Domestic Terrorism

Taking on ashcroft’s campaign

This entry was posted in ashcroft bush Constitution Domestic Terrorism Drug Laws Libertarianism Patriot Act on by

The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights filets an August 19th ashcroft speech.
ashcroft also announced a Patiot Act propaganda site: preserving life & liberty. blargblog took some issue with the campaign:

Angered by the ACLU’s lawsuit against what they consider the PATRIOT Act’s “radical expansion” of surveillance powers, the Ashcroftians have targeted three main ACLU claims as myths: 1) the suppression of political dissent through intimidation, 2) the surveillance of library usage and 3) the “sneek and peek” provision delaying notification of surveillance skirts the Fourth Ammendment. Go read it for yourself to see if you can spot gaping holes in the DOJ’s collective memory or some fine legal points it deliberately elides.

The Angry Bear found Dave Ross‘ defense of the patriot act wanting.
For a view supporting the patriot act from a philosophical perspective take a look at at David Veksler’s posts here and here.
Via beSpacific.

Interrogation and Rights

This entry was posted in ashcroft bush Constitution Domestic Terrorism Libertarianism Patriot Act US Politics War on Terrorism on by

From a recent Newsweek article:

The United States figures it can get plenty out of the newly captured Chemical Ali. But how? And are these �interrogation� techniques being readied for American citizens?

Apparently they are already being used on Americans. Read the whole article and then think again about the closing paragraph:

If the courts buy this line of argument, then we Americans can kiss our sweet rights goodbye. And reading the admiral�s brief, you have to ask yourself if that isn�t really the goal: to give the president and his people the power to treat all Americans like Jos� Padilla, unless and until we give the answers expected of us.

Via Perverse Action Memory.

Ashcroft Tour

This entry was posted in ashcroft bush Democracy Domestic Terrorism Election 2004 Judiciary Patriot Act War on Terrorism on by

Pejman argues that John Conyers’ recent criticism of Ashcroft’s Patriot Act tour is too much:

I understand and respect those who disagree with the USA Patriot Act, but this goes beyond a mere difference of opinion. Conyers is stating that Ashcroft can’t even talk about the measure in speeches across the country. This is just ridiculous, and Conyers’s position is not saved by claiming that Ashcroft is “lobbying.” How can the activity qualify as lobbying when the Patriot Act was passed nearly two years ago?

I do not know if there is legislation that supports Conyers position but if there is I do not like it any more than similar laws (or regulations) that, for example, prohibit recipients of federal funds from providing information on, say condom use, to sexually active clients.
We thrive on a free flow of information and opinions, even information and opinions that we disagree with. Ashcroft should get to talk and he should make a choice to talk to the larger community not just law enforcement folks in closed or semi-closed sessions.
Is Ashcroft lobbying and does Pejman’s argument that the Patriot Act was passed two years ago so it can’t be lobbying hold up? Maybe not. I think that Ashcroft is concerned that congress may move to make changes he does not want. Why else does he, for example, make stops in the home district of the only GOP congressman who voted against it?

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft is coming to Boise on Monday to talk up the Patriot Act in the home district of the only GOP congressman who spoke against it.
Ashcroft kicked off a monthlong speaking tour of more than a dozen cities this week to deflect growing opposition to parts of the Patriot Act.

Trying to deflect growing opposition may not be lobbying but it does walk just a little bit like it.
The other thing Ashcroft is undoubtably trying to do is build support for the pending Victory Act. Ashcroft is lobbying just as bush is currently on the campaign trail (is his re-election committee paying for this?). They are doing what public officials have done for ever and should continue to do even if we disagree with them: make their cases to the people.

Slave Trade

This entry was posted in Domestic Terrorism on by

Usually I don’t start reading the new National Geographic until it has properly aged. Oh, I quickly skim the pictures, glance at the table of contents and then it gets put on the coffee table to acclimate itself. In a few weeks it has become comfortable and then I gather it in like an old friend and read it over the course of the next couple weeks. But not this time.
It hadn’t even made it to the coffee table before Tegan suggested that we all read the first article in the current issue:

[The} Latest National Geographic (it has Zebras on the cover) has a haunting article that you should read. It’s about slavery. Modern slavery. According to the contents page: “There are more slaves today then were seized from Africa in four centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.” And don’t think that it’s happening only in third-world countries: “According to Kevin Bales, there are between 100,000 and 150,000 slaves in the U.S. today.” Read it, and maybe wonder how people can do this to one another.

You should all get this out and read the article. If dubya wants some terrorism to fight it sounds like there is plenty right here in his backyard.

If Blair Falls can bush Stand

This entry was posted in bush Constitution Domestic Terrorism Iraq War on Terrorism on by

Bilmon doesn’t think the US has the stuff anymore to take out a president:

Here in land of the fairly free and the not-so-brave, that wouldn’t make much difference, I suppose, since we seem to have lost our taste for White House scandal — not to White House accountability — once Bill Clinton put his slick willy back in his pants. But the British appear to still take these things fairly seriously.

But if Blair really does fall can you imagine the new set of lies and misdirection we will be subject to as the Republican controlled House and Senate dodge their responsibility.
And then again, the bushies may have laid the groundwork for trying to pull their fat out of the fire:

Senior officials in the Bush administration believe Kay’s weapons discoveries should have been revealed as they were made. However, a decision, approved by President Bush, was made to wait until more was discovered and then announce it — probably in September.

See The Left Coaster for more details on Blair’s travails.