Monday, September 04, 2006

GOP Congress blocked Clinton push for anti-terror legislation

by John in DC - 9/04/2006 11:10:00 AM

CNN, July 30, 1996

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the [Clinton] White House wants. Some they're not going to get." ....[Hatch] also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

So Bill Clinton, rather than just breaking the law as Bush did (then again, perhaps this is why Bush broke the law - he knew from history that the Republicans controlling the congress would oppose his efforts to expand wiretapping), decided to go to the Republican congress in 1996 and ask them for increased authority to do more eavesdropping in order to stop the terrorists - stop September 11. Senior Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the GOP's top picks for the Supreme Court and a GOP committee chair, objected.

The Republicans stopped President Clinton from getting all the tools he needed to stop the next September 11 http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/- well, no, actually they opposed giving President Clinton all the tools he needed to stop the actual September 11.

Could September 11 have been stopped if the GOP had given President Clinton the tools he requested to stop Osama and Mohammad Atta from killing 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington?

Maybe we need to ask the Republicans up for re-election why they wanted to appease the terrorists? President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

There's even an audio clip of President Clinton practically begging the Republicans to give him the tools he needed to stop Osama and the terrorists http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinto...ton.terror.wavTrent Lott said no. Orrin Hatch said no. Do these men really deserve to run the Congress during a time of war?

__________________
AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE--BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

Did I miss something here? The article does not mention ANY specific "tools." Just "tools." Would this be a hammer, or slimmer interns?

__________________
Gun control WORKS! That's why it is so safe to walk the streets of L.A., Chicago, and D.C. at night.

The article mentions and explains how the REPUBLICAN Majority in Congress refused to work with Clinton on addressing the Terrorist threat FIVE YEARS before 911.

__________________
AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE--BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

Hi Rast,

I understand that, but "work with Clinton" in regard to what? What did he ask for that was refused?

__________________
Gun control WORKS! That's why it is so safe to walk the streets of L.A., Chicago, and D.C. at night.

Read this link regarding what was refused.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

__________________
AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE--BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

So you are for Clinton being able to infringe on your rights but not Bush.
Clinton asked for help and was denied(by the Congress that I keep saying who is at fault score one for me)
Bush knew help would be denied and just went ahead with protecting this country
Now which is the smarter president?

__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp92vkXcC0w

Oh the humanity. If only Bill Clinton could have been president for September 11. What a missed opportunity. If he only could have gotten his hands on those tools I bet the terrorists would have turned themselves in. Gosh, if we'd only known.

__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp92vkXcC0w

This is typical obfuscation. The terrorism law that Rastaman appears to claim would have stopped 9/11 would not have accomplished that. This legislation was in response to the Oklahoma City bombing. Clinton got most of what he asked for in the The 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act.

The context of this article posted by Rastaman does not relate to 9/11 per se. It does beg the question though, if the Patriot Act is so evil, why would this law that Clinton wanted be good? More typical Republican bashing.

Highlights of the bill:

Presumed guilty, secret evidence can be used Permanent resident aliens arrested under this law have to prove they should not be held in jail before trial. Secret evidence can used in the detention hearings and at trial that only the judge could see, not the defendant.

First Amendment protections weakened. The law lifts a 1994 Crime law restriction prohibiting the FBI from investigations based on speech or beliefs, when restricting humanitarian aid. Foreigners can be barred from speaking in the U.S. using McCarthy era McCarran-Walter Act provisions. An overbroad definition of terrorism virtually requires the Justice Department to select crimes to prosecute based on political beliefs and associations.

Presidential powers expanded. The President can label organizations -- without any appeal or review -- as "terrorist", and criminalize fundraising for humanitarian aid even remotely related to such groups.

Punishment for lawful actions. Permanent resident aliens can be deported or indefinitely jailed for their affiliations or political activity, with no judicial review.

Constitutional protections eroded. The law further restricts the Bill of Rights' habeas corpus protections for state prisoners. Although this is a terrorism law, and death-row inmates were used to justify this provision, this affects all state prisoners, and no one convicted of federal terrorism laws. Prisoners are required to prove the state acted "unreasonably," a tough legal standard that isn't met simply by having credible evidence of innocence or wrongful imprisonment. Prisoners will be limited to one federal appeal within a short time of exhausting state appeals. Federal courts are required to render decisions within six months, and can't overrule state courts' interpretations of constitutional law.

More spending (meaning higher taxes and debt), and more police abuses. The law authorizes $1 billion in new federal spending over five years. The amount includes an additional $100 million for one of the most terroristic organizations in the United States, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Further restrictions on financial privacy. The law requires banks to identify any domestic "agents" (undefined) of groups labeled as terrorist, and freeze their funds with no right of appeal.

The original bill contained a provision, supported by the Clinton administration, lifting the historical "Posse Comitatus" restriction on the U.S. military working with domestic police. The provision did not make it into the final version.

The law, which did pass in 1996 contained most of what Clinton asked for. When later asked, Atty General Janet Reno said, "No" when asked if this law would have stopped the OK City bombing.

http://www.boogieonline.com/revoluti.../terror95.html

You Clinton knew the Repubilican Majority would not support wire taping so Bush followed the law/FISA court, even though Repub. congress did not want to protect Amer.----What did Bush do? When faced with the possibility of being denied---He BROKE THE FREAKIN LAW!!!!

Your Repub. Party refused to all Clinton to Wire Tap---but supported Bush to wire Tap. Do you see the Hipocracy? No of course you don't you only see PARTY LOYALTY.

__________________
AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE--BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.