Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Overview
CQ.com
- Free trial
- Guided tour
CQ Green Sheets
- Free trial
CQ Budget Tracker
- Free trial
- Guided tour
CQ HealthBeat
- Free trial
- Guided tour
CQ Today
- Free trial
CQ Weekly
- Free trial
CQ Homeland Security
- Free trial
- Guided tour
CQ House Action Reports
- Free trial
- Guided tour
CQ Transcripts
- Congressional Hearing Transcripts
- CQ Newsmaker Transcripts
CQ Midday Update
CQPolitics.com
CQ Behind The Lines
CQ Online Store
- CQ Books and Special Supplements
CQ Press

Contact us
CQ.com quick start guide
CQ Homeland Security quick start guide

Media Kit

Mission
Contact us
Press releases
Working at CQ
Executive team
Reprints
Other CQ sites

Privacy policy
Copyright, terms & conditions
508(c) Compliance statement
Masthead

CQ HOMELAND SECURITY – INTELLIGENCE
Oct. 27, 2004 – 8:30 p.m.
Homeland Intelligence Chief Hughes Warned Civil Rights Would Have to Be ‘Abridged’ to Prevent Another Terror Attack
By Justin Rood, CQ Staff
Eight months before the White House appointed him the Homeland Security Department’s top intelligence official, retired U.S. Army Gen. Patrick M. Hughes told a public forum at Harvard last year that the government would have to “abridge individual rights”and take domestic security measures “not in accordance with our values and traditions”to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States.

“What I’m about to say is very arrogant ” arrogant to a fault,”said Hughes, a former chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), in previously unreported remarks at a March 2003 Harvard University forum on “Future Conditions: The Character and Conduct of War, 2010 and 2020.”

“Set aside what the mass of people think. Some things are so bad for them that you cannot allow them to have them. One of them is war in the context of terrorism in the United States,”Hughes said, according to a transcript obtained by CQ Homeland Security.

“Therefore, we have to abridge individual rights, change the societal conditions, and act in ways that heretofore were not in accordance with our values and traditions, like giving a police officer or security official the right to search you without a judicial finding of probable cause,”said Hughes.

“Things are changing, and this change is happening because things can be brought to us that we cannot afford to absorb. We can’t deal with them, so we’re going to reach out and do something ahead of time to preclude them.

“Is that going to change your lives?”Hughes asked rhetorically. “It already has.”

Neither the department nor Hughes would comment for the record on whether Hughes stood by his comments in the year he has held the senior DHS intelligence post.

At the time of his remarks, Hughes was a private consultant whose clients included the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DIA, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Booz Allen Hamilton, Science Applications International Corp., SRI International, Anteon, Boeing, Rand Corp., and others, according to the Web site for his company, PMH Enterprises, LLC.

In his current position, Hughes heads up DHS’ intelligence analysis efforts and coordinates with the other members of the intelligence community, as well as with such interagency intelligence efforts as the Terrorist Threat Integration Center.

Conspiracy Theories
Roger Cressey, who ran the Transnational Threats unit of the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, took issue with Hughes’ remarks.

“It’s a little surreal. I don’t agree with that,”Cressey said. They “fuel the conspiracy theorists and those on the extreme left and right who believe the government is only out for one thing: to screw with the American people. I don’t think it’s a helpful way of advancing the discourse.”

An official with the 9/11 Public Discourse Project ” the lobbying effort created by the former members of the 9/11 commission ” drew a stark contrast between Hughes’ reflections and the 9/11 commission’s position.

“The choice between security and liberty is a false one,”said the official, who agreed to talk only on condition of anonymity to protect the project’s efforts from charges of partisanship.

“Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend,”the official said.

“The Fourth Amendment is pretty clear, said Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, when asked about Hughes’ comments. “In general, the rule is that you do need a warrant and probable cause”to search someone.

Edgar said there are numerous exceptions to that requirement, but it was not clear that those were what Hughes was referring to.

” ‘We have to abridge individual rights’ ” that’s a very disturbing thing, coming from the head of intelligence at the Homeland Security Department,”Edgar said.

Former Democratic Sen. Gary Hart (1974-86) of Colorado, co-chairman of the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century ” which first called for the creation of a homeland security department ” called Hughes’ remarks “a dangerous misunderstanding of the United States Constitution, our history and our political culture.”

“It’s the same kind of thinking that caused Abu Ghraib,”Hart said, referring to the recent scandal in which U.S. Army personnel abused Iraqi prisoners. “This thinking applied to this country will cause Abu Ghraibs in the United States.”

Since taking his position with DHS last November, Hughes appears to have tempered his comments.

In May, he told the Associated Press that “we are trying to make ourselves more secure in a way that is palatable and constitutionally right.”

The White House did not return calls seeking comment.

Justin Rood can be reached via jrood@cq.com

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Congressional Quarterly Inc.
1255 22nd Street N.W. • Washington, D.C. 20037 • 202-419-8500

Contact CQ | Privacy Policy | Masthead | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

I remember posting the above last time this issue came up. But the Left doesn’t have an attention span long enough to remember.

San Fran, you are right in saying that the smugglers will attempt to bypass the wall and undoubtedly many will succeed. However digging a 75 ft long tunnel is substantially more expensive, difficult, and labor intensive than simply walking or driving across the currently non-existent borderline. A fence has proven effective at reducing crime on both sides of the border where it was built in southern California. It has effectively redirected smuggler traffic around the fence to areas where it would be easier to identify and arrest them.

There have been over 200 documented incidences of Mexican Military personnel entering this country illegally claiming that they were simply lost on land navigation exercises. You don’t go out on land navigation exercises with loaded automatic weapons, and it’s really hard to get lost when you have a GPS unit with you. I was speaking with a former Military and police trainer this weekend who was on patrol with the border patrol when they captured one of these “Lost” Mexican units. They were given back their weapons and put on a bus back to Mexico. There have been numerous documented cases of Mexican Military assisting drug smugglers including using their weapons to disarm and hold US Border Patrol agents while the smugglers beat a hasty retreat back across the border.

For the safety of the law enforcement officers and land owners on this side of the border a fence is a necessity. Will it be perfect? Like I said before, no. But it will be an improvement. While the drug cartels may be able to afford to build tunnels under it, the average everyday border jumper and Jose Drug runner will not. That should reduce the number of ILLEGAL border crossings substantially.

h/t Michelle Malkin This is a great idea. Send a brick to Washington to clue wake our elected officials up to the fact that we want and need a wall built. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again,…