home

Ashcroft's Rubbery Road Show

Do not miss Georgetown Law Professor David Cole's new article in The Nation- On the Road With Ashcroft. Cole delivers the goods and explains why Ashcroft has chosen to limit his audiences to law enforcement groups and how he has fudged on the details and effect of the Patriot Act. Cole also explains why the public is becoming so concerned about the Administration's unprecedented grab for power and erosion of civil liberties. Here's a small sample, but go read the whole thing:

Public concern is not limited to the Patriot Act's four corners but arises from a whole range of measures this Administration has advanced, from secret detentions to ethnic profiling to "Total Information Awareness" and the "enemy combatant" designations. The Patriot Act has become shorthand for these excesses. Ashcroft's defense, however, ducks virtually all this criticism, focusing only on a handful of the act's provisions. He doesn't mention, for example, its most troubling sections, those affecting immigrants. They allow the government to exclude foreign nationals for their speech, to deport them on the basis of wholly innocent associations with any group Ashcroft blacklists and to lock them up on his say-so, without showing that they are dangerous or a flight risk (the only two constitutionally recognized justifications for preventive detention). Nor does he bother to defend a provision authorizing freezing of assets based on secret evidence. And his website makes only passing reference to the act's dramatic expansion of FISA power to authorize search warrants in criminal investigations without probable cause of criminal activity.

At the same time, Ashcroft's defense of the few provisions it chooses to address is highly misleading. In response to criticism of Section 215, for example, which allows the government to demand access to library and bookstore records without probable cause, Ashcroft claims that this authority has always been available through grand jury subpoenas. But he does not say that those subpoenas are limited to criminal investigations and are public, while Section 215 requests need have no connection whatsoever to crime and are carried out entirely in secret. He also stresses that records requests must be approved by a court upon a showing that the records are related to an investigation concerning a foreign national and, if the investigation concerns a US citizen or permanent-resident alien, that the investigation is not based solely on First Amendment-protected activities. But he fails to acknowledge that these limitations apply only to the target of the investigation and not to those whose records are sought. Once the government has a legitimate investigation under way, the act allows it to obtain library records on unlimited numbers of citizens, without making any showing that these citizens were involved in illegal activity.

Cole proceeds to debunk of Ashcroft's most misleading claims: First, that the Patriot Act has resulted in important successes in the terror war. Second, Cole says Ashcroft has exaggerated the successes in the legal cases brought to date. And third, Ashcroft "fails to account for losses of liberty and privacy."

Cole is one of the foremost authorities on civil liberties and the terror war. This is must reading.

< Bush Job Performance Ratings Sink to Lowest Level | The Effect of the Miguel Estrada Withdrawal on Remaining Nominees >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort: