How typically off-key of Ashcroft. I hardly think that, “[t]he objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.” Seems to me that these are things we will be working on for a very long time but, hey, if it gets us an attorney general who cares a little more about civil liberties, so much the better.

Posted by: rdelephant at November 9, 2004 06:31 PM

rd - Would you care to expound on that a bit? Be specific. Please.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at November 9, 2004 10:08 PM

Well let’s see. How many terrorist attacks have there been in the US since Ashcroft was AG. The answer is zippo.

So, Ashcrofts statement is pretty much on the money. He certainly doesn’t mean that there’s no work left to done.

As far as these vague criticisms we constantly hear about Ashcroft violating peoples civil liberties, where are all these people whose civil liberties have been violated?

Name specific cases. The media should be reporting this stuff if it were happening. They certainly wouldn’t be giving Ashcroft any slack.

The reason that we’re not hearing about this stuff is because it’s not happening.

Posted by: Eye Doc at November 10, 2004 10:56 AM

And just exactly how much civil liberty to dead people enjoy, there Red?

Where are these massive violations of civil rights you and yours keep bloviating on? Just exactly how far down the slippery slope to a complete police state do you reckon we are?

One thing about Ashcroft: he knew he was going to get smacked about by the liberal media. Yet he still did his job. Part of the reason, IMHO for this resignation is that four years of doing a thankless task well is enough for just about anybody.

Here’s another question, red: What would Reno do? How would things differ with Reno as AG in the period after 9/11?

Stop the vague critiques and tell us exactly what you think should be done, the mechanics of it. and if you can’t then do us a favor and keep your uninformedness to yourself.

thanks.

Posted by: skip at November 10, 2004 04:49 PM

I don’t have time to write a complete thesis, but here are few. In the wake of 9/11 Muslim men, the vast majority of whom had done nothing wrong, were held, some in horrible conditions in U.S. jails, without access to lawyers or familes for an average period of 80 days. The vast majority were then quietly released without charges ever being brought or a judge ever having been seen.

John Ashcroft has written new rules which violates the attorney client privilege by allowing Justice Department officials to listen in on phone calls and other communications between an attorney and client suspected of terrorism (which has been so broadly defined by the Patriot Act as to sweep in a great deal of Constitutionally protected conduct, like giving to charities).

John Ashcroft was also the architect of the Patriot Act. God only knows everything it contains (much of which may well be fine), but the access to library records and the law enforcement infiltration of peaceful domestic organizations, seem to me a little over the top civil-liberties wise.

I also can’t name a single time Ashcroft came to the defense of anybody’s civil liberties, which is also part of his job description.

I am not saying Ashcroft is the demon that some have made him out to be, but as I said I would like to see an Attorney General with a little more concern for civil rights.

Posted by: rdelephant at November 10, 2004 06:17 PM

>

Ashcroft was most certainly NOT the architect of The Patriot Act.

What most people don’t seem to understand is that most of The Patriot Act has existed for decades. All The Patriot Act did for the most part was take a bunch of existing statutes and put them together as The Patriot Act. People think The Patriot Act is something new, but most of it is not.

As far as looking into people’s library records, that is something that law enforcement agencies have done for years when investigating other types of crimes besides terrorism. All The Patriot Act did was extend it to terrorism as well.

Plus, it takes a court order to get the records anyway, which means you need to explain to a judge why you need to get them.

For the most part people are worrying about nothing.

Posted by: Eye Doc at November 10, 2004 08:21 PM

Ashcroft was a key architect of the Patriot Act.

“Attorney General John Ashcroft, a key architect of the USA Patriot Act, will visit more than a dozen cities beginning next week to talk about the contentious law passed in the wake of the September 11 attacks, and how it has helped the Justice Department’s war on terrorism.”

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030812-111905-3851r.htm

The USA PATRIOT ACT (an acronym for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism”) of 2001 is 131 pages of legislation that expand the powers and rights of law enforcement. These expansions include roving wire taps and more access to the records of your internet service provider (ISP).

It also includes expansions to FISA - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This is an existing act that allows foreign governments to spy on Americans or foreign persons in the US. The expanded clauses allow skirting around US domestic surveillance limitations. For instance, obtaining a FISA wiretap against a US person where “probable cause” does not exist, but when the person is suspected to be an agent of a foreign government. The information can then be shared with the FBI, who were unable to wire tap without a court sanctioned warrant.
http://civilliberty.about.com/library/content/blPatriotAct.htm

Section 215: Access to Records Under Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA)
Allows an FBI agent to obtain a search warrant for “any tangible thing,” which can include books, records, papers, floppy disks, data tapes, and computers with hard drives.
Permits the FBI to compel production of library circulation records, Internet use records, and registration information stored in any medium.
Does not require the agent to demonstrate “probable cause,” the existence of specific facts to support the belief that a crime has been committed or that the items sought are evidence of a crime. Instead, the agent only needs to claim that he believes that the records he wants may be related to an ongoing investigation related to terrorism or intelligence activities, a very low legal standard.
Libraries or librarians served with a search warrant issued under FISA rules may not disclose, under of penalty of law, the existence of the warrant or the fact that records were produced as a result of the warrant. A patron cannot be told that his or her records were given to the FBI or that he or she is the subject of an FBI investigation.
Overrides state library confidentiality laws protecting library records.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/usapatriotactlibrary.htm#analysis

I think you are minimizing the effects of the Act.

Posted by: rdelephant at November 10, 2004 09:03 PM

Too bad the PATRIOT Act was written by the Clinton administration, but nice quote.

Seriously though, all you wet-back libs whine and moan about how your rights are being infringed upon, but what do you have to worry about? Are you a terrorist? Do you really care how people who want to a) cause terror b) maybe kill you, are treated? There are some oversights, and some parts of it that I don’t like, but all in all it was necessary. Besides, it expires this year anyway. If it’s such a big bad demon, why does it have an expiry date?

Posted by: Cailen at November 16, 2004 01:47 AM