The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“OPPOSING THE WAR ON CIVL LIBERTIES” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1592-E1593 on Sept. 17, 2002.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
OPPOSING THE WAR ON CIVL LIBERTIES
______
HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 17, 2002
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I remain strongly opposed to the continued efforts by President Bush, Attorney General Ashcroft and the Administration to seriously endanger our country's civil liberties. In the aftermath of the September 11 tragedies, Congress moved quickly to enact sweeping legislation granting additional powers to federal, state and local law enforcement authorities in the name of fighting terrorism. I voted against that measure because I believed, and still believe, that such measures intrude significantly on the important civil liberties that make American democracy invaluable and unique.
The ``anti-terrorism'' legislation contained numerous provisions that had little or nothing to do with the war on terrorist activities. Amongst other things, the law authorized covert searches for any Federal criminal investigation, including the IRS, without restricting those to terrorist activities; provided for unprecedented wiretapping authority; gave access to confidential financial and medical information granted by a secret court; and allowed indefinite detention of immigrants solely on the basis of suspicion.
In a September 10, 2002 editorial, the New York Times outlines the continuing and substantial nature of the assault on our civil liberties. In the wake of September 11, the administration has shown its ``contempt for basic rights in its enthusiasm for military tribunals.''
Today, one year after the events that so tragically shook the nation, our precious civil liberties continue to be endangered in the name of
``anti-terrorism efforts.'' Such a secret, covert and, ultimately un-
American agenda serves only to increase paranoia, rouse unnecessary public fear and stifle the protections that are fundamental to freedom, democracy and an open society. Rather than increasing security, such actions serve only to asphyxiate the public trust. Rather than protecting against terrorism, the foundations and principles upon which American democracy exist are slowly being eroded. The 4th Amendment was created for the purpose of ensuring our rights and protecting against the very violations to which our government would now subject us. The war on terror can be fought without surrendering our rights. As so amply stated in the New York Times, ``Fear is no guide to the Constitution. We must fight the enemies abroad without yielding to those at home.''
I urge my colleagues to read the September 10, 2002 New York Times editorial entitled, ``The War on Civil Liberties.''
The War on Civil Liberties
It would be easy to dismiss the harm that has been done to our civil liberties in the past year. Most of us do not know anyone whose rights have been seriously curtailed. The 1,200 detainees rounded up after Sept. 11 and held in secret were mainly Muslim men with immigration problems. So were the people the government tried to deport in closed hearings. The two Americans who were labeled ``enemy combatants,'' hustled off to military brigs and denied the right even to meet with a lawyer, are a Saudi American man captured in Afghanistan and a onetime Chicago gang member.
There is also no denying that the need for effective law enforcement is greater than ever. The Constitution, Justice Arthur Goldberg once noted, is not a suicide pact.
And yet to curtail individual rights, as the Bush administration has done, is to draw exactly the wrong lessons from history. Every time the country has felt threatened and tightened the screws on civil liberties, it later wished it had not done so. In each case--whether the barring of government criticism under the Sedition Act of 1798 and the Espionage Act of 1918, the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II or the McCarthyite witch hunts of the cold war--profound regrets set in later.
When we are afraid, as we have all been this year, civil liberties can seem abstract. But they are at the core of what separates this country from nearly all others; they are what we are defending when we go to war. To slash away at liberty in order to defend it is not only illogical, it has proved to be a failure. Yet that is what has been happening.
Since last September, the Bush administration has held people in prison indefinitely and refused to tell the public who is being held or even how many detainees there are. No less odious than the administration's secret arrests are its secret trials. The government has barred the public and the press from deportation hearings for immigrants suspected of ties to terrorism.
The administration has also shown contempt for basic rights in its enthusiasm for military tribunals. In November, when President Bush first issued the order setting these up, it seemed the administration wanted to try anyone alleged to have ties to terrorism, even American citizens arrested in the United States, in military courts. Faced with an uproar, the administration backed down, announcing that the tribunals would accord defendants some rights. It then decided to try several prominent terrorism suspects in civilian courts.
This summer the administration unveiled, with great fanfare, the TIPS program (for Terrorism Information and Prevention System), to recruit Americans to spy on their fellow Americans. As originally conceived, TIPS was to include mail carriers, utility workers and others with access to people's homes. Again, after a popular outcry the administration scaled TIPS back.
In times of conflict, the president seeks to increase his power. Congress, sensitive to public fears over safety, cannot always be counted on to stand up to him. That leaves the Judiciary and members of the public to worry about the trampling of rights. This year a number of judges have stood out for their courage. Gladys Kessler, of Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., declared that secret arrests were
``odious to a democratic society,'' and ordered the government to release the names of all detainees. It has not done so. And Judge Robert Doumar of Federal District Court in Norfolk, Va., who is presiding over one of the ``enemy combatant'' cases, recently told prosecutors to submit documents for his review so he could determine if the defendant was in fact an enemy combatant. The Justice Department, disgracefully, defied his order.
As the Bush administration continues down its path, the American people need to make clear that they have learned from history and will not allow their rights to be rolled back. The world has changed since Sept. 11, but the values this country was founded on have not. Fear is no guide to the Constitution. We must fight the enemies of freedom abroad without yielding to those at home.
____________________
