Legislators jump on "anti-terrorism" repression 
bandwagon

October 5 -- What's more red-white-and-blue than 
jackbooted thugs?

The House and Senate are poised to ratify Attorney 
General John Ashcroft's Anti-Terrorism Act, which 
the House dubbed the "Patriot Act." Despite some 
perfunctory complaints about "surrendering basic 
freedoms,"(1) legislators made very few changes to 
Ashcroft's proposals. The largest remaining 
conflict is over a "sunset provision," which would 
revoke the Act after two years. The House included 
a sunset provision in its bill; the Senate did 
not. The White House and Ashcroft oppose any limit 
on the new powers to be granted them.

Here are some of the measures contained in the 
Anti-Terrorism Act.(2)

* The ATA expands the definition of terrorism to 
include attacks on property "and a wide range of 
behaviors. Under the new law, a college student 
who breaks the window of a federal building during 
a political protest could wind up sentenced to 
life in prison."(1)

* The ATA allows persyn-specific or "roving" 
wiretaps. Ashcroft's line -- parroted by the 
mainstream media -- is that suspected terrorists 
can use multiple cell phones or pay phones. 
Currently, the police or FBI have to get a warrant 
for each phone they want to tap, which makes it 
practically impossible to monitor the suspect. 
Hence the roving wiretap. What Ashcroft leaves out 
of this story is that in practice this means 
tapping ITAL all END phones the suspect ITAL might 
reasonably use. END This means the pigs can listen 
in on all conversations on the pay phone in front 
of your local 7-11 just because a ITAL suspect END 
might walk by one day.(3)

* Analogously, the ATA "would leave every 
American's computer records vulnerable -- not just 
those of terrorism suspects."(1)

* The ATA would expand the jurisdiction of a 
secret court in charge of wiretap warrants for 
espionage suspects. The court's proceedings are 
"so classified that even those Americans who are 
targeted for surveillance have no right to know 
about it, much less challenge it."(4) Since 1979, 
the court has issued more than 10,000 wiretaps --
denying just one request.(1)

* The ATA would allow Amerikan officials to use 
"information gathered by foreign governments using 
search and seizure practices that are illegal in 
the United States. 'This is a way for [U.S. 
authorities] to let foreign governments do the 
dirty work...' says Lee Tien, senior staff 
attorney for the Electronic Frontier 
Foundation."(1)

On September 19, we reported that "the proposed 
anti-terrorism law would give the u.$. Attorney 
General the power to lock up and deport non-
citizens deemed to be "terrorist suspects" ITAL 
without presenting any evidence. END Attorney 
General John Ashcroft already authorized the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service to hold 
ITAL suspected END 'illegal immigrants' for two 
days without charge -- in fact, undocumented 
immigrants can already be held indefinitely under 
'extraordinary circumstances.'"(5)

Now we learn that this provision was "scaled back 
considerably" in both the House and Senate 
bills.(6) Instead of holding foreign nationals 
without charge indefinitely, the Justice 
Department can "only" hold them for a week. Of 
course, a lot can happen in a week... Readers may 
remember the story behind the movie "In the Name 
of the Father." English police pick up an Irish 
man in England on suspicion of terrorism hold him 
without charge for a week, torture him, and force 
him to confess to a crime he did not commit.

Perhaps some readers are thinking, "Yes, but that 
could never happen here. And we have to do 
something to protect ourselves from those 
terrorists." To which MIM replies, "Which 
terrorists?" Remember, 31% of Amerikans said they 
wanted to round up all Arabs and put them in 
concentration camps now. The figure is likely 
higher among law enforcement officials.

Are these the people you want to entrust your 
"freedoms" to? People like Atlanta cop Ray 
Sanford, who sent a mass e-mail saying, "I think 
1,000 Arabs must die for each American killed."(7) 
Who poses the bigger threat to your life and 
liberty, Osama bin Laden or the sick fucks who've 
given Amerika the highest imprisonment rate in the 
world?

Notes: 
1. The Village Voice, 26 Sep 2001, 
www.villagevoice.com/issues/0139/lerner.php. 
2. 
Props to the Village Voice for spelling these out 
concretely. Much of the "coverage" in mouthpieces 
like the Los Angeles Times has been a pile of 
empty platitudes about "civil liberties concerns" 
-- useless. 
3. Speech by USC Law Professor Erwin 
Chemerinsky, 24 Sep 2001. 
4. Los Angeles Times, 30 
Sep 2001. 
5. MIM Notes 244, Oct 2001. 
6. Los Angeles Times, 4 Oct 2001. 
7. Los Angeles Times, 5 Oct 2001.