Ashcroft shows shortcomings with 'victory'

American Conservative Union ^ | September 16, 2003 | David A. Keene

[Ebenezer]

Attorney General John Ashcroft began his recent "victory" tour at the American Enterprise Institute where he disingenuously justified his campaign-like appearance as necessary, lest those lacking his unique dedication to the war against terrorism succeed in "repealing" the USA Patriot Act. He then took his show on the road, speaking primarily before closed meetings of law enforcement officials assembled to applaud and nod as he not only defended the vast investigative powers he and they have acquired since Sept. 11 but argued that more were needed.

Meanwhile, his spokespeople were hinting publicly that anyone who even dares question the need for such power or suspects that it might actually be abused by those to whom it is being entrusted are at the very least insufficiently committed to fighting terrorism and might, indeed, be "soft" on the whole question. Indeed, his people began charging that critics of the Patriot Act, ranging from the ACLU to the Eagle Forum, have been lying and misrepresenting the whole thing from the beginning in an effort to stir up fears about actual or potential government abuse of the rights of innocent U.S. citizens. One of my conservative brother's questions were dismissed by a Justice Department representative, who told him that he should just "trust the government to do the right thing."

I have always considered John Ashcroft a friend, and I certainly appreciate the difficulty of his current job, but like many of those who have supported him in the past, I find myself stunned not only by his failure, rhetoric aside, to understand the need to balance the demand for security with the need to safeguard individual freedom but with the way in which he is trying to consign anyone who questions anything the government does to the ranks of terrorist sympathizers. He knows better, and those he is now attacking have every right to resent the mischaracterization of their motives and integrity emanating from his office.

Many in the administration seem to believe that this helps President Bush who, rightly, continues to get high marks for his conduct of the war against terrorism, but they are missing the straws in the wind. The Patriot Act passed in the weeks following Sept. 11 because in times of crisis people want action and don't pay much attention to details. Many of those who voted for it did so without even reading it, and everyone in Congress knows that the recent Justice Department assertion that the act was seriously debated and examined for six weeks before passage is laughable nonsense.

Since then, many in Congress have had a chance to step back and ask whether the 342-page bill the administration cobbled together in those dark days might have gone too far. Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) believes today that his vote for the bill was perhaps the worst he's ever cast, and dozens of others from both parties are suggesting that Congress revisit some of the provisions they might not have passed those provisions had they not been stampeded by an administration insisting that a vote against a bill they hadn't even had a chance to examine was a vote against bringing terrorists to justice.

It should be noted, however, that regardless of what Ashcroft claims, no one is urging repeal of the Patriot Act. Even the act's harshest critics acknowledge that the government needed new tools to deal with the unique threat posed by international terrorism and would do nothing to deny government those tools. However, they are now asking that it be reviewed and perhaps modified with an eye to protecting the traditional and constitutional rights of innocent Americans. Ashcroft's response to this has been to demand that the sunset provisions that would eventually force such a review be removed and that Congress expand rather than restrict the investigative powers "needed" to effectively fight terrorism.

Fortunately, Congress has been less receptive to the attorney general than the handpicked audiences he addressed during his tour. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) has introduced a bill in the Senate to reform the act, and the House recently voted 309-118 for a floor amendment offered by Idaho's Butch Otter restricting the utilization of what are known as "sneak and peek" warrants. One hundred thirteen of those votes came from Republicans, and, regardless of whether the amendment passes the Senate or survives a conference, represent a warning that neither Ashcroft nor the president can afford to ignore.

Americans demand both security and freedom and believe that we can have both.

The administration is tasked with protecting us but should be on notice now that Americans are simply unwilling to give up their rights to make that task easier just because Ashcroft's bureaucrats say we should trust them.

[rj45mis]

"I have always considered John Ashcroft a friend"

As the old saying goes, "With friends like this, who needs enemies"

[newgeezer]

"I have always considered John Ashcroft a friend"

As the old saying goes, "With friends like this, who needs enemies"

As another "old saying" goes,

Faithful are the wounds of a friend,
     But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.

[drypowder]

One of my conservative brother's questions were dismissed by a Justice Department representative, who told him that he should just "trust the government to do the right thing."

Oh yea, the Gov massacre of citizens at Waco, that happened under a different Administration. You can trust the Gov now.

NO FN WAY!

[proxy_user]

I think that at least 60% of the criticism of the Patriot Act is coming from conservatives.

I'm pretty sure that 100% of the rational criticism is coming from us.

[WOSG]

It should be noted, however, that regardless of what Ashcroft claims, no one is urging repeal of the Patriot Act. Even the act's harshest critics acknowledge that the government needed new tools to deal with the unique threat posed by international terrorism and would do nothing to deny government those tools.

If we all agree that much in the Patriot Act is needed, then the critics of the Patriot Act need to quit making broadbrush phony "the sky is falling" arguments about the Patriot Act, quit getting their facts wrong, and stick to "just the facts ma'am".

If Ashcroft is falling in the gutter of impugning the motives of his critics, he is wrong - but it is a level, the ACLU, the left, the Democrats, and some right-wing critics have occupied for years. All sides need to lay off the ad hominem - Ashcroft is a fine man and doing the best job he can, which IMHO is quite good.

[WOSG]

"I'm pretty sure that 100% of the rational criticism is coming from us. "

I agree.

There are valid critiques you could make, but I've heard many arguments that on investigation dont reflect actual reality of the Patriot Act.

[Erik Latranyi]

Given all the criticism of the Patriot Act by both conservatives and liberals, I have yet to hear a single, clear request for a change.

Someone, please, show me an area in the Patriot Act that should be modified/changed.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Even the act's harshest critics acknowledge that the government needed new tools to deal with the unique threat posed by international terrorism and would do nothing to deny government those tools.

Well, now, I doubt that. The harshest critics? Please.

The ACU's position is a fine example of a well-meaning but flawed desire to tie the hands of the DOJ.

To their credit and UNLIKE so many even here on Free Republic, though, the ACU has refrained from descending into the idiocy of ad hominem attacks and conspiratorial webs of fantasy. Perhaps the AG can dialogue with Mr. Keene and those on his side. If they don't come to a meeting of the minds, they may at least depart with an appreciation of their respective concerns.

[Recovering_Democrat]

yes. I agree.

[Viva Le Dissention]

When you say things like "should," it opens up a road down which anything is possible.

For instance, and I recognize that I'm in the great minority here, and maybe only the late Justice Brennan would agree with me, but I'm for the entire thing being repealed.

I DON'T think the DOJ needs "new weapons" to combat terrorism. I just plain don't think it's necessary. And, frankly, as long as we're on the subject, I think much of the FBI and CIA are unconstitutional and should be limited in scope and power as much as possible.

I don't think just because the stakes are potentially greater is a proper justification for changing the basic ways in which our criminal justice system works. Sometimes the bad guys get away. That's the price you pay for living in a free society.

[Erik Latranyi]

I DON'T think the DOJ needs "new weapons" to combat terrorism. I just plain don't think it's necessary. And, frankly, as long as we're on the subject, I think much of the FBI and CIA are unconstitutional and should be limited in scope and power as much as possible.

The Patriot Act does not give "new" weapons. These are weapons that were already authorized for other types of crimes. It was extended to those classified as international terrorists or enemy combatants. | | The FBI & CIA unconstitutional? I guess providing for the common defense means nothing.

[WOSG]

Yeah, we're on the same page.

On another Patriot Act thread one of the Ashcroft bashers was insisting that law enforcement peeking onto computer networks was unconstitutional. he forgot to mention this is only valid if a court issues such a search warrant and only given if it's a part of an ongoing investigation. I asked him if he thought wiretaps, which were key to winning prosecutions of Mafia crime families, were against the 4th amendment. Same concept, different technology... I didnt get an answer.

The challenges here are not simple, the tools needed by prosecutors to investigate terrorist networks dont have to undermine our freedom, but they will of course intrude on the privacy of people under investigation ... and there is a different between the two. The bashers of the patriot act are making 'slippery slope' arguments and strawman style arguments and are casually erasing those needed distinctions.

"The ACU's position is a fine example of a well-meaning but flawed desire to tie the hands of the DOJ."

Sometimes, like in abusive applications of RICO, DoJ does need to be tied. In this case, many critics (like ACLU) have a horrible track record of defending real freedom vs. mainly protecting the criminal class from getting caught. And I've yet to see any parades of horribles actually happen here; so is the critique a bogeyman? IMHO at least partially so. I'd say partially only because any law with 340 pages may have unintended consequences, which imho is the implied ACU viewpoint and the critique of conservatives, ie, worry about what Hillary could do with this law. (My answer on that was that Clinton/Reno didnt need this law to do Waco/Elian/ChinesemoneylaunderingandCoverup etc.)

[WOSG]

" I'm for the entire thing being repealed."

So you think the Govt should have less powers and ability to go after terrorists than go after deadbeat Dads? That was the situation on 9-10-01, incredibly.

[WOSG]

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/2003/09/02/news/opinion/6670079.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

In defense of the Patriot Act

By HEATHER MAC DONALD

The recent indictment of a would-be arms merchant connected to al Qaeda is only the latest reminder that the threat of terrorism is as urgent as ever. Yet many among the political and opinion elites act as if America is more at risk from the Bush administration's efforts to thwart future terror attacks than from the attackers themselves.

Denunciation of the government's alleged assault on civil liberties abound. Many bills in Congress seek to repeal sections of the USA Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism law passed after 9/11, on the ground that it violates constitutional rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union recently filed a lawsuit in a Michigan federal court against the most frequent target of civil libertarian ire -- the Patriot Act's business-records provision. The rhetoric surrounding this provision, also known as Section 215, has been alarmist, to say the least.

RELEVANT DATA

Section 215 allows the FBI to obtain documents in third-party hands if they are relevant to a terrorism investigation. According to the ACLU, this power allows the FBI to ``spy on a person because they don't like the books she reads, or because . . . she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy.''

The charge is baseless. To begin with, it ignores the fact that the FBI can do nothing under Section 215 without the approval of a federal court. Let's say that the FBI has received a tip that al Qaeda sympathizers have taken scuba lessons in preparation for an attack on Navy destroyers off the California coast. Under 215, the bureau could seek a court order for local dive school records to see whether any terror suspects had recently enrolled. The key phrase here is ``seek a court order.''

The ACLU argues that 215 violates the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. But like it or not, once you've disclosed information to someone else, the Constitution no longer protects it. This diffuse-it-and-lose-it rule applies to library borrowing and Internet surfing as well, however much librarians may claim otherwise. By publicly borrowing library books, patrons forfeit any constitutional protections that they may have had in their reading habits.

Another ACLU attack on 215 uses the tactic of ignoring legal precedent. Grand juries investigating a crime have always been able to subpoena the very items covered by 215 without seeking a warrant or indeed any judicial approval at all. Section 215 merely gives anti-terror investigators the same access to such records as criminal grand juries, with the added protection of judicial oversight.

The administration's opponents reply that grand-jury subpoenas are preferable, because they can be contested in court and are not always confidential, as are 215 orders. But these differences are fully justified by the distinction between pre-empting terrorism and prosecuting crime. Speed and secrecy are essential to uncovering a terror plot before it climaxes. The perils of unnecessary delay were made clear in the Zacarias Moussaoui case, when Justice Department bureaucrats, virtually mummified by red tape, forbade Minneapolis FBI agents from searching the al Qaeda operative's computer in the weeks before 9/11.

Critics of the administration also decry the Patriot Act's provision for delaying notice of a search -- the so-called sneak-and-peak rule -- as an outrageous power grab by the government. The act's naysayers don't say that there is nothing new about this power at all: Judges have long allowed the government to delay notice of a search if notifying the target would risk witness intimidation, destruction of evidence or flight from prosecution. The act merely codifies existing case law into one national standard.

In introducing a bill to amend Section 215, U.S. Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., alleged that Americans had become ''afraid to read books, terrified into silence.'' Were that ever the case, it would be thanks to the misinformation spread by advocates and politicians, not because of any real threat posed by the Bush administration's war on terror.

Heather Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

[tpaine]

"I have always considered John Ashcroft a friend, and I certainly appreciate the difficulty of his current job, but like many of those who have supported him in the past, I find myself stunned not only by his failure, rhetoric aside, to understand the need to balance the demand for security with the need to safeguard individual freedom but with the way in which he is trying to consign anyone who questions anything the government does to the ranks of terrorist sympathizers.
He knows better, and those he is now attacking have every right to resent the mischaracterization of their motives and integrity emanating from his office."
-Keene-


If Ashcroft is falling in the gutter of impugning the motives of his critics, he is wrong - but it is a level, the ACLU, the left, the Democrats, and some right-wing critics have occupied for years.
All sides need to lay off the ad hominem.
- Ashcroft is a fine man and doing the best job he can, which IMHO is quite good.
-wosg-



You write:

"All sides need to lay off the ad hominem" preceded by your own ad hominum lumping together:
"the ACLU, the left, the Democrats, and some [of his] right-wing critics".
How droll.

[WOSG]

tpaine, naming critics is not an ad hominem.
*I* am a critic of the ACLU, for example.

.... You want ad hominem??? Let me explain it ...

Do you think it violates constitutional rights to ask local law enforcement to assist in the enforcement of Federal immigration law?

http://portland-or.bordc.org/pdx_bordc_news/letter_to_oregon_house_members_on_threats_to_ors_181.html

"The provisions of ORS 181.850 operate to ensure that state and local law enforcement focus on state and local matters, and to allow state and local police to generate relationships of trust with Oregon's immigrant communities, by preventing state and local law enforcement from engaging in the enforcement of Federal immigration laws."

The ACLU is busy undermining the enforcement of immigration laws:
http://www.aclu-or.org/issues/terrorism/181/181challenges.html


They say of bills that would merely allow local cops to help enforce Federal immigration laws on the books: "We strongly opposed all four bills because they would have eliminated important protections for all people who live in Oregon. .... More importantly, it would also have allowed state and local law enforcement to ignore both “181” laws if investigating “terrorism.” This would basically unravel the protections that these laws provide! "

Yikes! God fobid local law enforcement actually cracks a terrorist ring by using immigration law to catch and detain terrorists!

Thanks to the ACLU who forced this abominable public policy on many states, our immigration laws were effectively shredded due to non-enforcement for the past 15 years... the predictable consequence is the flood of illegal immigration, billions spent on overburdened socail welfare systems on border states, and a breakdown in our security thanks to de facto 'open borders'.

Is this what you want??

ACLU does. Suits them fine, and they have blocked democratic attempts to fix the problem. Just as they worked to block the Cali recall election, they worked to block prop 187.

When the ACLU says anything about the Constitution, they are full of S***. They are 100% wrong!!!

Just to be clear, *nothing* I said above is an ad hominem.
Saying the ACLU is full of c**p is an observation about the ACLU, not an ad hominem. It is no ad hominem to say that the ACLU was wrong to sue to overturn a duly authroized election that over 1 million Californians asked for and 400,000 Californians voted in.

*This* is ad hominem:
"If the ACLU is against the Patriot Act - THEN THE PATRIOT ACT MUST BE DOING SOME GOOD."

Got it? :-)

[tpaine]

You write:

"All sides need to lay off the ad hominem" 
-- preceded by your own ad hominum lumping together:

"the ACLU, the left, the Democrats, and some [of his] right-wing critics".

How droll.

tpaine, naming critics is not an ad hominem. *I* am a critic of the ACLU, for example. .... You want ad hominem??? Let me explain it ... Do you think it violates constitutional rights to ask local law enforcement to assist in the enforcement of Federal immigration law? http://portland-or.bordc.org/pdx_bordc_news/letter_to_oregon_house_members_on_threats_to_ors_181.html "The provisions of ORS 181.850 operate to ensure that state and local law enforcement focus on state and local matters, and to allow state and local police to generate relationships of trust with Oregon's immigrant communities, by preventing state and local law enforcement from engaging in the enforcement of Federal immigration laws." The ACLU is busy undermining the enforcement of immigration laws: http://www.aclu-or.org/issues/terrorism/181/181challenges.html They say of bills that would merely allow local cops to help enforce Federal immigration laws on the books: "We strongly opposed all four bills because they would have eliminated important protections for all people who live in Oregon. .... More importantly, it would also have allowed state and local law enforcement to ignore both "181" laws if investigating "terrorism." This would basically unravel the protections that these laws provide! "
Yikes! God fobid local law enforcement actually cracks a terrorist ring by using immigration law to catch and detain terrorists! Thanks to the ACLU who forced this abominable public policy on many states, our immigration laws were effectively shredded due to non-enforcement for the past 15 years... the predictable consequence is the flood of illegal immigration, billions spent on overburdened socail welfare systems on border states, and a breakdown in our security thanks to de facto 'open borders'.
Is this what you want??

Beats me kiddo. I only know that you are bounching off the wall in your socalled 'reply'..

ACLU does. Suits them fine, and they have blocked democratic attempts to fix the problem. Just as they worked to block the Cali recall election, they worked to block prop 187. When the ACLU says anything about the Constitution, they are full of S***. They are 100% wrong!!! Just to be clear, *nothing* I said above is an ad hominem.

Sure it was. You're attempting to lump together a valid critic of Ashcroft with the ACLU.

Saying the ACLU is full of c**p is an observation about the ACLU, not an ad hominem. It is no ad hominem to say that the ACLU was wrong to sue to overturn a duly authroized election that over 1 million Californians asked for and 400,000 Californians voted in. *This* is ad hominem: "If the ACLU is against the Patriot Act - THEN THE PATRIOT ACT MUST BE DOING SOME GOOD." Got it?

Yep, I've 'got' you pegged good. Thanks.

[WOSG]

"nothing* I said above is an ad hominem."
"Sure it was. You're attempting to lump together a valid critic of Ashcroft with the ACLU. "

"Lumping together" is not an "ad hominem" - look up the definition.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

And anyway, how is one critic 'valid' and another 'not'?
Either their arguments are valid or they are not.

[tpaine]

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

Your 'irrelevant fact about the author' is that he allied with the ACLU.

Case closed on stupidity.