Lawmakers recognized the urgency of the threat and passed the PATRIOT Act 98-1 in the Senate and 357-66 in the House. I signed the bill into law on Oct. 26, 2001.
"We took time to look at it, we took time to read it, and we took time to remove those parts that were unconstitutional and those parts that would have actually hurt liberties of all Americans," Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont said. His Democratic colleague, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, added, "If there is one key word that underscores this bill, it is 'balance.' In the new post-September 11 society that we face, balance is going to be a key word. . Balance and reason have prevailed."
Four days later, Don sent another, longer letter: "I have concluded that the damage from the acts of abuse that happened on my watch, by individuals for whose conduct I a ultimately responsible, can best be responded to by my resignation."
I respected Don for repeating his offer. It was clear his earlier message had not been a mere formality; he was serious about leaving. It was a testament to his character, his loyalty to the office, & his understanding of the damage Abu Ghraib was causing. I seriously considered accepting his advice. But a big factor held me back: There was no obvious replacement for Don, and I couldn't afford to create a vacuum at the top of Defense.
I also felt blindsided. Don had told me the military was investigating reports of abuse at the prison, but I had no idea how graphic or grotesque the photos would be. When Don got word of the stories, he [offered to resign] as secretary of defense.
Don was serious about leaving. It was a testament to his character, his loyalty to the office, and his understanding of the damage Abu Ghraib was causing. I seriously considered accepting his advice. But a big factor held me back: There was no obvious replacement for Don, and I couldn't afford to create a vacuum at the top of Defense.
Tenet answered with two words: al Qaeda. Before 9/11, most Americans had never heard of al Qaeda. I had received my first briefing on the terrorist network as a presidential candidate.
The CIA had been worried about al Qaeda before 9/11, but their intelligence pointed to an attack overseas. During the summer, I had asked the CIA to reexamine al Qaeda's capabilities to attack inside the US. In August, the Agency delivered a Presidential Daily Briefing that reiterated bin Laden's long-standing intent to strike America, but could not confirm any concrete plans. "We have not been able to corroborate some of the sensational threat reporting, such as that bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft" the PDB read.
One provision created a little discomfort at home. The PATRIOT Act allowed the government to seek warrants to examine the business records of suspected terrorists, such as credit card receipts, apartment leases, and library records. As a former librarian, Laura didn't like the idea of federal agents snooping around libraries. I didn't, either. But the intelligence community had serious concerns about terrorists using library computers to communicate. Library records had played a role in several high-profile cases, such as the Zodiac gunman murders in California. The last thing I wanted was to allow the freedom and access to information provided by American libraries to be utilized against us by al Qaeda.
I asked the White House counsel's office and the Justice Department to study whether I could authorize the NSA to monitor al Qaeda communications into and out of the country without FISA warrants.
Both told me I could. They concluded that conducting surveillance against our enemies in war fell within the authorities granted by the congressional war resolution and the constitutional authority of the commander in chief.
Before I approved the Terrorist Surveillance Program, I wanted to ensure there were safeguards to prevent abuses. I had no desire to turn the NSA into an Orwellian Big Brother. The Terrorist Surveillance Program had been carefully designed to protect the civil liberties of innocent people.
At Guantanamo, detainees were given clean & safe shelter, three meals a day, a personal copy of the Koran, the opportunity to pray five times daily, and the same medical care their guards received.
Over the years, we invited members of Congress, journalists, and international observers to visit Guantanamo and see the conditions for themselves. Many came away surprised by what they found. A Belgian official inspected Guantanamo five times and called it a "model prison" that offered detainees better treatment than Belgian prisons. "I have never witnessed acts of violence of things which shocked me in Guantanamo," he said. "One should not confuse this center with Abu Ghraib."
There were two techniques that I felt went too far, even if they were legal. I directed the CIA not to use them. Another technique was waterboarding, a process of simulated drowning. No doubt the procedure was tough, but medical experts assured the CIA that it did no lasting harm.
I knew that an interrogation program this sensitive and controversial would one day become public, [with] criticism that America had compromised our moral values. I would have preferred that we get the information another way. But the choice between security and values was real. Had I not authorized waterboarding on senior al Qaeda leaders, I would have had to accept a greater risk that the country would be attacked. In the wake of 9/11, that was a risk I was unwilling to take.
I also informed him that America would unilaterally cut our arsenal of strategic nuclear warheads by 2/3. Putin agreed to match our reductions. We signed the Moscow Treaty, which pledged our nations to shrink our number of deployed warheads from 6,600 weapons to 2,200 by 2012. The treaty amounted to one of the largest nuclear weapons cuts in history, and it happened without the endless negotiations that usually come with arms-control agreements.
One major gap in our counterterrorism capabilities was what many called "the wall." Over time, the government had adopted a set of procedures that prevented law enforcement and intelligence personnel from sharing key information. "How can we possibly assure our citizens we are protecting the if our own people can't even talk to each other?" I said.
Ashcroft took the lead in writing a legislative proposal. The result was the USA PATRIOT Act. The bill eliminated the wall and allowed law enforcement and intelligence personnel to share information. It modernized our counterterrorism capabilities by giving investigators access to tools like roving wiretaps, which allowed them to track suspects who changed cell phone numbers--an authority that had long been used to catch drug traffickers
Lawmakers recognized the urgency of the threat and passed the PATRIOT Act 98-1 in the Senate and 357-66 in the House. I signed the bill into law on Oct. 26, 2001.
"We took time to look at it, we took time to read it, and we took time to remove those parts that were unconstitutional and those parts that would have actually hurt liberties of all Americans," Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont said. His Democratic colleague, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, added, "If there is one key word that underscores this bill, it is 'balance.' In the new post-September 11 society that we face, balance is going to be a key word. . Balance and reason have prevailed."
| |||
| Candidates and political leaders on Homeland Security: | |||
|
2010 Retiring Democratic Senators:
CT:Dodd DE:Kaufman IL:Burris IN:Bayh ND:Dorgan WV:Byrd WV:Goodwin |
<2010 Retiring Republican Senators:
FL:Martinez FL:LeMieux KS:Brownback KY:Bunning MO:Bond NH:Gregg OH:Voinovich PA:Specter UT:Bennett |
Newly appointed/elected Senators, 2009-2010:
DE:Kaufman (D) CO:Bennet (D) IL:Burris (D) MA:Brown (R) NY:Gillibrand (D) | |
|
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!) | |||