Posted on 09/22/2003 7:42:39 AM PDT by Brian S
Patriot Act, Part II
The Bush administration has been on a campaign to shore up support for the Patriot Act and argue for an expanded version, which is being dubbed Patriot Act II. This public-relations offensive comes, however, at a time when a growing number of Americans are saying the original act already gives government too much power.
Faced with these reasoned objections, the administration is becoming more shrill. Last week, Attorney General John Ashcroft named librarians as the latest group to pose a threat to freedom. Rather than lash out at well-intentioned critics, the administration should listen to the thoughtful voices from across the political spectrum who are saying we need less Patriot Act, not more.
President Bush spoke out last week in favor of a three-point plan for expanding the law. Patriot Act II would give the government broad powers to seize documents and force testimony without a court order, expand use of the death penalty and make it harder to be released on bail. None of these tools are necessary to fight terrorism, and each threatens to infringe on the civil liberties of Americans.
The most troubling part of the new plan is the call for expanding government access to private data, allowing federal agents to issue subpoenas for private medical, financial and other records, without a court order. The lack of judicial oversight removes an important check on government misconduct. Record holders would be required to comply, or face prison, and would be barred from telling anyone about the subpoena.
The two other parts of the plan are equally misguided. The new death penalty provision is not needed: antiterrorism laws already provide for capital punishment. And it is worded so vaguely that it could be used against people with no ties to international terrorism, including domestic political protesters. The bail provision, which creates a presumption in terrorism cases that bail will be denied, is also unnecessary. Judges can already withhold bail when defendants pose a threat. The new law simply tries to coerce judges into holding people they do not think need to be held.
The Justice Department announced on Thursday that it had not used its power under the Patriot Act to demand library records a single time. That revelation may have been intended to support Mr. Ashcroft's mean-spirited attack on librarians, whom he charged with being caught up in "baseless hysteria." But selectively releasing this one statistic has a three-card monte feel: if the number grows, it is unlikely that the Justice Department will be so forthcoming. If the administration truly had nothing to hide about its use of this power, it would not be arguing for the authority to put a librarian in prison for speaking publicly about receiving a subpoena.
The administration is acting as if it does not have the legal powers it needs to fight terrorism, when it does. The drive to roll back civil liberties is a threat to freedom and a distraction. The administration would better use its energy on more effective law enforcement strategies to keep us safe.
Would you want President Hillary in possession of any of these powers?
Strangely, Asscroft used to be the sort of patriot that would have reacted strongly, even angrily, to anyone who would have attempted these sort of power grabs and this sort of Bill of Rights abrogation.
The fact he has done a 180 degree turn and now loudly favors a fascist state tells me they coopted him somehow. Now way he'd go against his core belief system for a few hundred thou a year.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
The New York Times calls an hysterical pack of lies "reasoned objections".
No surprises here LOL!
Oh my, the liberals are so shocked that their lies are being debunked. Americans used to be such good sheep.
Now the NYT has to struggle just to maintain a good daily two-minutes of hate against Ashcroft.
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.