Four years ago, the FBI warned Congress that the United States was headed for disaster with these terrorist groups if we did not act. The FBI requested that the FBI be given authority to intercept and decrypt communications coming into this country via the Internet. The FBI wanted manufacturers of U.S. encryption software to be required to put in a "back door," to allow court-ordered interception of encrypted communications.

The software manufacturers opposed such a move and they have the money and lobby to speak to Congress. Software manufactures are more interested in making money than the security of this country. Congress refused to give the FBI the tools it needed to protect this country.

The press released a story that indicated that U.S. intelligence agencies were monitoring uplinks and cell phones of Osama bin Laden. This single act by the free press cut off intelligence as to bin Laden's current activities. Bin Laden then switched to using the Internet, utilizing U.S.-made encryption software -- the same software that Congress refused to give U.S. intelligence agencies for a "back door."

I wonder if the relatives of the thousands of victims of terrorism in New York think that the money made by software companies and subsequent donations to congressional "campaign funds" would be a good trade for the lives of their loved ones.

President Clinton tied the hands of the FBI and CIA by not allowing these agencies to recruit informants in terrorist cells, if these people had a history of human rights violations. This single act precluded the agencies from acquiring good intelligence.

Congress passed laws that bar the FBI from directing informants into ongoing terrorist activity or any criminal conspiracy with recorders. This law was passed by Congress in response to congressmen who were indicted for corruption. The sponsor of the bill was himself indicted and tried for taking bribes.

Many congressmen had close calls when they took bribes and were caught on tape doing so. It was Congress protecting itself from prosecution for congressional criminal wrongdoings. As this law stands today, if the FBI had an informant who told them that there was a plan to hijack an airplane and dive it into the White House, and the suspects had hired a lawyer, the FBI could not send the informant back to the suspects with a recorder to get the details. In many cases the informants are criminals and have a low level of credibility in court. A recording of the conspiracy and criminal plan is needed to convince the jury that there is sufficient evidence to convict.

The law itself must be carefully read to see the sinister intent of Congress. It says in part that the United States Attorney's offices will be bound by the ethical conduct rules of the bar in the state that they operate. State bar rules of conduct for lawyers preclude them from contacting or recording any persons who are represented. This means that the lawyer's agents must obey the same rules. Most of these local rules apply to local lawyers who practice civil law. The rules are well founded in those cases.

However, the United States long recognized the problems involved in requiring United States criminal prosecutors to follow local state bar rules, intended for use in civil cases. Local lawyers are not involved in terrorism cases and ongoing criminal conspiracies. The United States has a code of Criminal and Civil Procedure that directs the conduct of lawyers in federal courts. More rules designed for local attorneys are not only not needed, but severely hamper federal law enforcement.

With this stroke of the pen, Congress gave free license to not only its own members to violate the law, but for terrorists and other criminals to operate within the United States with relative freedom. The United States Department of Justice opposed this legislation, but Congress passed it anyway.

President Clinton ordered the FBI not to investigate terrorist groups unless they actually committed a criminal act. In this case, a citizen could call the FBI and advise the FBI that there is a group of foreigners living next door and that these foreigners say that they plan to wage war against the United States. The FBI could not institute an investigation but must wait for them to violate the law.

If all of these actions were not crippling enough to American Intelligence, the FBI is limited to $50 per month to spend on gasoline for each vehicle they operate. When the agent spends $50, he must stop working. The agent is prohibited by law from buying the gasoline himself and giving it to the government.

Let's hope that this agent is not on his way to an airport in the face of a terrorist attack when he runs out of gas.

How did the terrorists who blew up this New York landmark the first time get into the United States? Did they come by submarine or use fictitious passports? No, they just flew into New York with no papers. They were told by immigration that they must appear in court and were released on a promise to appear, like a traffic ticket. In any other country they would have been jailed or returned to the country they came from.

During World War II, there was not one single act of terrorism successfully carried out in the United States. There were many planned and many attempted. The lights never went out in the FBI from 1941 to 1946. This was because the FBI sorted out thousands of leads that were called in by citizens. Most of these leads were nothing, but some identified enemy agents operating in the United States.

If WWII were today, the FBI would not be allowed to check out reports of actions by enemy agents until they actually committed the act. An organization making the statement that the group plans to attack the United States is not sufficient for the FBI to do even the most preliminary inquiry, under current guidelines.

This is a wake-up call for America. Congress and the executive branch need to move swiftly. The course of action is clear to everyone but Congress. Our intelligence agencies previously laid out the course of action that would have stopped these terrorist acts. President Clinton chose to act with a "feel good assault" because it would have been bad for his image to have any U.S. forces come home in body bags and a real war would have diverted money from all of his pet giveaway programs.

A token assault, like the one that President Clinton directed, is worse than nothing. It tells the enemy that we do not have the will to fight a real war. I believe we can increase security in the country with NO erosion of our fundamental freedoms that I raised my hand and swore to defend. The ultimate freedom would be no law at all, and I believe that is called anarchy.

We must never abrogate our responsibility to defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. However, the laws and executive orders I have mentioned above that were created for special interest groups and for the benefit of politicians are not part of the Constitution.