Anti-Fascism Files
By Karen J. Gould, Mar 9, 2003

Bush: Clap For Me Or No EU Speech
"GEORGE Bush pulled out of a speech to the European Parliament when MEPs wouldn't guarantee a standing ovation," reports Paul Gilfeather in The Mirror.

"A source close to negotiations said last night: 'President Bush agreed to a speech but insisted he get a standing ovation like at the State of the Union address. His people also insisted there were no protests, or heckling. I believe it would be a crucial speech for Mr Bush to make in light of the opposition here to war. But unless he only gets adulation and praise, then it will never happen.'

"Mr Bush's every appearance in the US is stage-managed, with audiences full of supporters.... [H]is refusal to speak to EU leaders face-to-face is seen as a key factor in the split between the US-UK coalition and Europe. The source added: 'Relations between the EU and the US are worsening fast - this won't help.'"
Mar 8, 2003

Patriot II's Attack on Citizenship
FindLaw columnist and human rights advocate Joanne Mariner examines the citizenship-stripping provision of the proposed followup to the USA Patriot Act, named the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act" in the draft obtained by the Center for Public Integrity. Legally, Mariner says, the provision literally harkens back to the age of McCarthyism.

As for the goverment's purpose for including such a provision, Mariner writes: "One can only speculate. But perhaps, by expelling these people from the national community, the government believes that it can exclude them from public concern."

Noting that the Bush Administration's detention of American citizens Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi has received far more attention and criticism than its treatment of more than 600 foreign citizens similarly detained, Mariner speculates that perhaps Patriot II's citizenship-stripping provision is the Bush Administration's response to such criticism.

"The government would no doubt prefer that Padilla and Hamdi had no claim to U.S. citizenship," she adds. "But to give the government the power to pick and choose among its citizens would reflect an unconstitutional - one might even say un-American - understanding of citizenship."
Mar 3, 2003

You Fly, They Spy
James Ridgeway of The Village Voice reports on a proposed regulation by the Department of Transportation "that would would officially label every person who rides a commercial airliner as a potential terrorist and a threat to national security. By doing this, the department can gather all sorts of information and conduct background investigations of airline passengers that otherwise would require court orders."

Ridgeway cites the Disaster Center website maintained by Christopher Effgen: "'DOT,' Effgen writes, 'is proposing that passengers' names be entered into a computer program that will then match their name against names in law enforcement systems of records, financial and transactional databases, public source information, proprietary data, and be used to create risk assessment reports.'"
Feb 19, 2003

Patriot II: Why It's Even Scarier than the First Patriot Act
FindLaw columnist and U. Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry discusses the Ashcroft Justice Department's draft of its proposed follow-up to the USA Patriot Act. The new legislation is entitled the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act" but nicknamed "Patriot II." Ramasastry outlines what Patriot II would accomplish, if enacted, and warns that it sweeps far too broadly, threatening First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Freedom of Information Act, and privacy rights alike.
Feb 17, 2003

ACLU Section-by-Section Analysis of PATRIOT Act II
This "interested persons memo" from ACLU Legislative Counsel Timothy H. Edgar provides a comprehensive analysis of the Justice Department's draft "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003" legislation, also known as "Patriot Act II." Notes the report's introduction:

"The draft legislation, dated January 9, 2003, grants sweeping powers to the government, eliminating or weakening many of the checks and balances that remained on government surveillance, wiretapping, detention and criminal prosecution even after passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. No. 107-56, in 2001."
Feb 14, 2003

DOT Proposal To Amend Privacy Act of 1974: System of Records
The full text of the proposed regulation to collect information and conduct background investigations of all airline passengers traveling "to, from, or within the United States (U.S.) by passenger air transportation" and provide such information to a variety of organizations and individuals such as law enforcement agencies; non- Federal employees on assignment from the Federal government; other individuals and organizations ... to the extent necessary to elicit information pertinent to the investigation, prosecution, or enforcement of civil or criminal statutes, rules, regulations or orders; and to the news media.
Jan 15, 2003

Martinez v. City of Oxnard - U.S. Amicus Curiae Brief
Brief Submitted by Theodore B. Olson, Solicitor General Counsel of Record of the United States, in support of the City of Oxnard. Summary of Argument (legal cites removed):

"Respondent’s complaint about petitioner’s tactics in interviewing him, when statements elicited were never used against respondent in any forum, does not state a violation of respondent’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, much less a clearly established one. In a variety of contexts, this Court has made clear that so long as the government makes no use of a compelled statement in a criminal case, the Fifth Amendment is not violated."

" Similarly, this Court’s cases addressing the voluntariness of confessions under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause establish only a procedural 'right to be free of a conviction based upon a coerced confession' and reject the notion that, absent use of the coerced confession in a criminal proceeding, 'the victim has a legal grievance against the police.'"
Nov 26, 2002

Homeland Security Act of 2002 - Public Law No: 107-296
Thomas Link: Final text of H.R.5005 as passed by both Houses of Congress and signed into law on 11/25/02.
Nov 25, 2002

A 'no-fly zone' in our country?
From the SFGate: "WHAT'S THE difference between a terrorist and a peace activist? One uses violence to terrorize a civilian population; the other exercises our constitutional right to dissent from government policy. The question is, does our government understand the difference?

As part of last year's Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Congress ordered the creation of a "watch list" of persons who could be stopped from entering an airplane.... Since then, according to a recent Chronicle report, a number of peace activists have also been detained at airports.

What's so disturbing about these incidents is that neither The Chronicle nor these activists has been able to discover who maintains the secret "no fly" list to which many federal agencies contribute. Although the FBI told The Chronicle that the Transportation Security Administration keeps the list, the agency denies it.

Civil rights advocates are concerned that the government may be targeting peace activists as threats to "civil aviation or national security." Since the database of names is so widely shared throughout the government, there is, as ACLU attorney Jayashri Srikantiah told The Chronicle, "a large potential for abuse."

Some activists even wonder if the government has resurrected the types of lists of anti-war protestors that were compiled by the FBI during the Vietnam era."
Sep 30, 2002

Weapons of mass distraction
The UK Observer notes that just talking about invading Iraq is very useful for George W Bush. "It stops a public debate about his catastrophic record as Resident. Indeed, had President Clinton or any Democrat a similar record, impeachment would already be underway.

Bush walks away from treaties and willfully introduces anarchy into international security. Look at Republican issues. In all of these, Bush is a failure. Bush ignored warnings before 9/11, and has failed to hunt down Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership.

Although the US could shut down Afghan heroin production, Bush has chosen this moment to surrender in the War on Drugs. Bush has undermined the world economy, failed in advance of 9/11, failed to ensure that the military action that was taken was effective and surrendered in the war on drugs without having another plan. Impeach Bush Now! (http://democrats.com/impeach)
Sep 29, 2002

Agency disavows report on Iraq arms
The Chickenhawk in Chief, in his never-ending battle to create a "casuistry belli" for invading Iraq, said that a 1998 International Atomic Energy Agency report shows Iraq is a mere 6 months away from having nuclear weapons. But the International Atomic Energy Agency says there's no such report.

So White House spokesman Scott McClellan claimed Bush was talking about a 1991 report. And the International Atomic Energy Agency said they didn't issue a report in 1991, either. Bush lies, and when caught out, he lies again. Gosh. What a surprise.
Sep 27, 2002

No-fly blacklist snares political activists
From SFGate.com: "A federal 'No Fly' list, intended to keep terrorists from boarding planes, is snaring peace activists at San Francisco International and other U. S. airports, triggering complaints that civil liberties are being trampled. And while several federal agencies acknowledge that they contribute names to the congressionally mandated list, none of them could or would say which agency is responsible for managing the list.

One detainment forced a group of 20 Wisconsin anti-war activists to miss their flight, delaying their trip to meet with congressional representatives by a day." The case raises a frightening question: Are citizen activists who are exercising their right to dissent being lumped together with terrorists?

"What's scariest to me is that there could be this gross interruption of civil rights and nobody is really in charge," said Sarah Backus, an organizer of the Wisconsin group. "That's really 1984-ish."
Sep 27, 2002

Senator Robert Byrd: A Bumper Sticker War?
Senator Byrd delivered these remarks on the floor of the Senate in response to a September 25, 2002, Washington Post article that quoted President Bush as saying that the Democratic Senate was uninterested in the security of the American people and suggestions by the Vice President that a Republican Congress would be better for the war effort.

"This war strategy seems to have been hatched by a political strategist intent on winning the mid-term election at any cost -- even if that cost places this nation on the brink of battle. It is despicable that any President would attempt to use the serious matter of impending war as a tool in a campaign year.

"The blood of our sons and daughters -- our soldiers, sailors, and airmen -- have far more value than a few votes in a ballot box. There is nothing more sobering than the decision to go to war, but the Administration has turned the decision into a bumper-sticker election theme.... For the first time in the history of the Republic, the nation is considering a preemptive strike against a sovereign state....

"The American people have serious questions. The nation's allies have serious questions. And Members of this body have serious questions. These questions must be answered before going to war. And it is not unpatriotic to ask questions."
Sep 25, 2002

Senators Of Both Parties Support Al Gore
The Hill reports, "Senate Democrats praised Al Gore Tuesday for giving voice to their own qualms over...Bush's Iraq policy. Even as Gore spoke out, a growing number of Senate Republicans also expressed concern over what they viewed as an overly broad resolution crafted by the White House authorizing the use of force against Iraq.

Gore's warning in a San Francisco speech on Monday that a preemptive strike against Iraq could hurt the war on terrorism [made him] the first major party figure to assail Bush's policy. The speech became front-page news, giving Democrats an opening to bolster their go-slow arguments. It also raised the specter of Bush leading a divided nation into war."
Sep 25, 2002

Experts Fear Political Influence on Crime Data Agencies
Criminal justice experts are concerned that Attorney General John Ashcroft is moving to exert political control over the agencies within the department that collect crime statistics and grant crime research awards, reports the New York Times. "At stake, [experts] say, is the integrity of the crime statistics and the findings of scholars about what causes crime and how to reduce it.

These critics trace the shift to the passage in October of the U.S.A. Patriot Act [which] removed much of the freedom the directors of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Institute of Justice [and gave] their authority to the assistant attorney general for the Office of Justice Programs, Deborah Daniels, and her deputy, Tracy Henke."

The report notes that Daniels is the sister of OMB Director Mitch Daniels and Henke is a close associate of Mr. Ashcroft who, according to employees, was responsible for inserting language in the Patriot Act undercutting the two agencies' independence.
Sep 22, 2002

Schroeder Win Is Greeted by Vicious Attacks from Vitriolic U.S. Bush Media
The Bush folks and their paid toadies in the media tried their darnedest to derail Schroeder's reelection bid in Germany. Schroeder made it clear he opposes the Bush war. So, when Schroeder's Justice Minister Herta Daubler- Gmelin made a hard-hitting -- and very true -- comparision between Bush and Hitler's "wag the dogs of war" strategies to evade domestic issues, the Bush propaganda machine went into high gear.

Now, with the German people giving Schroeder the thumbs up, the Bush media is being far more vicious and damaging to US- German relations than Herta ever dreamed of being. The first article to appear in the NYT after Schroeder's win predicted his government won't last a year. This was eventually toned down but remained aggressively nasty.

Will Bush add Germany to his Axis of Evil and seek a "Regime Change" - Venezuela style?
Sep 22, 2002

Republicans Block Homeland Security Vote in Senate
"Senate Republicans backed the Bush administration's adamant stance against collective bargaining rights and civil service protections for the 170,000 wokers slated to make up a proposed Homeland Security Department," writes the AFL-CIO in its report on the failure of the Democrats' motion to end debate and vote on the legislation.

"Under Senate rules, 60 votes were needed to bring Sen. Joseph Lieberman's (D-Conn.) homeland security legislation (S. 2452) to a vote. The move to stop debate and vote on the measure failed 50-49. Lieberman and Senate Democrats support creation of a homeland security agency and are baffled at the administration's refusal to respect the workers' rights".

"Senate Republicans now are expected to attempt to pass a version of homeland security legislation similar to President George W. Bush's proposal, and a House-passed version gives the president unrestricted authority to strip workers of their collective bargaining rights and civil service protections."
Sep 20, 2002

Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
The Sunday Herald reports that the Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq even before they took power.

"The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power."

The Sunday Herald's report notes that the plan "supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'," names China, North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as "dangerous regimes" and, ominiously, hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons that can target specific genotypes, as a "politically useful tool."
Sep 15, 2002

U.S. Drops Bid to Strengthen Germ Warfare Accord
At EXACTLY the same time Bush is demanding W-ar against Iraq because it "might" have biological weapons (that were provided by the US under Bush I), Bush is KILLING the international Biological Weapons Convention against germ warfare.

"The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, which has been ratified by the United States and 143 other countries, bans the development, stockpiling and production of germ warfare agents, but has no enforcement mechanism. Negotiations on legally binding measures to enforce compliance have been underway in Geneva for seven years. The administration stunned its allies last December by proposing to end the negotiators' mandate."

Why does Bush oppose an international inspection system? It's simple - because the US is the world's biggest manufacturer of biological weapons.
Sep 15, 2002

Overview of Changes to Legal Rights
From AP/Newsday:

*FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Govt may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.

*FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Govt has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.

*FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Govt may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the Govt subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

*RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Govt may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

*FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Govt may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause.

*RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Govt may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

*RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them."
Sep 5, 2002

Why the F.I.S.A. Court Was Right to Rebuke Ashcroft
FindLaw columnist Anita Ramasastry examines the unprecedented late August ruling agains the government by the FISA Court -- the secret federal court responsible for reviewing government requests to spy on terrorism suspects.

The ruling refused to approve of certain procedures proposed by Attorney General Ashcroft which amounted to directing domestic criminal investigators and prosecutors to use counterintelligence operations to do an "end run" around the Fourth Amendment.

By, in effect, channelling their investigations through the looser restrictions on counterintelligence operations, domestic criminal investigators could avoid such pesky requirements as providing probable cause to obtain a search warrant. An added bonus would be that the subject of the warrant need not be notified when his property is being, or has been, searched, or why.
Sep 4, 2002

Congress Returns From Recess, and So Does the Partisanship
From the New York Times: "The Senate's monthlong vacation from partisan floor fights ended today moments after the Pledge of Allegiance, as members stiffened their refusal to compromise over worker rights in the proposed Homeland Security Department ... Republican senators, backed by a clear veto threat from the White House today, said President Bush could never accept the Democratic version of the department that the Senate began debating this morning...."

"Democrats, led by the majority leader, Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, argued just as forcefully that the protection of the 170,000 workers to be transferred to the department was an issue on which they were not prepared to yield. Mr. Daschle accused the administration of trying 'a power grab of unprecedented magnitude' over union and civil service rights and said Democrats would not roll over on the issue."
Sep 3, 2002

Prosecuting Suspected Supporters Of Terrorist Groups
"Imagine that you support a political cause ... and you send money to a group that works to further this cause. Now imagine that the State Department believes that the group that you have funded is engaged in terrorism. Imagine that you are criminally prosecuted for having provided material support to that group, and face a punishment of up to ten years in prison. But imagine, in addition, that you know the group you support does not engage in terrorism ... and can prove it.

"Whoops: ... According to the relevant legal provisions, if you are prosecuted for funding a group that the State Department has classified as terrorist, you are barred from challenging the designation in court. So imagine that you are in prison."

So writes Findlaw columnist Joanne Mariner in this critique of the "Material Support" law, its vulnerability to political manipulation, and the role Federal courts have played in protecting the right to due process for both groups and individuals charged under the law.
Sep 2, 2002

Do Hamdi and Padilla Need Company?
FindLaw columnist and U. Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry explains the facts and law relating to Attorney General John Ashcroft's recent proposal to create internment camps. Under the proposal, those whom the government decides are U.S. citizen combatants against the U.S. in the war on terrorism will be indefinitely detained at the camps, and will be unable to exercise basic constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.

Ramasastry discusses the situations of Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla, U.S. citizens who are due to be placed in such camps. She also surveys the relevant Supreme Court precedents -- and the crucial 1971 federal statute that the American Bar Association believes renders the camps illegal.
Aug 21, 2002

Who Decides Whether Hamdi, Or Any Citizen, Is An Enemy Combatant?
FindLaw columnist and Columbia law professor Michael Dorf discusses the government's positions -- both substantive and procedural -- in the case of Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen captured during the Afghanistan conflict.

The government claims Hamdi was a member of the Taliban and thus an enemy combatant. (Enemy combatants can be detained indefinitely without the right to a lawyer.)

Dorf reviews its arguments, and criticizes, in particular, the government's contention that the military alone -- without judicial review -- has the right to determine whether Hamdi was indeed an enemy combatant.
Aug 21, 2002

Fear of Lawyers: The Cautionary Tale Of A Post- Sptember 11 Detainee
FindLaw columnist and human rights advocate Joanne Mariner discusses the case of Abdallah Higazy and its potential ramifications:

"What are the consequences of the government's fear of lawyers? The case of Abdallah Higazy, a post-September 11 detainee held on a material witness warrant, provides a cautionary tale. It suggests that the desired atmosphere for interrogations is one of intimidation rather than trust, and that the denial of legal counsel may result in injustice rather than the collection of accurate information."

As Mariner points out, one or more of these cases will surely make it to the Supreme Court: "It would be premature to predict how the Court will rule on this important question. It is worth noting, however ... [that] the majority opinions in both the 2001 case of Texas v. Cobb and the 1991 case of McNeil v. Wisconsin seemed to assume that defense lawyers tend to obstruct, rather than promote, justice."
Aug 19, 2002

Justice Dept. Balks at Effort to Study Antiterror Powers
"The Justice Department has rebuffed House Judiciary Committee efforts to check up on its use of new antiterrorism powers," reports Adam Clymer of the New York Times.

The Justice Department's response to a list of about 50 questions, including questions regarding the Department's use of "roving" surveillance and demands to libraries and bookstores for patron's records, was a letter stating that the information was classified and that the Justice Department would send replies to the House Intelligence Committee.

According to Clymer's report, Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the Committee, called the response "yet another shot in this administration's ongoing war against open and accountable government." He said Mr. Ashcroft was telling Congress that "his activities are not to be oversighted."
Aug 14, 2002

U.S. Defies Judge on Enemy Combatant
The Justice Department has defied U.S. District Judge Robert G. Doumar's order to provide him with documents that would have supported the government's classification of American citizen Yaser Esam Hamdi, captured in Afghanistan, as an "enemy combatant," reports the Washington Post.

The judge's order was issued following the decision by the 4th Circuit Court on the government's appeal of Doumar's earlier orders to allow Hamdi to meet with a lawyer.

According to the Post, "The opinion, written by Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, advised Doumar that '...it is the President who has been charged to use force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines were responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks' [but added] 'that some judicial review is necessary, otherwise 'any American citizen alleged to be an enemy combatant could be detained indefinitely without charges or counsel.'"
Aug 7, 2002

FBI Leak Probe Irks Lawmakers
"FBI agents have questioned nearly all 37 members of the Senate and House intelligence committees and have asked many if they would be willing to submit to lie detector tests as part of a broad investigation into leaks of classified information related to the Sept. 11 attacks," reports the Washington Post.

"Experts in the separation of powers said yesterday that the FBI investigation raised serious concerns about whether lawmakers would feel free to aggressively review the performance of intelligence agencies and the FBI. 'Now the FBI can open dossiers on every member and staffer and develop full information on them. It creates a great chilling effect on those who would be critical of the FBI,' said Charles Tiefer, a University of Baltimore law professor and former House deputy general counsel."
Aug 2, 2002

Wider Military Role in U.S. Is Urged
"The four-star general in charge of defending the United States against attack said he would favor changes in existing law to give greater domestic powers to the military to protect the country against terrorist strikes. The Bush administration has directed lawyers in the Departments of Justice and Defense to review the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and any other laws that sharply restrict the military's ability to participate in domestic law enforcement. Any changes would be subject to Congressional approval."

Let's see, Bush has brought us the Constitution-shredding USA Patriot Act, Military Tribunals, a US Citizen held as an 'enemy combatant' against his rights until the 'end' of the War on Terrorism (whenever that will be), the TIPS programming to get Americans spying on their neighbors, the Office of Fatherland...er...Homeland Security, harassment and imprisonment of protestors for exercising their First Amendment rights, Concentration Camps in Guatanamo and Afghanistan...
Jul 21, 2002

Arabs in U.S. could be held, official warns
"A member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission said in Detroit on Friday he could foresee a scenario in which the public would demand internment camps for ArabAmericans if Arab terrorists strike again in this country. If there's a future terrorist attack in America 'and they come from the same ethnic group that attacked the World Trade Center, you can forget about civil rights,' commission member Peter Kirsanow said.

"The reason, he said, is that 'the public would be less concerned about any perceived erosion of civil liberties than they are about protecting their own lives.' Kirsanow, who was appointed to the commission last year by President [sic] George W. Bush, said after the session that he personally doesn't support such camps and the government would never envision them [?].

"He said he was merely saying public opinion would so strongly favor the idea that it would be difficult to prevent." Sounds like Ollie North's old EMPD plan for camps (Enter 'fema' in the Democrats.com search engine).
Jul 20, 2002

Alabama Activates Tank Unit
A report from the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer:

"A day after President Bush's release of a homeland defense strategy calling for the possible domestic use of U.S. military forces, Alabama activated a 300-soldier Army National Guard tank battalion as part of a homeland defense force. In a statement released Wednesday, Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman said the Ozark, Ala.-based 1st Battalion, 131st Armor "is equipped with modern battle tanks, the M1A1 Abrams [and] will serve in the homeland defense role within the United States."

In addition to the tank battalion, 200 guardsmen from Special Forces units based in Auburn and Huntsville were activated and "will conduct post- mobilization training and then deploy to undisclosed locations in support of the war on terrorism," Siegelman said."
Jul 18, 2002

Using the Freedom of Information Act: A Step-by- Step Guide
This is an html version of the 1997 guide from the ACLU. A printed version of the guide can also purchased for distribution to groups and individuals without web access.

Both versions include names and addresses of groups which offer free or low-cost assistance, and the addresses to which freedom of information requests should be sent for various federal agencies (some of the names, addresses and/or links are outdated, however).
Jul 6, 2002

Critic of FBI's Anthrax Investigation Makes Her Case to Key Senate Staffers
Salon's Anthony York writes, "The scientist who has been a persistent thorn in the FBI's side over its handling of the anthrax investigation finally got her audience in Congress this week. As the FBI continues to investigate who was behind domestic anthrax attacks last fall, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg came to Capitol Hill to brief Senate staff members about her own widely disseminated theories of who may be responsible -- and how the FBI has botched the search for the anthrax mailer...."

"The meeting, which was requested by Rosenberg, lasted about 90 minutes. After Rosenberg left, Senate staff talked to FBI representatives for an additional 45 minutes." But no one will say whether Rosenberg convinced the staffers that a disgruntled government biowarfare scientist (or CIA contractor) is to blame.
Jun 21, 2002

The I-Said-So Test
The Washington Post writes, "the Justice Department acknowledges formally that the courts retain the authority to review a petition challenging the legality of a citizen's detention -- a basic tenet of U.S. liberty. But it contends that military detainees, even citizens, have 'no right of access to counsel to challenge their detention'..."

"If this is correct, any American could be locked up indefinitely, without a lawyer, on the president's say-so. You don't have to believe that Mr. Hamdi is innocent to see grave peril in this. The Constitution's checks and balances don't contemplate blind trust in the wisdom or good faith of the president. And the courts must not acquiesce in Mr. Bush's claim that they are powerless to ensure the lawfulness of presidential behavior."
Jun 21, 2002

GOP Monitoring Lobbyists' Politics
Republicans are researching the party affiliation and political contributions of hundreds of lobbyists in Washington, part of a campaign that could deny government access and prime lobbying jobs to Democrats, according to people familiar with the project.

Copies of the bulky dossier, being compiled by conservative activist Grover Norquist and other prominent Republican lobbyists, will be given to top White House officials and GOP lawmakers when completed, the sources said. Democrats expressed outrage that Republicans were politically profiling at best -- and blacklisting at worst -- the denizens of K Street, Washington's main enclave for lobbyists.

Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) said his lobbyist friends have cautioned him that Republicans are pressuring firms to purge Democrats.
Jun 10, 2002

Preemption to Be Military Policy
The Bush administration is developing a new strategic doctrine that moves away from the Cold War pillars of containment and deterrence toward a policy that supports preemptive attacks against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Some defense analysts said preemption carries the risk of causing a crisis to escalate quickly by increasing pressure on both sides to act sooner rather than later -- forcing them, in the parlance of the nuclear chess game, to "use it or lose it." "Preemption is attractive on the surface," said defense analyst Harlan Ullman. But he added: "As one gets deeper, it gets more and more complicated and dangerous."
Jun 10, 2002

McKune v. Lile (No. 00-1187) Fifth Amendment "Eviscerated" (per Dissent)
Respondent was convicted of rape and related crimes. A few years before his scheduled release, prison officials ordered respondent to participate in a Sexual Abuse Treatment Program (SATP) which required him admit to the crimes for which he had been sentenced, and detail all prior sexual activities, regardless of whether the activities were criminal offenses which could be prosecuted.

The information obtained in the program is not considered privileged, and can be used against the participant in future criminal proceedings. Refusing to participate in the SATP would result in the imposition of the same sanctions imposed on prisoners who commit offenses such as theft, sodomy, riot, arson, or assault.

In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas, (with a concurrence by O'Connor) concluded the threatened penalty constituted "minimal incentives to participate" in the SATP and did not amount to compelled self-incrimination.

In the dissent, Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer argued both that the penalties were severe enough to constitute coercion, and that even if they weren't, an order to participate backed up by a threat of sanctions for refusing represented the "evisceration of a constitutional right.... Until today the Court has never characterized a threatened harm as 'a minimal incentive.' Nor have we ever held that a person who has made a valid assertion of the privilege may nevertheless be ordered to incriminate himself and sanctioned for disobeying such an order. This is truly a watershed case."
Jun 10, 2002

Analysis of Changes to Attorney General Guidelines
An "open memo" from Marvin J. Johnson, Legislative Counsel for the ACLU Washington National Office, prepared in response to Attorney General Ashcroft's new Guidelines on General Crimes, Racketeering Enterprise and Terrorism Enterprise Investigations.

"Sweeping away protections that have been in place since the 1970s, the new Guidelines allow the government to spy on domestic groups even when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing.... It is important to note that when conducting terrorism investigations the FBI is subject to two sets of guidelines: the first is a classified set of guidelines for foreign intelligence and international terrorism; the second is an unclassified set of guidelines on general crimes, racketeering and domestic terrorism...."

The Attorney General announced changes to the Domestic Guidelines rather than the Foreign Guidelines. This suggests these changes have little or nothing to do with September 11: the investigation of al Qaeda and its activities in the U.S., because it is a group originating abroad, would be conducted largely under the Foreign Guidelines."
Jun 5, 2002

A Conservative Takes on Ashcroft
There are those who wrongly believe that the debate over civil liberties in this country breaks along ideological grounds. It's an easy mistake to make: Especially when Attorney General John Ashcroft, a certified -- and, arguably, certifiable -- conservative is treating the Constitution like it was a threat to America. To be sure, criticism of Ashcroft's excesses has not fit into the easy stereotypes that are often used to analyze Congress.

US Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who broke with Democrats to back Ashcroft's nomination for attorney general, cast the sole Senate vote against Ashcroft's anti-terrorism legislation. Georgia conservative Bob Barr and California liberal Maxine Waters, bitter foes during the Clinton impeachment fight of 1998, held a joint press conference to condemn the Bush administration's disregard for civil liberties.

That opposition to Ashcroft's assault on the Constitution does not follow predictable patterns became evident last week, when House Judiciary Committee Chair James Sensenbrenner, R-Wi., emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of the administration's latest initiatives in the ever- expanding domestic "war on terrorism."
Jun 4, 2002

Ashcroft eases domestic spy rules
Blaming "bureaucratic red tape" for the FBI's 9/11 failures, the top lawman essentially tells the public, "Trust us." Should we? The new guidelines give local field agents more autonomy to conduct counter- terrorism investigations without approval from Washington.

Ashcroft said the new rules would also allow agents to monitor and infiltrate religious and political groups suspected of terrorist activities, Ashcroft went to great lengths to point out that such infiltration would only be permitted "for the purpose of detecting or preventing terrorism or other criminal activities."

Civil libertarians worry that the term "terrorism" is too broadly defined, and the new guidelines essentially give the FBI carte blanche to spy on domestic political groups. So, how does Ashcroft define "terrorism"? "Well, obviously, terrorism has definitions," Ashcroft said. But Justice Department officials said they could not immediately provide a working definition of what would be considered "terrorism" by the department.
May 31, 2002

Ashcroft Knew
After Sept. 11, you'll recall, Attorney General Ashcroft rushed to Capitol Hill with a hodgepodge of legislation to grant the FBI, INS and federal prosecutors powers to spy, jail and interrogate far greater than in any past war or national emergency.

The attacks happened, we were repeatedly told, because the FBI and CIA were hamstrung by liberal reformers back in the '70s.... Only such sweeping measures, Ashcroft and a parade of administration officials insisted, could prevent another Sept. 11. But the revelations of the past week suggest that the FBI & Co. needed fewer new powers than we were told.... Seen in this light, the truly scandalous nature of the who-knew coverup becomes clear. Who knew?

Ashcroft knew. Each time the attorney general went to Congress, insisting that only broader domestic spying and detention laws could make the country safer, he knew the truth: that in the weeks before Sept. 11, the White House and FBI, already well-equipped with intelligence and investigative tools, dropped the ball.

But for months after the attacks Ashcroft helped cover up the government's embarrassing lapses while aggressively pursuing a dubious domestic security agenda which courts are only now beginning to question. If the performance of Ashcroft's agencies before Sept. 11 has shaken public confidence in our national security apparatus, the attorney general's actions since then have done more to damage the rule of law than to protect us from further terrorism.
May 23, 2002

The Enemy Within?
"There are really only a few places weapons-grade anthrax could have come from, including Dugway [Army Proving Grounds in Utah], Fort Detrick, and other labs contracted by the military," said David Fidler, a University of Indiana law professor who has written about the legal implications of biological terrorism. "In a way, you have one arm of the executive branch investigating another.

And the FBI doesn't have the built-in competencies to conduct an investigation alone which is based on public health principles and science." The bureau's investigators are not confident that other government agencies, such as the CIA and the Department of Defense, have let them in on the full range of bio- defense work they have commissioned.
May 20, 2002

U.S. to Renounce Its Role in Pact for World Tribunal
The Bush administration has decided to renounce formally any involvement in a treaty setting up an international criminal court and is expected to declare that the signing of the document by the Clinton administration is no longer valid, government officials said today.

The "unsigning" of the treaty, which is expected to be announced on Monday, will be a decisive rejection by the Bush White House of the concept of a permanent tribunal designed to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and other war crimes.

In addition, other officials said, the United States will simultaneously assert that it will not be bound by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a 1969 pact that outlines the obligations of nations to obey other international treaties.
May 5, 2002

Ashcroft's power to detain without charges continues without oversight
When the USA Patriot Act passed in October, it authorized long-term immigrant detentions at the attorney general's say-so but included at least some due process: Immigrants could not be held more than seven days without charge or the start of deportation proceedings; and every six months the attorney general had to review the terror-suspect certifications and report to the judiciary committees in Congress.

It was one way Congress could provide some oversight and accountability. So why hasn't the department certified at least some of them as alien terror suspects under the USA Patriot Act? Apparently, Ashcroft didn't have to. He found he could lock immigrants up secretly and for long periods without this new statutory power.

Ashcroft has simply written himself new regulations that incorporate all the USA Patriot Act detention powers and more, but without the pesky requirement that he report to Congress.
May 5, 2002

Declaring War Is More Than a Formality
Bush administration officials are openly discussing the prospect of another military venture: an invasion of Iraq sometime between September and next January by anywhere from 70,000 to 250,000 American troops -- not only without a declaration of war but also without any provocation against the United States or its citizens.

Despite the clarity of Bush's rallying cry to defeat evil and stop terrorism, an invasion of Iraq would bring a new set of confusing policy questions -- and dangers -- that merit vigorous and public debate.

Would an attack be rewarded with quick success? Would opposition from Arab friends and European allies be sustained and costly? Would an invasion result in greater instability in Iraq and the region than American planners foresee? And what are the wider diplomatic implications of the United States taking preemptive action against another government, without any direct act of belligerence by that government against our nation?
May 5, 2002

Bush seeking tighter security in academia
At the direction of President Bush, White House officials have been meeting behind closed doors to debate an anti-terrorism policy that would keep some foreign students from studying "sensitive" academic subjects. Universities say such a policy would threaten academic freedom and the core of the university mission.

Professor Christos Papadimitriou, associate chairman of the Computer Science Department at UC Berkeley, is concerned about the suggestion that certain students may be weeded out. "There is no way that we can restrict our courses so that only American students or students from certain countries that think the right way can study, " he said.
May 2, 2002

Protesters Detained in Milwaukee: Are You on the No Fly List?
Alia Kate, 16, a high school student in Milwaukee, wanted to go to Washington, D.C., for the protests Saturday, April 20. But she didn't make it onto the Midwest Express flight. Neither did many other Wisconsin activists who were supposed to be on board.

What tripped them up was a computerized "No Fly Watch List" that the federal government now supplies to all the airlines. The airlines are required to check their passenger lists against that computerized "No Fly" list. "The name or names of people in that group came up in a watch list that is provided through the federal government and is provided for everyone who flies," says Sergeant Chuck Coughlin of the Milwaukee sheriff's department.

"I was shocked," Kate says. "I couldn't believe what was happening, that they could detain us long enough for us to miss our flight in an apparent attempt to keep us in Milwaukee. It was sort of McCarthy-style the way they have the names appearing on a list and targeting certain people, dissenters especially. I felt my rights had been violated."
Apr 27, 2002

Bush's Bay of Piglets
If the US was the villain in the Venezuelan coup, Latin America's much-derided leaders were the heroes. While the US may not have been involved in the final timetable for the coup, it knew that one was imminent and clearly gave it a green light. While the world's attention was on the Middle East, the coup was greeted with speedy acceptance by the White House.

One wonders if a Zapatista force had overthrown the elected Mexican President Fox whether Mr Bush would have responded by saying that he hoped Mr Fox had "learned his lesson". President Fox and the often derided Latin American heads of state who behaved like statesmen. They have little love for Chavez or his policies, but they recognise a military takeover when they see one.

Fox swiftly condemned it and said he would not recognise an unelected government. The secretary general of the Organisation of American States, the Colombian Cesar Gaviria, did the same.
Apr 24, 2002

Living in a police state - Michigan
Two new Michigan laws, which took effect Monday as part of anti-terror efforts, also shield from public scrutiny the reasons for police searches. Defense lawyers and civil libertarians are outraged at the laws, which make search warrants and supporting documents such as affidavits non-public records. That means the public, the press, and in some cases even the person accused of the crime, can't know why the police entered a home without permission.
Apr 24, 2002

Assisted Suicide And Democracy
Attorney J. Paul Oetken defends last week's decision by Oregon federal district judge Robert E. Jones reaffirming the validity of Oregon's assisted suicide law -- and therefore rejecting Attorney General John Ashcroft's determination that the law conflicts with the federal Controlled Substances Act. Oetken also argues that the conflict between Jones's and Ashcroft's interpretations of the law is not centrally about federalism, as some have claimed.
Apr 23, 2002

If you want a free vote, ask nicely
When asked whether the Bush administration now recognised President Chavez as Venezuela's legitimate President, a spokesman for President Bush conceded that although Mr Chavez 'was democratically elected' one had to bear in mind that 'legitimacy is something that is conferred not just by a majority of the voters, however' [sic].

Clearly, this involves a fundamental re-evaluation of what we understand by democracy, and I offer here some thoughts on the principles -- other than counting votes -- which might confer legitimacy. The truth is that democracy is not really served by having elections at all. That is why the Bush administration was so prompt to endorse the presidency of Pedro Carmona Estanga, the head of Venezuela's most important business association, who promised faithfully not to hold any elections for a year.
Apr 21, 2002

Venezuela coup linked to Bush team
The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. Washington's involvement resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere, and deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan.

One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair. Otto Reich, who had reported directly to Reagan's National Security Aide, Colonel Oliver North, is now Bush's key policy-maker for Latin America. According to sources, Reich had been receiving visits from the Venezuelans plotting the coup, including Carmona himself, at the White House for several months.
Apr 21, 2002

Tom Ridge's Non-Testimonial Appearance: Another Nixon-Style Move
George Bush's latest Nixonian type maneuver is refusing to send former Governor Tom Ridge, his homeland security adviser, to Capitol Hill to testify about the $38 billion appropriation request. The striking parallels to the dubious dealings of the Nixon administration go beyond the refusal to testify itself.

The White House Office of Homeland Security was created to give Americans both real safety and reassurance. Yet its structure, characterized by secrecy, is actually reason for concern. Most troubling is its similarity to the Nixon model, which was designed to hide abuses of power.
Apr 12, 2002

In the Name of Homeland Security, Telecom Firms Are Deluged With Subpoenas
WASHINGTON -- Operating under new powers to combat terrorism, law enforcement agencies are making unprecedented demands on the telecommunications industry to provide information on subscribers, company attorneys say. Law enforcement officials have begun to press sources to deliver information without a formal subpoena, according to company lawyers.

"Investigators have quickly learned that they don't need to leave a paper trail anymore so nobody can judge the lawfulness of a request," Gidari said. Peter Swire, a law professor at Ohio State University who served as a privacy counselor to the Clinton White House, said he is hearing complaints about "requests for cooperation from law enforcement agencies with the idea that it is unpatriotic if the companies insist too much on legal subpoenas first."
Apr 10, 2002

Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes
President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11, congressional and White House sources told CNN. The request was made at a private meeting with congressional leaders Tuesday morning.

Sources said Bush initiated the conversation. He asked that only the House and Senate intelligence committees look into the potential breakdowns among federal agencies that could have allowed the terrorist attacks to occur, rather than a broader inquiry that some lawmakers have proposed, the sources said. Tuesday's discussion followed a rare call to Daschle from Vice President Dick Cheney last Friday to make the same request.
Jan 29, 2002

Ashcroft’s Failures Deserve a Hearing
Writes Joe Conason in the New York Observer: "In Washington’s ritualistic bloodletting style, Mr. Mueller is plainly being set up for sacrifice. The Wall Street Journal editorial page calls upon him to resign; right-wing pundit Robert Novak reports that "he is becoming a candidate for the first head to roll."

This is premature and patently unfair -- and ill-advised at a time when national law enforcement is already in turmoil. Mr. Mueller may well deserve harsh scrutiny, but there are other Bush appointees who merit such scrutiny even more, and who should likewise be interrogated sharply by Congress and the press.

At the top of the list is Mr. Mueller’s immediate superior, Attorney General John Ashcroft, who may well be the single most culpable official still in government. From what we know of Mr. Ashcroft’s conduct since he assumed office last year, he shrugged off the terrorist threat in favor of his own small-time agenda....

It should be recalled, too, that during the crucial months leading up to the Al Qaeda attack, Mr. Freeh had quit and Mr. Mueller had not yet arrived. In a real sense, Mr. Ashcroft was in charge of domestic security while warnings were ignored or misplaced and opportunities to prevent tragedy were lost."


Analysis Of The Online Surveillance Provisions Of The USA PATRIOT Act
This Electronic Frontier Foundation analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act covers only the sections relating to electronic activities and surveillance. From the EFF's inroduction:

"The civil liberties of ordinary Americans have taken a tremendous blow with this law, especially the right to privacy in our online communications and activities. Yet there is no evidence that our previous civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists.

In fact, in asking for these broad new powers, the government made no showing that the previous powers of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to spy on US citizens were insufficient to allow them to investigate and prosecute acts of terrorism."

"The process leading to the passage of the bill did little to ease these concerns. To the contrary, they are amplified by the inclusion of so many provisions that, instead of aimed at terrorism, are aimed at nonviolent, domestic computer crime. In addition, although many of the provisions facially appear aimed at terrorism, the Government made no showing that the reasons they failed to detect the planning of the recent attacks or any other terrorist attacks were the civil liberties compromised with the passage of USAPA."
Oct 31, 2001

USA PATRIOT ACT - Public Law 107-56
Thomas Link: Final version of H.R. 3162 as passed by both Houses and signed into law on 10/26/01.
Oct 26, 2001

Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century
The September 2000 report from the "Project for the New American Century," the foreign policy think tank founded by former Reagan and current Bush administration officials and advisors such as Elliott Abrams, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. The report calls for an agressive effort to impose a global "Pax Americana" advantageous to American interests.
Sep, 2000

Karen http://farleyfiles.com

© Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 by MikeHersh.com and identified authors. MikeHersh.com invites you to broadcast any material at this site, provided you identify the source as MikeHersh.com. All print, Internet, email and other summaries, excerpts or other written reproductions must include this blurb and a link to http://www.MikeHersh.com.