James Bovard, in an article entitled "Surveillance State" in the May 19th issue of the American Conservative outlines the problems and loss of freedoms dictated by the passage of the Patriot Act following 9/11.
Within days of the Twin Towers' collapse, Ashcroft began strong-arming Congress to enact sweeping anti-terrorism legislation—and Americans seemed ready to trade a measure of liberty to restore their shaken security. The month of the attacks, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found 78 percent willing to have Internet activity monitored. The administration took this as free rein, moving swiftly to enact the Patriot (Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act. Some of its provisions were simply updates to existing law. As. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), the only senator to vote against the act observed, "It made sense to stiffen penalties and lengthen or eliminate statutes of limitation for certain terrorist crimes." But the Patriot Act goes far beyond "good government" amendments.It empowers federal agents to cannibalize Americans' e-mail with Carnivore wiretaps*, allows federal agents to commandeer library records, and requires banks to surrender personal account information. It also authorizes federal agents to confiscate bulk cash from travelers who fail to fill out Customs Service forms disclosing how much money they are taking out of or into the U.S. and allows the attorney general to order long-term detentions if he has "reasonable grounds to believe that the alien is engaged in any activity that endangers the national security of the United States." Last year alone, Ashcroft personally issued 170 emergency domestic spying warrants, permitting agents to carry out wiretaps and search homes and offices for up to 72 hours before requesting a search warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Just what does the Patriot Act allow?
Last January, an FBI agent entered a branch of the St. Louis Public Library and requested a list of all the sign-up sheets showing names of people who used library computers on Dec. 28, 2002. Even though the FBI agent did not have a warrant or subpoena, the library quickly surrendered the list of all users. The FBI acted because someone phoned in a tip that they "smelled something strange" about a library patron of Middle Eastern descent.
I wonder what smelled strange about him, his aftershave? Or maybe some citizen was concerned because someone of Middle Eastern descent had sufficient knowledge of computer operations as to actually use one? And the library just turned over everything without a fight? Was it this type of behavior that has them working to overturn portions of the law?
James Bovard says there was not any real necessity to pass the Patriot Act, that if the agents of the government were doing their job, there were already laws in place that could have assisted in detection of the activities that resulted in the 9/11 attack.
The government could have done a better job of tracking the terrorist suspects, but the feds had all the relevant information to detect and block the conspiracy to hijack four airplanes. The Joint House-Senate Intelligence Committee observed that the FBI's negligence "contributed to the United States becoming, in effect, a sanctuary for radical terrorists." Its investigation concluded, "It is at least a possibility that increased analysis, sharing and focus would have drawn greater attention to the growing potential for a major terrorist attack in the United States involving the aviation industry."But the administration rewarded failure by the FBI and intelligence agencies with bigger budgets, more power, and presidential commendations. There is nothing in the Patriot Act that can solve the problem of FBI agents who do not understand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or solve the shortage of CIA and National Security Agency employees who can read intercepted messages in the languages of prime terrorist threats. Neither does the legislation compensate for lackadaisical federal agents who failed to add promptly the names of al-Qaeda members to terrorism watch-lists or of analysts who ignored the cascading warnings of terrorists using stolen airplanes as flying bombs. The success of the 9/11 hijackers was due far more to a lack of government competence than to a shortfall in government power.
Patriot Act II is under consideration. James Bovard shows that the provisions are much broader than what Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo described as "filling in the holes" in the Patriot Act.
As a good Libertarian, almost any erosion of civil liberties disturbs me. What is peculiar is that this story was in the American Conservative, and not some liberal, leftist rag. When Conservatives get rankled over laws dealing with police powers, is that not a good sign the government might have stepped a bit too far on our rights?
attribution: TalkLeft who attributed: Buzzflash
*Almost immediately after the passage of the Patriot Act, I personally observed in several different groups that I visit here and there, that there would sometimes be posted a graphic that appeared to nothing but something written in Arabic. I did htink it might have been a way to get around Internet monitoring systems.
Posted by Tiger at May 20, 2003 03:44 PM | TrackBack