use of a powerful e-mail wiretap system.

The House passed the bill Wednesday 357-66.

Fox News' James Rosen contributed to this report.

Cato Daily Dispatch
October 25, 2001
http://www.cato.org/
http://www.cato.org/dispatch/10-25-01d.html

TERRORISM BILL EXPLAINED - [ The "PATRIOT" Bill aka HR-3162 - MLMM ]

Fox News has compiled an easy to read outline of the vastly expanded
powers the House of Representatives voted to grant to law enforcement. It
is available online. ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,37202,00.html )

Among other things, the bill increases to seven days the length of time an
alien may be held before being charged with criminal or immigration
violations and requires an integrated automated fingerprint identification
system for points of entry and overseas consular posts.

Congress has passed terrorism bills granting vast powers to law
enforcement that have nothing to do with counter-terrorism, argues Cato
adjunct scholar David Kopel in "Will the War Kill the Bill of Rights?" (
http://www.cato.org/current/terrorism/pubs/kopel-011018.html )

In "Watching You: Systematic Federal Surveillance of Ordinary Americans,"
( http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-069es.html ) Boise State University
Economics Professor Charlotte Twight explains in detail how the federal
government maintains databases on every citizen's financial, medical,
employment, and education records, making the point that the government's
surveillance powers are already extensive.

TO: ACLU Action Network Members
FR: Jared Feuer, Internet Organizer
DT: September 18, 2001

We join the nation in grieving over the devastating loss of life that
occurred during last week's terrorist attacks. Everyone in America has been
touched by this event, and the ACLU extends our deepest sympathies to those
who are mourning immeasurable losses from this tragedy.

In the hours and days after the tragic attacks, our national leaders have
been nearly unanimous in their insistence that these acts of terrorism not
be used to diminish liberty in the United States. But despite these
statements, the Administration and Congress are now rushing to change our
nation’s laws. Attorney General Ashcroft, for example, has asked Congress
to adopt far-reaching legislation that would include provisions to vastly
expand federal law enforcement authority without offering public assurances
about how such laws would make us safer.

As a result, many are increasingly concerned that the guarantees of the
Bill of Rights might become the next victim of terrorism. We must now urge
our lawmakers to be extra thoughtful and thorough in their consideration of
legislation designed to respond to and prevent terrorist attacks.

Take Action! You can read more and send a FREE FAX to your Members of
Congress from our action alert at:
Liberty
http://www.aclu.org/action/liberty107.html
Thank you for your continued defense of civil liberties. Your voices and
support are more crucial than ever.

Cato Daily Dispatch
September 18, 2001
http://www.cato.org/
http://www.cato.org/dispatch/09-18-01d.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Groups Ban To Temper Calls For Enlarged Police Powers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GROUPS BAN TO TEMPER CALLS FOR ENLARGED POLICE POWERS

A coalition of public interest groups from across the political spectrum
has formed to try to stop Congress and the Bush administration from
rushing to enact counterterrorism measures before considering their effect
on Americans' privacy and civil rights, according to The Washington Post.
http://www.washtech.com/news/regulation/12535-1.html

Tentatively named In Defense of Freedom, the group is concerned about
everything from expanded electronic surveillance measures sought by the
Justice Department to possible ethnic profiling in the wake of last week's
terrorist attacks. The group's members include the Center for Democracy
and Technology, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Free Congress
Foundation and Arab-American organizations among others.

Various coalition members stressed yesterday that they want vigorous
investigation and prosecution of the terrorists and effective tools for
law enforcement to minimize the risks of future attacks. But the group was
galvanized by Thursday's late-night action in the Senate, which passed on
a voice vote several counterterrorism measures as an attachment to the
regular appropriations bill for the Commerce, State and Justice
departments. Normally, such amendments would be the subject of separate
hearings.

In "Cyber-Surveillance in the Wake of 9/11,"
http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/010918-tk.html Cato technology and telecom
experts Adam Thierer and Wayne Crews warn that the challenge is to assure
that citizens enjoy the same protection from unwarranted digital
surveillance that they enjoyed prior to last week's attacks.

They write: "Technology always has potentially bad uses that go along with
the good. Trying to put the technological genie back in the bottle is not
a constructive way to start this debate. Calls for global prohibitions on
encryption products, for example, is a non-starter, in the sense that
trying to prohibit bad actors from getting their hands on computer
hardware or software will be futile in today’s global, integrated
marketplace."

Cato Daily Dispatch
September 17, 2001
http://www.cato.org/
http://www.cato.org/dispatch/09-17-01d.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* U.S. Considers Retaliation's Scope
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. CONSIDERS RETALIATION'S SCOPE

The New York Times reports today that when President Bush and his top
aides talk about military action to end Afghanistan's support for
terrorism, they are focusing on attacks to punish the Taliban and
undermine their control over the country, not a full-scale American
occupation. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/17/international/17ASSE.html

No war plan appears to have been agreed on and officially the Bush
administration insists that no options have been excluded.

The administration, however, is preparing a powerful military strike if
the Taliban, as expected, refuses to hand over the terrorist Osama bin
Laden and shut down his terrorist network.

The blow would be intended not only to destroy terrorist bases in
Afghanistan but also to demonstrate to other nations that there is a heavy
cost to be paid for those who shelter enemies of the United States.

In "An Important Distinction and Decisions,"
http://www.cato.org/current/terrorism/pubs/pena-010915.html
Senior Defense Policy Analyst Charles V. Peña writes: "We need to make the
distinction--and ensuing decision--between retaliation against those
responsible specifically for the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks
versus a war on terrorism. These are two very different things. The former
is a daunting--but not insurmountable--task of tracking down the apparatus
of a distributed terrorist network and destroying it. The latter--"a
global assault against terrorism in general," according to Secretary of
State Colin Powell--is completely uncharted waters."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In today's Daily Commentary: Panic -- not price gouging -- raised gas
prices. By Jerry Taylor and Peter VanDoren.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-17-01.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cato Daily Dispatch
September 14, 2001
http://www.cato.org/
http://www.cato.org/dispatch/09-14-01d.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* President Bush Ponders A Response To Terrorist Attacks
* Civil Liberties In The Aftermath Of The Attacks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRESIDENT BUSH PONDERS A RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS

The nation on maximum alert, President Bush is pledging a global campaign
to whip terrorism and the likes of Osama bin Laden at the same time
Americans grieve over the attacks that claimed thousands of lives in New
York and Washington, according to the Associated Press. (
http://us.news2.yimg.com/f/42/31/7m/dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010914/ts/terrorist_attacks_5.html

The president met with his Cabinet at the White House this morning, the
constant hum of helicopters overhead. He planned to activate up to 50,000
members of the National Guard and Reserve to aid recovery and security
efforts, officials said.

"Our country is strong. A great people has been moved to defend a great
nation," the president said yesterday as he mapped a military response,
consulted with world leaders and consoled the wounded in the wake of
coordinated attacks Tuesday on the World Trade Center in New York and the
Pentagon. The fight against terrorism, Bush said, "is now the focus of my
administration."

The Cato Institute hosted a forum last fall on how the United States
should react in the event of a terrorist strike. The forum featured
Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
John Parachini of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, Bruce
Hoffman of the RAND Corporation, and Cato's own Ivan Eland. A transcript
of the event ( http://www.cato.org/events/transcripts/001127et.pdf ), as
well as video ( http://www.cato.org/events/001127pf.html ), is available
online.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE ATTACKS

Cato scholars have been commenting on the civil rights implications of the
recent events:

FROM REUTERS: Tight Security Could Impinge on U.S. Freedoms
http://us.news2.yimg.com/f/42/31/7m/dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010913/ts/attack_freedom_dc_1.html
"Terrorists have achieved two victories so far," [Cato Director of Defense
Policy Studies] Eland said, referring to the mass killings caused by the
hijack attacks on Tuesday and the fear engendered by the attacks.

A third victory, he said, would be forcing a change in American behavior.

"The deaths are certainly horrific but if we close down our civil
liberties, I think it would be in the long term even worse to alter our
way of life," he said.

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST: Terrorism Bills Revive Civil Liberties Debate
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28636-2001Sep14.html

"We ought to be aware of what the Israelis are doing and whether that's
the sort of thing we would do," said William A. Niskanen of the Cato
Institute. Niskanen said he argued against Congress moving ahead with a
series of actions that might curtail civil liberties, "But I fully expect
that to happen."

Cato Daily Dispatch
September 13, 2001
http://www.cato.org/
http://www.cato.org/dispatch/09-13-01d.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Trade-Offs Between Privacy And Security Begin To Be Scrutinized
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN PRIVACY AND SECURITY BEGIN TO BE SCRUTINIZED

Just two days after the worst terrorist strike on U.S. soil, some people
are reassessing the trade-offs between privacy and security, according to
The Washington Post. (
http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/4m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21207-2001Sep12.html

To some, inconveniences such as long lines at metal detectors and other
checkpoints suddenly seem tolerable. Instead of talking about how eerie
the sight of military planes and tanks in New York and Washington is, some
are saying they find them comforting. Surveillance cameras monitoring
public streets sound sensible, the paper said.

"Yesterday changed the way we live and there's a whole new dimension in
the debate over privacy versus security," said Mike Assante, a former Navy
intelligence officer who works for Vigilinx Inc., a Parsippany, N.J.-based
group that provides online security services for companies such as power
plants and pharmaceutical makers. "More people seem to be willing to
compromise but no one seems to have figured out just yet what's
reasonable."

"In the course of responding to these horrible events we must be careful
not to undermine the American values of freedom and liberty," said Cato
Vice President for Foreign Policy and Defense Studies Ted Galen Carpenter
in a statement about this week's attack "If we damage our constitutional
freedoms in the name of combating terrorism, the terrorists will have
achieved a lasting triumph."

"Benjamin Franklin said, people who 'give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety,'" Solveig
Singleton reminded us in the 1996 commentary "Democracy Betrayed Means New
Wiretapping Powers." ( http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-02-96.html ) "If we
are not more rational in our approach to terrorism, we will have neither
freedom nor safety."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In today's Daily Commentary: Global warming produces a greener planet? By
Patrick J. Michaels. http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-13-01.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[email protected]

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 01:45:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: ACLU Joins Natiion in Horror Over Terrorist Attack

The American Civil Liberties Union issued the following statement from ACLU
Executive Director Anthony Romero in reaction to the terrorist attacks that
struck America this week.

The American Civil Liberties Union joins the nation today in grieving over
the devastating loss of life resulting from the joint attacks against the
World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the crash of the airplane outside of
Pittsburgh.

We strongly applaud the words of our national leaders who, in reaction to
this unparalleled tragedy, have promised to preserve the free and open
society that has made this nation great.

We welcome, in particular, the eloquent words of President Bush who told
the nation last night that, "America was targeted for attack because we're
the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one
will keep that light from shining."

Similarly, Attorney General John Ashcroft pledged that, "the determination
of these terrorists will not deter the determination of the American
people. We are survivors, and freedom is a survivor. A free American people
will not be intimidated, nor will we be defeated."

In the difficult days ahead, the ACLU will work with our nation's leaders
to help the nation achieve its goal of protecting the security and freedom
of all people in America.

We will urge our leaders to continue to uphold the principles of liberty
the nation holds dear as they pursue those responsible for this devastating
attack on American soil.

Finally, we take a measure of comfort in the fact that one of the greatest
symbols of freedom and democracy in our nation still stands: through the
billowing smoke of destruction in lower Manhattan, the Statue of Liberty
lifts her torch to freedom. Long may she survive.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anthony Romero, ACLU Executive Director:

"We will urge our leaders to continue to uphold the
principles of liberty the nation holds dear as they
pursue those responsible for this devastating attack
on American soil."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004-2400
www.aclu.org

Cato Daily Dispatch
September 12, 2001
http://www.cato.org/
http://www.cato.org/dispatch/09-12-01d.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
* U.S. Attacked By Terrorists
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. ATTACKED BY TERRORISTS

Three hijacked planes crashed into major U.S. landmarks yesterday,
destroying New York's World Trade Center and causing major damage to the
Pentagon in Washington. Cato Vice President for Foreign Policy and Defense
Studies Ted Galen Carpenter had the following comments:

"The monstrous attack in New York City and in our nation's capital
justifiably generates outrage on the part of all Americans. We grieve for
the innocent victims and their families.

"The first order of business must be to determine who is responsible for
these terrible acts and to order appropriate retaliation. Terrorist
assaults of this magnitude should be treated as an act of war against the
United States, not merely as a criminal justice matter. The President
should immediately seek the full authorization of Congress to use whatever
military force is necessary against the guilty parties. If the perpetrator
is a government, the objective of the United States should be nothing less
than the removal of that government. If the perpetrator is a terrorist
organization without government sponsorship, the objective of the United
States should be to track down and eliminate the members of that
organization.

"In the course of responding to these horrible events we must be careful
not to undermine the American values of freedom and liberty. If we damage
our constitutional freedoms in the name of combating terrorism, the
terrorists will have achieved a lasting triumph."

Cato Scholars have written on the threat of terrorism in the past. Their
articles and studies can be read online.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-45.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-387es.html

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws