Tom Tancredo on Homeland Security Republican Representative (CO-6)

Politically-correct rules of engagement get troops killed

Waterboarding--simulated drowning--is not toruture

A: Torture. I mean, we get into this debate all the time, and as to what exactly is the definition of torture. The question that elicited the response that you mentioned was, what do we do [to prevent detonation of] a nuclear device. Yes, I would certainly waterboard--I don’t believe that that is “torture.” I would do what is necessary to protect this country. That is the ultimate responsibility of the president. All of the other powers vested in him pale in comparison to his responsibility to keep the people of this country safe. And, yes, I would go to great lengths to keep this country safe.

Use Jack Bauer-like methods to protect Western civilization

A: We’re talking about it in such a theoretical fashion. You say that nuclear devices have gone off in the US, more are planned, and we’re wondering about whether waterboarding would be a bad thing to do? I’m looking for “Jack Bauer” at that time, let me tell you [referring to the counterrorism agent in TV’s “24”, who uses any methods needed to achieve desired results]. We are the last best hope of Western civilization. And so all of the theories that go behind our activities subsequent to these nuclear attacks going off in the US, they go out the window because when we go under, Western civilization goes under. As president you should make sure 1) it doesn’t happen, but 2), you better respond in a way that makes them fearful of you because otherwise you guarantee something like this will happen.

We are at war with Islamofascism

The clash of civilizations is not with the religion of Islam, but with the Islamic religion that has been married to a political philosophy that says all the nonbelievers must be annihilated, abolished, eliminated. It is with people who have openly & repeatedly stated that their desire is to eradicate us from the planet because we do not accept their political & religious ideologies.

Islam’s basic tenets are inextricably linked to terrorism

• Jihad is a religious duty (Koran 9:29)
• Martyrdom is the highest good (Koran 9:111)
• Muslim engaged in jihad must not show tolerance toward nonbelievers (Koran 9:5)
• Acts of terrorism are justified by the Prophet’s example (Koran 8:2)

Many scholars believe that Islam is incapable of a radical transformation. Many are skeptical about the willingness of a vast number of righteous Muslims to reject radicalism in favor of a worldview in which Islam exists harmoniously with other religions, because Muslims view the Koran as a document that cannot be interpreted by man.

We are at war with radical Islam. We must all be aware of the enemy: who they are, what they believe, & why they believe it.

Self-deluded NEA union blames America for 9/11

The 9/11 attacks seemed to incite more than just left-wing political responses. Instead of the shock, horror, and outrage expressed by most Americans, the attacks seemed to evoke a perverse sense of gratifications on campuses. The nation had not yet had time to tally its dead before many of the elites renewed their assault on the American character.

Technology can’t defeat religion-fueled suicide bombers

This phenomenon has rendered much of our war plans ineffective. When the fuel for a suicide bomber is religion, no technology can defeat him. It is impossible to create a sensor to ferret out the individual who sees death as the doorway to a world of endless sensual pleasure. Additionally, the enemy knows that after he blows himself and his victims to bits, his mother will be giving thanks to God and she will receive Saudi cash.

If nuked by Islamic terrorists, take out their holy sites

The death threats were numerous & serious. But not all reactions were negative.

One supporter made the commonsense observation that as the present time, there are no negative consequences to the action of a suicide murderer. Instead, those who matter most to the murderers meet these actions with praise. Let me say now that if the threat of destruction of the religious sites would not deter the religious zealots, then we’d better think of something that will. If all we do is kill the ones we can identify before they commit their deeds, we can expect the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse to be saddling up soon.

Active Hezbollah cells operate out of Mexico

Since 9/11, Mexican authorities have reportedly apprehended hundreds of individuals with suspected terrorist ties in the border region.

In 2006, Mueller told a house appropriations committee hearing that the FBI had broken up a smuggling ring organized by the terrorist group Hezbollah that had operatives cross the Mexican border to carry out possible terrorist attacks inside the US.

This was not considered newsworthy by mainline news media, so most Americans are still unaware that there are active Hezbollah cells within a day’s drive of our porous border.

Evil prowls this planet; defend with terrorist profiling

I would not advocate the suspension of habeas corpus or a declaration of martial law, but I would be the last to complain about measures such as terrorist profiling, eliminating all immigration from terrorist-sponsoring nations, and securing our borders to allow the government to do all it can to defend the country.

Evil prowls this planet. It searches for easy targets. And it strikes without mercy.

DHS not doing enough to keep terrorists out of US

If our own agencies cannot keep track of who is in our country, how can we expect those charged with our protection to guarantee never again when it comes to terrorism?

Bar foreign workers from working in nuclear facilities

In 2005 the Energy Department revealed “non-US citizens were improperly allowed access to a leased facility at the Y-12 complex.“ The report said, ”We found that foreign construction workers, using false documents, had gained access to the Y-12 site on multiple occasions. Sixteen foreign construction workers were found to have been illegal aliens. These individuals may have had opportunities to access secret information.“

What does it say about our intelligence community when illegals not only get past the Y-12 gates but also gain access to top-secret materials

Press said “pro-peace” rallies: crowd chanted “Allah Akbar”

Voted NO on restricting no-bid defense contracts.

1. Improving the Quality of Contracts--to restrict the contract period of noncompetitive contracts to the minimum period necessary to meet urgent requirements; and not more than one year unless the the government would be seriously injured.
2. Increasing Contract Oversight--to make publicly available (on websites) justification documents for using noncompetitive contract procedures.
3. Promoting Integrity in Contracting--to prohibit former federal officials from accepting compensation from contractors as lawyers or lobbyists.

Proponents support voting YES because:

In Iraq, we were told we needed Halliburton to get a contract without any competition because they were the only ones who know how to put out oil well fires. So they got a contract on a cost-plus basis even though they had a history of overcharging the taxpayers. And then later we found out that they didn't do anything about putting out oil well fires in the first Gulf war; it was Bechtel, not Halliburton. Contractors were given special treatment by not having healthy competition.

In dealing with Hurricane Katrina, and we have seen the same mistakes again: No-competition contracts; cost-plus contracts. We have seen what the result has been: Wasted taxpayer dollars. This bill requires that if there is an emergency to give a contract, give it. But then have bidding within a year.

Opponents support voting NO because:

We support transparency and accountability in decision-making, but this bill asks for audit reports that are only advisory. To provide those to Congress not only gives you too much information, a lot of it can be misleading and can increase the number of contract disputes.

When you are fighting a war, you need to move quickly. You don't give a 6-month appeal to the folks that lose the competition. You don't give small business set-asides because there is one thing you don't have, you don't have time.

Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Intelligence is the first line of defense in the war on terrorism. That means we have to have intelligence agencies and capabilities that are agile, that are responsive to changes in technology, and that also protect the civil liberties of Americans. Let me make an analogy. With modernization, we replaced Route 66 with Interstate 40. We no longer have the stoplights and the intersections. We created on ramps and off ramps and concrete barriers to protect the citizens where traffic was moving very quickly. That is like what we are trying to do here--FISA needs modernization.

Opponents support voting NO because:

We are legislating in the dark. We do not even know what the President is doing now because he will not tell us. The New York Times exposed that the administration had authorized secret surveillance of domestic conversations. When exposed, the President claimed he was operating under inherent powers, but court decisions have found that the President cannot simply declare administration actions constitutional and lawful, whether or not they are.

Yet rather than finding out what is going on, this legislation retroactively legalizes whatever has been going on. The President already has broad latitude to conduct domestic surveillance, including surveillance of American citizens, so long as it is overseen by the FISA court.

This bill does not enhance security, but it does allow surveillance without the traditional checks and balances that have served our Nation well.

Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight.

• This bill could have and should have required a dedicated funding line for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The 9/11 Commission recommended this board to serve as a civil liberties watchdog on the potential erosion of the basic constitutional rights. Now, 15 months later, we find our concerns about basic civil rights to have been well founded, but the oversight board is barely up and running [and is not funded].
• Many of us believe that when the President authorized the NSA surveillance of Americans, he broke the law, plain and simple.
• We are talking about the most basic fundamental civil liberties that protect the American people, and the Republican leadership will not even let us debate it. What are they afraid of?
• If you believe that this President should have the ability to spy on Americans without a warrant and without going to the FISA court, then they should write that bill and bring it to the floor, then have a debate and a vote.

The resolution's proponents say:
• We have had the good fortune in this country for the last 4 1/2 years to have not had another terrorist attack on our soil, and it is not because they haven't tried. The reason for that success boils down to two things: the courage of our soldiers and the quality of our intelligence. Exceptional intelligence is the first line of defense for America in the long war on terrorism.
• I think as a responsible body we have to start out by getting the facts. That means hard work that is done largely in secret. Oversight is under way, and, for the most part, the National Security Agency has been very forthcoming.

Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists.

• Title I: Amendments to Federal Laws to Protect Against Terrorist Entry - defining more factors relevant to credibility determinations in asylum cases.
• Title II: Improved Security for Driver's Licenses and Personal Identification Cards - setting minimum security requirements, including the incorporation of specified data, a common machine-readable technology, and certain anti-fraud security features. Title III: Border Infrastructure and Technology Integration - studying ground surveillance technologies.

Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses.

Voted NO on supporting new position of Director of National Intelligence.

Voted YES on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

• Title I: Reform of the Intelligence Community
  • Subtitle A: Establishment of National Intelligence Director
  • Subtitle B: National Counterterrorism Center and Civil Liberties Protections
  • Subtitle C: Joint Intelligence Community Council
  • Subtitle D: Improvement of Human Intelligence (HUMINT)
  • Subtitle E: Improvement of Education for the Intelligence Community
• Title II: Terrorism Prevention and Prosecution
  • Subtitle A: Individual Terrorists as Agents of Foreign Powers
  • Subtitle B: Stop Terrorist and Military Hoaxes Act of 2004
  • Subtitle C: Material Support to Terrorism Prohibition Enhancement Act of 2004
  • Subtitle D: Weapons of Mass Destruction Prohibition Improvement Act of 2004
  • Subtitle E: Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing
  • Subtitle F: Criminal History Background Checks
  • Subtitle G: Protection of United States Aviation System From Terrorist Attacks

Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Voted YES on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns.

Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill.

Voted YES on deploying SDI.

Allow assassination of terrorist leaders.

OnTheIssues.org explanation: The US Army and the CIA are currently prohibited by law from assassinating enemies, including terrorist leaders. These prohibitions were put into place after the Kennedy assassination, and after the CIA attempted to assassinate Fidel Castro, so that enemy countries would have no incentive to assassinate American leaders. This bill undoes those prohibitions. Pres. Bill Clinton claimed during his presidency, he interpreted this law to NOT apply to terrorist leaders, since "assassination" only applies to government officials. Hence Pres. Clinton DID attempt to assassinate Osama bin Laden, by cruise missile attack. Under that interpretation (which is not universally accepted) this bill would clarify that Pres. Clinton's actions were and are legal, and hence Pres. Bush may take the same action.

EXCERPTS FROM BILL and from ORIGINAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS:

Congress finds that--
1. past Presidents have issued Executive orders which severely limit the use of the military when dealing with potential threats
2. these Executive orders limit the swift, sure, and precise action needed to protect our national security;
3. present strategy allows the military forces to bomb large targets hoping to eliminate a terrorist leader, but prevents our country from designing a limited action which would specifically accomplish that purpose.
   The following provisions of Executive orders shall have no further force or effect:
   1. Section 5(g) of Executive Order 11905: "5(g) No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."
   2. Section 2-305 of Executive Order 12036: "2-305. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.
   3. Section 2.11 of Executive Order 12333: "2.11: No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

Rated 22% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record.

Peace Action, the merger of The Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) and The Freeze, has effectively mobilized for peace and disarmament for over forty years. As the nation's largest grassroots peace group we get results: from the 1963 treaty to ban above ground nuclear testing, to the 1996 signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, from ending the war in Vietnam, to blocking weapons sales to human rights abusing countries. We are proof that ordinary people can change the world. At Peace Action we believe...

• That every person has the right to live without the threat of nuclear weapons.
• That war is not a suitable response to conflict.
• That America has the resources to both protect and provide for its citizens.

The ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.