Posted on 09/20/2003 7:42:40 AM PDT by knighthawk
Many liberals are complaining that the U.S.A. Patriot Act, passed by Congress after Sept. 11 and administered by Attorney General John Ashcroft, has the whiff of fascism to it. At the least, they should know authoritarianism when they see it -- but more on that later.
The legislation gives federal officials ''greater authority to track and intercept communications, both for law enforcement and foreign intelligence-gathering purposes,'' says the nonpartisan Library of Congress' research service, including power ''to combat corruption of U.S. financial institutions for foreign money laundering purposes . . . to further close our borders to foreign terrorists and to detain and remove those within our borders creat(ing) new crimes, new penalties and new procedural efficiencies for use against domestic and international terrorists.''
Sure, we all know about Richard Nixon and his break-ins, but in U.S. history, most wartime rights-throttling horror stories came when Democrats were in control. Woodrow Wilson's AG, A. Mitchell Palmer, used the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 to ferret out dissenters he believed were fomenting a Bolshevik-driven anarchy. Before we follow the knee-jerk course of condemning Palmer, it is good to recall that his house was bombed on June 2, 1919, blowing out the windows of then-Assistant Navy Secretary Franklin Roosevelt's house nearby, along with most other houses within several hundred yards, as recounted in Thomas Fleming's splendid book, The Illusion of Victory: America in World War II. As we know, the low point in civil liberties in the 20th century was when FDR's attorney general, Francis Biddle, ordered the internment of 112,000 Japanese Americans. And Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, along with Justices Harlan Fiske Stone, Felix Frankfurter and Hugo Black, earlier supported FDR's executive order 9066, which established a military zone ''all the way up the Pacific Coast and inland about 40 miles,'' where people regarded as threats to the United States would be barred and a curfew imposed on all citizens of Japanese heritage. They were ''prepared to let the military have its way,'' writes scholar Bruce Allen Murphy in his excellent biography, Wild Bill: the Legend and Life of William O. Douglas. Quite a bit of history in the first half of the 20th century.
History aside, it is not helpful for liberals (or libertarian-prone conservatives) to be intemperate or inaccurate when condemning the U.S.A. Patriot Act. Unfortunately, the New York Times was both, on July 21, with a front-page story ''Report on U.S. Anti-Terrorism Law Alleges Violations of Civil Rights.'' At first reading, it was as frightening as the fire bell ringing in the night. It said a report by internal probers at the Justice Department identified 1,073 accusations during the six months ending June 15. Of them, 34 raised ''credible Patriot Act violations on their face.'' The Times story has become the major source of accusations against the law and Ashcroft.
But the conservative Weekly Standard magazine quoted the not-so-conservative Washington Post as saying the report wasn't about the Patriot Act at all, just a requirement under the law to specify whatever charges came in. Total complaints were spiked upward by 27 percent over an earlier report. But the ''absolute number of complaints judged 'credible on their face' has remained almost perfectly flat: 34 this time, 33 the time before,'' says the Standard. No big deal. ''Bottom line,'' says the Standard, ''people are more and more likely to accuse the Justice Department of doing them wrong -- which only stands to reason, since the New York Times and its hundreds of imitators have spent the past two years telling them that John Ashcroft is raping the Constitution.''
But in government jargon, ''credible'' doesn't mean true. One ''credible'' incident cited by the Standard from the report: An INS detainee in Texas claimed he was forced to eat pork, was beaten, ''had six teeth extracted against his will'' and was denied medical treatment. It turned out to be false. The feds distinguish between ''credible'' and true. Now, if only the New York Times would.
Building a police state at home undermines the purpose of the War on Terror.It would, if that was what is happening. But it isn't.
Like Mrs. Clinton’s FBI files? Or having your “enemies” audited by the IRS or your credit investigated without your permission? Or being told not to ‘talk’ about an incident like Mrs. Clinton’s barreling through an airport check point and knocking down a guard and injuring him? Or threatening the wives or husbands of those who would blow the whistle on some of the Clinton escapades? Covering up travel expenses or just refusing to report them as the Clintons did? Never answering hard questions and punishing the pundit who dared to ask them? People loose their jobs if not their heads every day from the Clinton machine and yet people still criticize John Ashcroft for truly trying to protect Americans and America by tightening up loose areas however, let the trashy Clintons off the hook for their efforts to silence anyone who would disturb their agenda in any way. What a bunch of idiots!
By the way, learn what Gen. Clark had to do with WACO, he along with Mrs. Clinton and Reno had the upper hand - Bill was not at home...so they say.
Let's just practice jumping from high buildings, and putting the fires out from our burning bodies, and taking lots antibiodics all the time.
Like too many freepers, I'd rather die burning alive than sign on to that silly billy Patriot Act.
Won't it be fun watching our families burning alive? Better than supporting that durn Patriot Act!!
Absolutely correct, and we had best think very carefully about what some future democrat (Hillary) will do with these powers. They are supposed to run out automatically, but after they have been renewed a few times, for the War on Terror will be long, they will become permanent.
These powers will allow Hillarys AG to secretly declare, say the NRA, a terrorist organization, and imprison any members she wishes indefinitely without trial. Because the Govt. will not even have to admit they are holding you, there can be no apeal to the courts.
Heinrich Himmler never had such absolute power, and While the Republicans are the good guys, they won't keep power forever,
So9
Torture. That is what you will see. Your dying words will be something to the effect, that "boy was I stupid. I didn't do what needed to be done to prevent this horror!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.