Ashcroft slams critics as Patriot Act backlash grows
By Tom Regan for the Christian Science Monitor.

The attorney general continues to insist that the Act “respects rights and increases security.” USA Today looks at how the Act is at the heart of Ashcroft’s powers as attorney general.
There are also some people who don’t think Ashcroft and the Patriot Act have gone far enough. They would like to see a halt to all immigration of any kind, for instance, as a better way to prevent terrorism.
Delaware Online reports that Patriot Act “abuses,” however, are starting to surface. People with no connection to any form of criminal activity say that they are being deprived of the right to open bank accounts, get credit cards, etc. because of the Patriot Act.
Shortly after he graduated from college in May, French Clements of San Jose, Calif., tried to open an online brokerage account with Harrisdirect, where his stepfather has an account. A day after he completed the online application, however, he got a brief e-mail from Harrisdirect saying, “We regret to inform you that we are unable to approve your application at this time: The customer’s identity not properly authenticated per the USA Patriot Act.” Clements was stunned, and so was his mother, Alayne Yellum. “Maybe they don’t like people named French,” she says…
Critics of the Patriot Act also point out that it is now being used in other areas of law enforcement.
“Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases,” said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. “They say they want the Patriot Act to fight terrorism, then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens.”…
An analysis of the act, as it is being implemented by the federal government and subtly revised by the courts, indicates that so far it has not threatened the civil liberties of millions as some claim but neither has its use avoided unintended consequences and damage to innocent lives. The problem is that because of government secrecy

This program was broadcast on September 4, 2003 at 11:30 pm.
Ted Koppel put together an amazing Nightline where he interviewed folks from the ACLU and the Justice Department, among others — and was able to paint a frighteningly accurate picture of the Patriot Act and its new bastard brother, the Victory Act.
If you’ve only got a minute, at least watch his closing thoughts on the matter. (Small – 3 MB) (Links to the complete program are located below.)

The men who drafted our constitution, who framed our civil rights and protected our various freedoms under the law would, I suspect, retch at some of the bone headed, self-serving, misinterpretations of their intentions that they so often use these days to undermine the very freedoms they pretend to safeguard. The miracle of American Law is not that it protects popular speech, or the privacy of the powerful, or the homes of the priviledged, but rather, that the least among us, those with the fewest defenses thoses suspected of the worst crimes — the most despised in our midst, are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
That remains as revolutionary a concept now as it was in the 1780s. It makes protecting the country against terrorism excruciatingly difficult, but we cannot arbitrarily suspend the rights of one catagory of suspects without endangering all the others.

Also of particular interest was the interview with Barbara Comstock, Director of Public Affairs for the Justice Department. Ted Koppel wanted to know why everything had to be kept secret. Why your medical records could be obtained without your being notified, etc. She kept bringing up the “al qaeda safe house,” which Ted finally told her “your floggin that Al Queda safe house to death Ms. Comstock.”
Ted also had to keep correcting Comstock by inserting the word “suspected” when she was talking about who the Patriot Act was being routinely used against. (“Suspected” terrorists and “suspected” enemy combatants.) She just couldn’t stop forgetting that these people were only suspects. That whole innocent until proven guilty thing kept slipping her mind.
Here’s a partial transcript from the end of the interview. I’ve created a small clip of this. (Complete versions located below.):

“What I’m asking is, since we are in agreement is that what we are talking about is that these people are people who are “suspects.” None of these people is a confirmed terrorist here. If you have a confirmed terrorist, I guarantee you, everyone who is watching tonight is going to applaud you and say “way to go.” But we are still dealing with people here who are suspected of something…” Koppel said.
“Sure.” she said.
“..and who therefore presumably have the same rights as any other American citizen, if they are citizens.” Koppel said.
Then later…
“How do we define who falls under the provisions of this act as distinct from the normal protections that exist for American citizens? Is it just that you define it? You define someone as being a suspect associated with terrorism? And if you can make a case to a court than you can lift some of the restrictions that would otherwise apply?” Koppel asked.
“Well the restrictions that would otherwise apply are still there. What it is is that we are operating under the same type of legal structures that we have always operated under, but now we’re able to…” Comstock said.
“Well not quite. I mean there are some people, obviously, who have been put in jail and who aren’t even permitted to have attorneys or who are not permitted to talk with their families. Now we are talking about people who. (stops) Right?” Koppel said.
“That’s has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. That’s actually “enemy combatants” that are outside the Justice Department per view. And that is the President’s authority at war powers.” Comstock said.
“Suspected, enemy combatants.” Koppel said.
“But those are…actually they’ve been designated as enemy combatants.” Comstock said.
“Well, designated without a trial.” Koppel said.
“Yes.” She replied.

Here’s the whole show in “complete” and “parts 1 and 2” versions:

Nightline – The Patriot Act – Part 1 of 2 (Small – 26 MB)

Nightline – The Patriot Act – Part 1 of 2 (Small – 26 MB)
Nightline – The Patriot Act – Complete (Small – 52 MB)
I’ve also provided a clip of the cool ACLU commercial that was aired during the broadcast. (Small – 2 MB)

An Unpatriotic Act
A NY Times Editorial

Attorney General John Ashcroft has embarked on a charm offensive on behalf of the USA Patriot Act. He is traveling the country to rally support for the law, which many people, both liberals and conservatives, consider a dangerous assault on civil liberties. Mr. Ashcroft’s efforts to promote the law are misguided. He should abandon the roadshow and spend more time in Washington working with those who want to reform the law.
When the Patriot Act raced through Congress after Sept. 11, critics warned that it was an unprecedented expansion of the government’s right to spy on ordinary Americans. The more people have learned about the law, the greater the calls have been for overhauling it. One section that has produced particular outrage is the authorization of “sneak and peek” searches, in which the government secretly searches people’s homes and delays telling them about the search. The House last month voted 309 to 118 for a Republican-sponsored measure to block the use of federal funds for such searches…
One member of Congress, Representative John Conyers Jr., a Michigan Democrat, has charged that Mr. Ashcroft’s lobbying campaign, in which United States attorneys have been asked to participate, may violate the law prohibiting members of the executive branch from engaging in grass-roots lobbying for or against Congressional legislation. Legal or not, the campaign seeks to shore up a deeply flawed piece of legislation. The Patriot Act is the Bush administration’s attempt to make the country safe on the cheap. Rather than do the hard work of coming up with effective port security and air cargo checks, and other programs targeted at actual threats, the administration has taken aim at civil liberties.
The administration is clearly worried, as opposition to the excesses of the Patriot Act grows across the country and the political spectrum. Instead of spin-doctoring the problem, Mr. Ashcroft should work with the law’s critics to develop a law that respects Americans’ fundamental rights.

Continue reading →