Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:48:18 -0400
From: steven cherry <steven@xxxxxxxxx>
Dave, I'm surprised if no one sent you this very strongly-worded editorial
in yesterday's NY Times.
Steven
<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/opinion/22MON1.html>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 22, 2003
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.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |
--
Steven Cherry <s.cherry@xxxxxxxx>
Senior Associate Editor, IEEE Spectrum
--
<steven@xxxxxxxxx>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What an immense mass of evil must result . . . from allowing
men to assume the right of anticipating what may happen.
-- Tolstoy