The Washington Post had a "two years later" article on the Patriot Act, yesterday: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40110-2003Sep7.html Much of the article talks about the self-cloaking features of the act: 'Yet the paradox of this debate is that it is playing out in a near-total information vacuum: By its very terms, the Patriot Act hides information about how its most contentious aspects are used, allowing investigations to be authorized and conducted under greater secrecy. 'As a result, critics ranging from the liberal American Civil Liberties Union to the conservative Eagle Forum complain that the law is violating people's rights but acknowledge that they cannot cite specific instances of abuse. '"The problem is, we don't know how [the law] has been used," said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who has represented terror suspects in cases in which the government has employed secret evidence. "They set it up in such a way . . . [that] it's very hard to judge." ' Even basic statistics are considered off limits: 'As for how many times the government has used the law's powers to enter a library, a senior Justice official said, "Whether it is one or 100 or zero, it is classified."' Meanwhile, people are running afoul of secret blacklists, with no way to clear their names or find out why they're listed: 'Massachusetts state Rep. Kay Khan (D) learned about the use of the Patriot Act in her case after repeatedly asking why a $300 wire transfer had not reached her brother. She discovered that her husband's name was on a special list at their bank because it may have been used by someone else as an alias. "So we are on some list, which is scary," she said. "I just feel that it's intrusive."' Some groups, on both the left and the right, are attempting to introduce legislation to put limits on the PATRIOT Act powers. But Ashcroft is attempting to get even more far-reaching powers: 'Yet the source familiar with the department's work said Ashcroft's aides have been drafting three proposed expansions of Justice Department authority. They would like to make it easier to charge someone with material support for terrorism, to issue subpoenas without court approval and to hold people charged with terrorism prior to trial. 'In the same vein, the Senate Judiciary Committee has been working on a bill, largely devoted to fighting drug trafficking, that in some drafts contains a few extra powers that Justice wants. Committee aides said they are unsure whether the chairman, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), will introduce the bill or what it will contain.'11 responses total.
I saw yesterday that Tom Clancy has a new book out, about terrorists and drug-traffickers working together to make more money. I guess I should read it, to see what Ashcroft and company are up to now, and what they will try next.
Heh. Tom Clancy? I used to like him, then I figured how his formula and it became incredibly pointless. Nowadays I chuckle about his characters, though. One book where Jack Ryan starts drinking too much, and apparently the worst thing about the situation was that he was drinking CHEAP wine.
Guh. Tom Clancy gets worse and worse. He's clearly figured out that he doesn't have to produce good books anymore.
I've heard Tom Clancy doesn't even write much any more. "His" books are written by teams of writers. I've read most of his Jack Ryan nvoels. I'll probably read this latest one, if I find it somewhere in paperback, or if I come across it in the library. His earlier works, such as "The Hunt For Red October", are fully as bad as the later ones, such as "The Bear and the Dragon". In the middle are some very interesting books. I really enjoyed "Patriot Games" in particular, and also the one where he first becomes president.
My point was that President Bush and company seem to be using Mr. Clancy's Jack Ryan books as blueprints for how they should govern.
Well then that would be a step up from the previous administration wouldn't it - who seemed to base thiers on _Love Story_ .
Heyyy!! I liked "Hunt for the Red October" :)) It is obviously difficult to protect civil liberties in the face of terror attacks. People are quick to lap up the idea that giving more power to law enforcement and government agencies will help them fight terrorism more effectively. Does it actually work?? I suppose time will tell. IMHO, anything that lacks transparency is likely to be abused sooner or later. Remember, absolute power corrupts!!
I heard a story recently (radio?) about the extent to which liberties have always been truncated in times of war being utterly dwarfed by the efforts and practices of the current administration.
I'm not sure I buy that. We haven't put anyone in internment camps, this time. (Though there are some stories coming out about middle-eastern immigrants who have been contacted by the FBI and given a choice between becoming informants, or being deported.)
You're confusing the extent of de-liberation of a few with the extent of de-liberation of the entire population.
Hmm. I see your point. Something related, that was in the Slate "today's papers" column today: 'The New York Times, with a two-column headline, leads with President Bush urging Congress to "untie the hands of our law-enforcement officials" and remove "unreasonable obstacles" to investigating and prosecuting terrorism. Specifically, he proposed 1) allowing feds to snoop on suspected terrorists with investigators' own in-house subpoenas instead of a court order; 2) changing the burden of proof on the bail of suspected terrorists or their helpers from the government to defendants. The Los Angeles Times lead, citing unnamed feds, says al-Qaida has a "largely invisible but extensive presence" in the U.S. and that investigators are "only now" realizing the full extent of the network, most of which is apparently focused on fundraising. The piece adds that investigators still only have a general idea of the domestic network. "That's what people don't get," said one agent. "They think we know the names of all the terrorists and we don't." USA Today's lead plays off that, saying the FBI has decided that it's all but impossible to plant undercover agents in the tight-knit al-Qaida. (The CIA didn't comment.) The Washington Post leads with a Senate vote yesterday blocking the White House from revamping overtime rules. 'Bush, speaking at the FBI's training HQ in Virginia on the eve of the second anniversary of 9/11, argued that investigators in health-care fraud cases already have the power to issue their own subpoenas and don't need the court's permission to poke around. "If we can use these subpoenas to catch crooked doctors," said the president, "Congress should allow law enforcement officials to use them in catching terrorists." The papers all include press-release quotes from the ACLU, which, shockingly, is opposed to the proposals. But what the reporters don't do is pick up the phone and examine the substance of Bush's claims: Is there an unfair playing field for terror investigators? 'In any case, as the papers note, with the original Patriot Act under increasing heat, Congress is unlikely to jump for the new proposals. So, why would Bush push for the new laws? According to one Republican strategist quoted in the NYT's lead, "Bush is betting that he will either get the powers or get an issue he can use to club his Democratic opponent."'
You have several choices: