Republicans Plan To Push For Tougher Terrorism Laws

At first we thought this was a story about a serious proposal to protected the United States — a policy story. But then we learned we were wrong. Here is a story that could generate some debate — seemingly just about policy:

The nation’s chief of homeland security said Sunday that the U.S. should consider reviewing its laws to allow for more electronic surveillance and detention of possible terror suspects, citing last week’s foiled plot….

…Michael Chertoff, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, stopped short of calling for immediate changes, noting there might be constitutional barriers to the type of wide police powers the British had in apprehending suspects in the plot to blow up airliners headed to the U.S.

But Chertoff made clear his belief that wider authority could thwart future attacks at a time when Congress is reviewing the proper scope of the Bush administration’s executive powers for its warrantless eavesdropping program and military tribunals for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“What helped the British in this case is the ability to be nimble, to be fast, to be flexible, to operate based on fast-moving information,” he said. “We have to make sure our legal system allows us to do that. It’s not like the 20th century, where you had time to get warrants.”

The Bush administration has pushed for greater executive authority in the war on terror, leading it to create a warrantless eavesdropping program, hold suspects who are deemed as “enemy combatants” for long periods and establish a military tribunal system for detainees that affords defendants fewer rights than traditional courts-martial.

Congress is now reviewing some of the programs after lawmakers questioned the legality of the eavesdropping program and the Supreme Court ruled in June that the tribunals defied international law and had not been authorized by Congress.

And was that story was going to be the subject of this post…until we saw this in the Wall Street Journal, which isn’t generally accused of being a Democratic party publication:

Following the foiled United Kingdom bomb plot, the Bush administration is expected to use the terrorist threat to regain the upper hand in congressional debates and push for government action before the November elections.

Republicans appear to be circling around a new strategy to advocate stronger counterterrorism laws and expand domestic surveillance, while pushing back against civil libertarians.

So at the outset instead of trying to get all Americans on the same page for tougher laws, it’s going to be us-against-them time. MORE:

….Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is emerging as a point man in the drive for tougher laws, yesterday noting Britain’s ability to hold suspects without publicizing the charges. Appearing on ABC News’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” Mr. Chertoff said he would like to see a renewed look at U.S. laws that could give authorities here the flexibility to detain suspects for longer periods of time, noting that the British have such latitude…

…Mr. Chertoff, who weeks ago was widely viewed in Congress as the beleaguered head of a troubled department, has emerged as the public face and voice of the U.S. government’s response to the alleged London plot. Now the Department of Homeland Security has won praise for calibrated advisories and quick action that stopped passengers from potentially smuggling liquid explosives on airliners, but didn’t unduly disrupt air travel. Although some critics considered the department late in responding to a well-known threat — liquid bombs — Mr. Chertoff’s enhanced standing allows him to spearhead the call to re-examine America’s counterterrorism laws by looking at how Britain fights terrorism.

The differences in how Britain and the U.S. approach counterterrorism strategies reflect a distinction between the two countries’ legal systems and their definitions of civil liberties. British police and security agencies have greater authority and latitude than their American counterparts to conduct domestic surveillance and detain terrorism suspects.

The Journal cites the Chertoff comments above and adds:

Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that he believes the British have better intelligence tools than Americans. “If you want to get a warrant, all you have to do is call up a minister, in regards to Great Britain,” he said. Sen. Roberts stopped short of advocating similar changes, but added “it seems to me that they have taken actions that would really speed that along.”

Similar sentiment has been expressed by senior Republicans in the House as well. “You can’t be going to court every time you want to monitor these conversations because they come in at a rapid pace. And…we have to get away from this concept that we have to apply civil-liberties protections to terrorists,” Peter King (R., N.Y.), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said last week on Fox News’s “The O’Reilly Factor.”

The problem here is not giving the Bush administration power to fight terrorism.

The problem here is that the Bush administration has been under fire for making unbashed power grabs to increase executive branch power, virtually giving the back of its hand to a Congress that has largely gone along with it because it’s under GOP control. True oversight is a casualty of one-party government.

So warning flags will go up (probably in some circles of the GOP, particularly among classic Goldwater-descended conservatives and some former members of George Bush’s father’s administration).

And unless any proposals are SERIOUS ones that are proposed with the intent of being passed with bipartisan support, Democrats (and many independents) will likely oppose any attempt to (a)give the Bush administration more power, (b)give it more power unless there is some serious Congressional and/or judicial oversight, and (c)further weaken protections on civil liberties. And even less so if it appears it’s being framed as on “us” (the GOP protecting America) versus “them” (the Democrats forgetting about 911 and being weak on terrorism) manner.

Democrat Susan Estrich writes:

The Republicans have only one minor advantage left in the polls. They are now trailing on everything – starting with the war in Iraq, and then continuing on with the economy, the environment, health care, foreign policy– in some cases well into the double digits– with the only exception being terrorism. And their lead on terrorism is quite small.

So what do you do when you’re leading on exactly one issue?

What do you do when you have a slight winner and a loser. The loser, of course, the big loser, is the war in Iraq. You marry them, of course.

This is the August surprise. It’s what they have to work with, and they will try to milk it for all it’s worth.

They will try to connect Lieberman’s defeat with the attempted hijackings and say that the Democratic Party is being hijacked by the anti-war, anti-defense (pro-terrorism) crowd. Have you ever heard of anyone who was pro-terrorism? Who wanted to spend less on airport security? Who thought planes were too safe? What could be more ridiculous? But that will be the line.

What Dick Cheney started on Wednesday, saying that Lieberman’s defeat suggested the Democratic Party was not prepared to lead in dangerous times, was just the beginning.

Who is going to let them get away with it?

Indeed, if the Wall Street Journal is correct and this is going to be part of the strategy — asking for tougher anti-terrorism laws and saying that those who may differ on what is sought (even if some politicos on the other side agree with some of it) are soft on terrorism and a danger to the U.S. — then it will confirm what some analysts have predicted: that heaven and earth will be moved to make sure the 2006 mid-term elections center on anything but specific the record of the administration and the GOP controlled Congress.

Randy Schultz, the Palm Beach Post’s Editorial Page Editor, has a piece that includes this:

It’s an even-numbered year, and we’re getting near Labor Day. So, it was predictable that the Bush administration and Republicans would exploit the foiled terrorism plot in the United Kingdom to save their political hides.

The campaign began Wednesday, one day after Sen. Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut. Knowing of the upcoming arrests in Britain, Vice President Dick Cheney began the demagoguery. He accused Democrats of wishing for a return to “sort of the pre-9/11 mind-set in terms of how we deal with the world we live in.” On Thursday, the Republican leadership in the House began calling the Democrats “Defeatocrats” who want to “stand aside in the Global War on Terror.”

Here is the Bush-GOP logic, to use the term loosely. Sen. Lieberman embraced the White House’s Iraq strategy, to use the term loosely. Iraq, Mr. Bush says, is the “central front in the war on terror.” So, when Democrats reject a supporter of the war, the party is soft on terror.

He goes on to write:

For five years, President Bush and his party have tried to convince Americans that they know better than Democrats how to protect the country and seek revenge for 9/11. If that’s the case, why did Mr. Bush say of Osama bin Laden in March 2002: “I truly am not that concerned about him.” Why did Mr. Bush shift the focus from Al-Qaeda, which carried out 9/11, to Saddam Hussein, who was not involved in 9/11?

The problem with Democrats is not that they have been timid about fighting terrorism. The problem with Democrats is that they have been timid about confronting President Bush on fighting terrorism. In October 2002, he intimidated them so much that the “debate” over the Iraq resolution was anything but.

AND:

No credible politician from either major party believes that terrorism is no longer a threat to the country. The absence of other domestic terrorist incidents have dulled the fear, but the awareness remains, especially after last week.

But if the news reports are correct, the White House and GOP will be trying to make the American public believe that one party doesn’t quite “get” the terrorist threat. This will likely bring some GOPers that strayed from the party fold back into line but it probably won’t play well with the Democratic and independent voters that the GOP got in past elections. The GOP can’t win unless it woos and retains its base; it also can’t win with only its base.

Of course, there’s another issue as well: will the Democrats give the GOP the thread they need to weave this political tapestry that the White House and Republican powers that be will be present to the American public’s consideration on election day? Will the Democrats consistently respond by explaining their party’s plans to combat and contain terrorism?

Stay tuned because it sounds as if the Silly Season has begun — even with serious Katrina-style storm clouds on the horizon that require Ds and Rs working together.