Senator Russ Feingold on The Patriot Act

via Fuck Conservatives

Cenk on the Patriot Act

via The Democratic Underground

Just like I've said to the gun-rights activists, "The reality is you don't give a damn about the Constitution."

The New and Improved Patriot Act

via Democratic Underground

Due Process of Law and the Patriot Act

via Democratic Underground

The Legacy: Frivolous Terrorism Charges

The Los Angeles Times reports on the case of Tamera Jo Freeman who was arrested, charged with terrorism and spent three months in jail, all for spanking her kids on a flight and mouthing off to the flight attendant.

A flight attendant confronted Freeman, who responded by hurling a few profanities and throwing what remained of a can of tomato juice on the floor.

The incident aboard the Frontier flight ultimately led to Freeman's arrest and conviction for a federal felony defined as an act of terrorism under the Patriot Act, the controversial federal law enacted after the 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.

The LA Times article says that 200 people have been arrested in various situations and charged in this way.

In most of the cases, there was no evidence that the passengers had attempted to hijack the airplane or physically attack any of the flight crew. Many have simply involved raised voices, foul language and drunken behavior.

Some security experts say the use of the law by airlines and their employees has run amok, criminalizing incidents that did not start out as a threat to public safety, much less an act of terrorism.

Is this covered by what Obama said yesterday about the United States as a country: "nor does it entitle us to do as we please." Is it to be hoped that as President, Barack Obama will see to it that some of these abuses are corrected?

What's your opinion? Some may say that policies like the Patriot Act do more good than harm. Is that possible?

(H/T to Susie Madrak at Crooks & Liars)

Ali al-Marri Held Indefinitely in America

The New York Times published an opinion the other day about the case in which, for more than five years, the Bush administration has been holding Ali al-Marri, a legal resident of the United States, in near isolation under President Bush’s reprehensible enemy combatant doctrine.

Mr. Marri was arrested in Peoria, Ill., in December 2001 on criminal charges. In 2003, while his criminal case was pending, Mr. Bush designated him an enemy combatant, and he was moved to a Navy brig near Charleston, S.C. For 16 months, Mr. Marri was held incommunicado. During his detention, he reportedly has been subjected to treatment that borders on, or actually is, torture.

That doesn't sound like the America I grew up in. Do you think some of this Executive power will be diminished with the new administration? I certainly hope so.

The Witness L.A. site put it a bit plainer.

Intolerable is exactly the right word. It has been intolerable to have our democracy highjacked by an administration so drunk on its own unchecked executive power that it has crossed a line, the crossing of which, as British historian Andy Worthington put it, “.. cannot be accepted in a nation, like America, committed to basic human rights and the principles of its Constitution.”

REASON NUMBER 4768 THAT WE ARE HAPPY OBAMA WON: Because we will soon have a president who will not repeatedly fill us with shame and dread by imprisoning people without due process.

What do you think? Were the many questionable detentions that took place in the wake of 9/11 justified? Did some hidden good come from them? Were we perhaps spared other attacks as a result of these policies?

Does so much Executive power inevitably get misused? What if Mr. Marri had been a gun enthusiast? If he and his family and friends had been armed to the teeth, legally, would that have made a difference? I read today about how an armed citizenry is what's preventing tyranny. How would that work exactly?

Best Olympics Ever

Sports Illustrated has a wonderful slide show of the closing ceremony. In many respects it was the best Olympic Games ever. From the world records set to the smooth organization to the sheer spectacle of the opening and closing ceremonies. But what are we to think about the quashing of protesters? Wasn't China a bit heavy handed in dealing with things like that? The absense of even a hint of trouble was proof enough. One can imagine what went on behind the scenes. One of the stories that did surface was this one on CNN. A small group of Americans unfurled a "Free Tibet" banner. The demonstration didn't last long.


Chinese law allows police to hold foreign nationals in jail for up to two weeks before pressing formal charges, but most other foreign protesters that China detained were held for only a few hours before authorities deported them.


Nick Snyder, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Beijing was naturally asked to comment on this delicate situation. Mr. Snyder of course, comes from the country which produced the Patriot Act and legalized wire-tapping of its citizens. This is the same country which is considering granting the FBI much more power, to "allow agents to open a national security or criminal investigation against someone without any clear basis for suspicion." That's from the NY Times, via our commenter Thomas. How Mr. Snyder was able to make the following statement with a straight face is beyond me, but I guess he takes his cue from his superiors in the State Department.


"We urge China to take positive steps to address international and domestic concerns about its record on human rights and religious freedom," Snyder said.

Please feel free to share your opinion with us by leaving a comment.