Prepared Remarks of Attorney General Gonzales at U.S. Air Force AcademyRegarding Civil Liberties, 'War On Terrorism (2/4)

24 November 2006

Following are remarks of Attorney General Gonzales at the U.S. Air Force Academy regarding civil liberties and the "war on terrorism." (Part 2 of 4)

In spite of what I see as America's clear commitment to civil liberties, some critics have suggested that recent U.S. policy decisions are setting a bad example - that we are sacrificing civil liberties, and even that we are doing so in a futile effort against terrorism.

These are myths. Let me share with you the facts.

First, the war is, indeed, broad, difficult and ongoing - but our enemies are on their heels; we are making progress.

We've taken away the "home base" for al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We've destroyed training camps, cut off funding channels, and disrupted means of communication.

Architects of the Sept. 11 attacks have been captured and interrogated ... and we have learned vital information from them which has enabled us to prevent further attacks. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Ramzi bin al Shibh today await justice before a Military Commission at Guantanamo Bay.

We have disrupted plots and put homegrown radicals behind bars. In August of this year, British authorities - with the assistance of the FBI - disrupted what would have been a major terrorist attack on U.S.-bound planes with massive casualties.

So it is a fact that we are safer, even if we are not yet safe.

We are winning because of the tools we have developed, the passion and persistence with which we fight, and the flexibility that our armed forces and law enforcement officials have shown on the battlefields of this conflict - both abroad and also in disrupting terrorist plots at home.

As part of our nation's proud military tradition, you should take great pride in being part of a force that is combating terrorism, worldwide. You will be led by brave men and women who have adapted to the most difficult of circumstances, and I applaud all of you, and all Americans in uniform, for that.

What does this have to do with civil liberties? Some critics, pointing to the tools that are helping us win the War on Terror, have challenged them as inconsistent with our nation's historic commitment to civil liberties. I am disappointed that there are so many myths as a result of those questions, but I welcome the debate and the opportunity I have to address the facts surrounding the Terrorist Surveillance Program, the Patriot Act, as well as Guantanamo Bay and the recent Military Commissions Act - which do not directly relate to Americans' civil liberties, but which indicate how seriously we take even the rights of enemy combatants.

Common myths about the Terrorist Surveillance Program are that it is an invasion of privacy and an unlawful eavesdropping tool.

I want to be very clear about the facts here: the Terrorist Surveillance Program does not invade anyone's privacy, unless you are talking to the enemy in this time of war. It targets only international communications in which we have reasonable grounds to believe that one party is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization.

The TSP is lawful. The president established the Program under both the authority given to him by Congress when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and by his authority under the Constitution.

The Program serves as an essential early warning system, alerting us to the presence of al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and it operates with the speed and agility necessary to protect the nation.

The Program does not violate any constitutional freedoms. History and law both confirm this. The Program is, in fact, nothing more than a modern-day version of the "signals" intelligence that our country has gathered and relied upon in every conflict in our history, and that every nation has relied upon.

In every conflict we have been in, the United States government has needed to know what the enemy is doing, and signals intelligence provides one of the most important ways to do that.

George Washington, for example, steamed open the mail in our earliest fight for freedom. During the Civil War, telegrams were intercepted. During both World Wars, we intercepted telegrams in and out of the United States.

We have always worked to stay a step ahead of our enemies. The President's core duty under the Constitution is to protect the nation from foreign attack, and presidents have always done this by uncovering the communications our enemies use in harming our people.

To be certain that the program is no broader than it must be, it is regularly reviewed to ensure the protections of civil liberties. Indeed, about every 45 days, the Program is reviewed to ensure that is still necessary, that there is no better way to achieve the same objectives, and that it remains reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Importantly, in addition to being lawful, the Terrorist Surveillance Program is effective. Indeed, it has proven to be one of our most effective tools in the war against terrorism. U.S. intelligence officials have confirmed that the program has helped stop terrorist attacks and has saved American lives.

I wish to be very clear: The only purpose of the Terrorist Surveillance Program is to detect and prevent al Qaeda attacks before they can be carried out. It is narrowly focused in every way - by targeting only the communications of al Qaeda, by targeting only international communications, and by requiring high-level approval, as I mentioned before, approximately every 45 days.

Some people will argue nothing could justify the government being able to intercept conversations like the ones the Program targets. Instead of seeing the government protecting the country, they see it as on the verge of stifling freedom.

But this view is shortsighted. Its definition of freedom - one utterly divorced from civic responsibility - is superficial and is itself a grave threat to the liberty and security of the American people.

As Justice Robert Jackson remarked in the case Terminiello v. City of Chicago, "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

Justice Jackson's call for, quote, "a little practical wisdom," close quote, applies not only to those who misleadingly attack the Terrorist Surveillance Program, but also to those who endlessly repeat the refrain that the Patriot Act is a threat to our civil liberties.

It is a myth that the Patriot Act empowers the government to be overly intrusive, giving it power that could someday be used to pry into innocent Americans' personal lives.

The fact is that the Patriot Act was born of a well-established criminal justice and national security structure as well as vibrant bi-partisan debate in Congress, both upon its establishment and its renewal.

The Act was written to help the law enforcement and intelligence communities to protect Americans and fight the war on terror. It, in fact, answered the call of career, rank and file law enforcement to update our laws to match law-enforcement tools with modern technology.

The Patriot Act simply ensures that law enforcement and national security personnel have the tools they need to keep us safe from terrorism - and in many cases those tools were already available to law enforcement in other contexts - while also ensuring that those tools are consistent with the Constitution and include appropriate safeguards against government over-reaching.

The Patriot Act does not authorize the government to go into your house or read your mail without probable cause and a warrant.

It does allow law enforcement and intelligence personnel to better share information and better coordinate with each other.

It does give national security investigators tools like those criminal investigators have used for years.

And it does update the law to keep up with evolving technology and increasingly sophisticated terrorists.

Many of the tools in the Patriot Act are identical to those that have been used for years to investigate drug dealers and white-collar crime. They've been used effectively, and they've been used without an adverse impact on civil liberties. So criticism of the Patriot Act has always begged the question: if we can use these tools successfully and prudently in the area of dealing with, say, drug traffickers, why shouldn't they be used in the war against terrorists who want to import chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons to inflict mass civilian casualties?

http://www.usnewswire.com/

Source: usnewswire

All trademarks and copyrighted information contained herein are the property of their respective owners.