Proudly introducing the BlatantlyProgressive BookShop!! Featuring affiliate links to

books and DVDs. Why Barnes&Noble rather than the well-known (& my own previous) “other” bookseller? Because that “other” book seller donated 59% of political contributions to Republicans and their causes of censorship and library records snooping in the 2003–04 election cycle—but Barnes&Noble donated 100% to Democratic candidates! Vote with your wallet—and while you're over at the Barnes&Noble website, take a few minutes to write some reviews — get that site as busy and informative as the “other,” less Democrat-friendly one.

Sections in the BlatantlyProgressive Bookshop:
• political realities
• looming religiosity
• from the belly of the beast
• bush family values
• 9/11
• bush foreign policy & the new world order
• capitalism, corporatism & globalization
• the environment
• progressive passion & commentary
• taking action
• always relevant
• DVDs

Writers, librarians, booksellers seek amendment to protect privacy of book buyers, borrowers
Mark Bryant, AP
SFGate.com, February 27, 2004

. . . “To our knowledge, there is not a single association, organization or company in our entire industry that supports Section 215 as it exists today,” said Phillip Bevis, founder of Arundel Books, which has stores in Seattle and Los Angeles and sells books online.

Section 215 does not specifically mention bookstores or libraries, but permits secret warrants for “books, records, papers, documents and other items” from businesses, hospitals or other organizations.

The Campaign for Reader Privacy is trying to collect a million signatures on petitions calling for amendment of the law. . . .

Part of Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional
Linda Deutsch
AP/Yahoo! News, January 26, 2004

LOS ANGELES - For the first time, a federal judge has declared unconstitutional a section of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations.

In a ruling handed down late Friday and made available Monday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said the ban is impermissibly vague in its wording. . . .

The case before the court involved five groups and two U.S. citizens seeking to provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish refugees in Turkey.

The Humanitarian Law Project said the plaintiffs were threatened with 15 years in prison if they advised groups on seeking a peaceful resolution of the Kurds' campaign for self-determination in Turkey.

The judge's ruling said the law, as written, does not differentiate between impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful, nonviolent means to achieve goals.

“The USA Patriot Act places no limitation on the type of expert advice and assistance which is prohibited and instead bans the provision of all expert advice and assistance regardless of its nature,” the judge said. . . .

With a whisper, not a bang 
Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law—stealthily
David Martin
San Antonio Current, December 24, 2003

By signing the bill on the day of Hussein's capture, Bush effectively consigned a dramatic expansion of the USA Patriot Act to a mere footnote. Consequently, while most Americans watched as Hussein was probed for head lice, few were aware that the FBI had just obtained the power to probe their financial records, even if the feds don't suspect their involvement in crime or terrorism.

The Bush Administration and its Congressional allies tucked away these new executive powers in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, a legislative behemoth that funds all the intelligence activities of the federal government. The Act included a simple, yet insidious, redefinition of "financial institution," which previously referred to banks, but now includes stockbrokers, car dealerships, casinos, credit card companies, insurance agencies, jewelers, airlines, the U.S. Post Office, and any other business “whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters.” . . .

See Final Vote Results for Roll Call 649 to find out how your Representative voted on this bill on November 20, 2003. In the Senate, with only a handful of Senators present the bill was passed by a procedure known as Unanimous Consent—a “voice vote”—on November 21, 2003, and there is no record of votes.

Bush's Counterterror Proposals Could Be a Hard Sell
Eric Lichtblau
New York Times, September 11, 2003

. . . Still, the political climate has changed markedly since the original Patriot Act was passed overwhelmingly by the House and Senate. Some 160 communities around the country have voiced formal objections to the legislation, civil rights groups have sued to have it overturned, and it has become a rallying point for Democratic presidential candidates on the campaign trail who say it smacks of Big Brother tactics.

In pushing for new counterterrorism authority, the White House appeared undaunted by the increasing attacks from both Republicans and Democrats over the Patriot Act and the government's expanded powers. . . .

A good summary of developments in the life of USA PATRIOT Act, indicating widespread resistance “from all over the country, and from some surprising places along the political spectrum”:

Refocusing on our rights
David Sarasohn
The Oregonian, August 3, 2003

. . . Just before leaving for summer camp, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a Republican amendment banning part of the Patriot Act, the sneak-and-peek section that lets Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department conduct secret searches of homes and offices.

The Freedom to Read Protection Act, which would limit the government's new power to demand library and bookstore records, now has 130 House co-sponsors. It took a leadership power play to keep it from a vote. A similar Senate bill was introduced Thursday by Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., the only senator to vote against the act in October 2001. . . .

Last month, Lane County became the seventh Oregon local jurisdiction—among 150 across the country, including three states—to pass a resolution protesting major elements of the act. Lane's resolution warns that the Patriot Act and other federal activities “threaten fundamental rights and liberties.”

Last week, the U.S. Senate sat on the terrorism futures market, the latest security inspiration of Adm. John Poindexter, after the Senate's unanimous squelch of his earlier idea, Total Information Awareness. Poindexter announced he would resign.

And Friday, Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, introduced a bill to put sharp limits on the Patriot Act, especially the government's new powers of search and surveillance without court order. . . .

[Alaa] Abunijem is president of the Islamic Center of Portland, and a plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. The section gives the Justice Department the power to demand records about individuals from businesses, churches, libraries and bookstores. It doesn't require reasonable cause or a court subpoena. (The orders are issued by a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.) The suit asks the federal court to “declare that Section 215 is unconstitutional under the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.”

Says Abunijem, a U.S. citizen since 1996, “under the USA Patriot Act, I do not have the right to know if the government is looking at the list of books I've borrowed from the library, examining my medical records or seeking information about me from my employer. And my employer, doctors and local librarian are all prohibited from even telling me if the FBI has asked for records relating to my family or me.”

One of the loudest opposing voices has been the American Library Association, which claims violations of its clients' privacy. A University of Illinois survey of libraries found 1,100 federal inquiries about borrowers under the act.

Besides lobbying Congress, the ALA advises members to destroy borrowing records quickly, making them subpoena-proof. Libraries all across the country have speeded up their procedures.

Resisting the Patriot Act, lawyers file suits, members of Congress introduce bills. Librarians just hit the "kill" button. . . .

The Murkowski-Wyden bill introduced Friday trails after it an intriguing list of supporters, including such conservative mainstays as Americans for Tax Reform, the Free Congress Foundation and the Rutherford Institute.

Such hostility seems to have warded off Patriot Act II—which, according to an Internet draft, would give the attorney general the power to strip citizenship from people considered suspicious. It's helped block efforts to make the temporary parts of the Patriot Act permanent.

To that idea, House Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., responds, “Over my dead body.” . . .

Monday June 9, 2003

On June 4 Attorney General John Ashcroft appeared before the House Judiciary Committee, comprising 21 Republicans and 16 Democrats, to make a case for expansion of the powers of the USA PATRIOT Act (I have added a description of and link to the House Judiciary Democrats Home Page below; these Democrats appear to be important allies in the fight against eroding civil liberties) :

Ashcroft Seeks Expanded Death Penalty
Jesse J. Holland, AP
Guardian Unlimited, June 5, 2003

WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General John Ashcroft urged Congress on Thursday to expand the new anti-terror law to permit the government to hold more suspects indefinitely and extend the death penalty to more people accused of terrorist crimes.

He also said the current anti-terror law, which critics say is cramping citizens' legitimate rights, needs to be expanded to let prosecutors bring charges against anyone who helps or works with suspected terrorist groups as “material supporters.” . . .

He did not immediately give details on his three proposals. And Justice officials indicated it was unclear whether the Bush administration would request any legislative proposals before the end of the congressional session.

House Democrats, meanwhile, complained about the way the Justice Department has used its current anti-terrorism powers, especially considering a department inspector general report Tuesday that criticized the government's treatment of illegal immigrants held after the attacks.

. . . Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, said, “My fear is that we may go to the point of changing the culture of America, the First Amendment protections and the Fourth Amendment protections.”

Added Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif.: “Some of us find that the collateral damage is greater than it needs to be in the conduct of this war.” . . .

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, had already issued a statement two days prior to Ashcroft's testimony in response to the Inspector General's report:

This report confirms my worst fears about the unaccountable Ashcroft Justice Department, that its war on terrorism is just a war on the Constitution and basic human dignities. This report presents stark evidence that the DOJ has deprived detainees of fundamental constitutional rights and has employed shocking and un-American tactics of torture and abuse. I fear that, in fighting terrorism, Ashcroft would tear down the foundations of our democracy. When the Attorney General appears before the Judiciary Committee on Thursday, I will hold him fully accountable for this. . . .

This report should remind us of what an unchecked and out of control Justice Department can do. The Inspector General conducted his investigation under section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which charges him with investigating allegations of civil rights and civil liberties abuses made against Justice Department employees. While I opposed the Patriot Act in its final form, I authored this provision. But for that clause hidden in the most rushed and misguided piece of legislation the Congress has ever seen, the abuses of the Ashcroft Justice Department would have been hidden forever from the American people.

ACLU Legislative Update:
Memo on Congressional oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act and Department of Justice anti-terrorism policies: DoJ's dismissive response on civil liberties

Describes in documented detail four points that became clear in the response by the Department of Justice to questions by the House Judiciary Committee concerning its use of the USA PATRIOT Act:

(1) DOJ did not need many of the powers it obtained in the USA PATRIOT Act or through new regulations and changes in longstanding government policies, such as the Attorney General’s investigative guidelines;

(2) DOJ cited fears of terrorism to get powers without adequate debate which were then used in ordinary criminal cases;

(3) DOJ has failed to answer many of the legitimate questions Congress has posed about its use of the USA PATRIOT Act and other new powers; and

(4) DOJ has been deceptive in describing the scope of the powers it has been granted, apparently to mollify widespread public concern.

Freedoms crumble, press sleeps
Anthony Lewis
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 11, 2003

. . . What has happened since Sept. 11, 2001, has tested the press profoundly in both foreign and domestic affairs. In both, the Bush administration has made radical changes in U.S. policy and tradition. In both, the effect of those changes has been to concentrate much greater power in the hands of the executive branch: claimed power over other countries in the world, claimed power over individuals in this country. In both, Congress and the courts have deferred to the president, declining to exercise their constitutional checking role.

And so, as [Supreme Court Justice Potter] Stewart said [in 1971], it has been left to the press to “protect the values of democratic government.” How good a job has it done?

Think about one example. President Bush and his lawyers have asserted the right -- the power -- to arrest any American citizen and hold him or her in prison indefinitely, without charges, without a trial, without a lawyer. As the basis for that detention, all the president need do is designate the person an “enemy combatant.” If he does, that person is an enemy combatant. The reasons for the detention cannot be effectively challenged in any court. The prisoner may not talk to a lawyer. He or she just remains in prison, in solitary confinement, until this or some other president says the war on terrorism is over, years or perhaps decades from now.

That seems to me an astonishing claim of power. Astonishing especially in a country whose Constitution provides that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” Could such a thing actually happen in the United States? Well, it's happening.

When I first heard about this policy of the Bush administration, I expected to see major press coverage. I did not. There were episodic newspaper stories about the cases of the two men being held, none on the front page. There was no print and certainly no broadcast coverage equal to the government's profound challenge to our constitutional values. . . .

Center for Constitutional Rights
The State of Civil Liberties: One Year Later
Erosion of Civil Liberties in the Post 9/11 Era
This organization filed 7 lawsuits challenging “particularly egregious violations of Constitutional rights and international law related to the government response to the attacks [of 9/11], both within the United States and in the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay.” The site includes a summary of the impacts of the Patriot Act and a link to a very useful 20-page report, a PDF file (56 kb), explaining all provisions of the act.

Also on this site, a large collection of reports dealing with legal aspects of the war in Iraq, handling of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and other human rights and peace and justice issues.

The Thomas web site, “in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson,” makes available the full text of all bills currently pending in the House and Senate, by a search by bill number or by words/phrases. In the article just above, Jones mentions bills already before the Senate that contain key provisions of the DSEA, including S.16, S.22, S.45, and S.89. The site also makes it possible to search the Congressional Record for any mention of the bills.

S.22 is easily confused with the Domestic Security Enhancement Act because of its similar title: Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act of 2003. Delving into the Congressional Record shows that this bill was introduced by, among others, Democrats Hillary Clinton, Ted Daschle, Ted Kennedy, and Bill Nelson, and it deals in large part with beneficial legislation such as enhancements to the Amber Alert Network and protections for seniors. But objectionable provisions have been “introduced as pork barrel riders,” according to Jones in the article above. More and more, it seems, we must venture into tomes such as the Congressional Record that normally we wouldn't want to touch with a 10-foot pole. Eternal vigilance is definitely called for.

Sent in an e-mail by a friend who mucked in the Congressional Record researching Patriot II:

Ashcroft goes after 200-year-old human rights law
by Jim Lobe
OneWorld US, May 19, 2003

The 1789 Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) has been used with increasing frequency over the past 24 years by victims of serious rights abuses committed overseas by foreign government leaders and senior military officials, as well as U.S. and foreign-owned corporations to get a hearing before U.S. federal courts. Now, however, the Justice Department has asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California to throw out all cases dealing with abuses that allegedly took place overseas, arguing that the law is “somewhat of a historical relic” that itself has been abused by plaintiffs to enforce international human rights laws and norms. It also said that the law poses a threat to Washington’s anti-terrorist campaign by potentially penalizing or embarrassing foreign governments allied with the U.S. . . .