Our favorite investigative reporter on the Patriot Act in recent months has been Chisum Lee of the Village Voice. In his current article, The Devil is In The Details, he confirms that the Bush Administration is sneaking Patriot Act II past us in small doses, almost imperceptibly.

Both Patriot Act II and the means for evaluating it have begun to materialize, in scattered pieces. On June 5, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft slipped a wish list of major new anti-terrorism powers into a day of congressional testimony that ranged widely from Al Qaeda to intellectual property to DNA evidence. A wealth of revelations about the Bush administration's anti-terrorism conduct has also emerged, not in one grand exposé but sprinkled among various reports, court outcomes, and congressional Q&As.

Lee cites two developments in recent weeks which should have been, but were not, reported as Patriot Act-related--both could help Congress and the public decide whether Ashcroft should get new powers:

Ashcroft urged Congress to boost anti-terrorism powers in three major ways: make more acts punishable as terrorism under a broadened definition of providing "material support" to suspect groups, allow longer pre-trial detention for people accused of a terrorism-related offense, and make it easier to sentence people accused of "terrorist acts" to death. Asked last Friday whether these would make it into a final White House request, and what other ideas would be added in the end, Justice Department spokesperson Mark Corallo would not specify, saying only, "There will be a package of legislation sooner rather than later."

Although Ashcroft's pitch for new powers made headlines, unreported were parts of his testimony that might help Americans decide whether he should get them. For one, there was his understated slant on death sentences. The possibility of execution would be most valuable as a way to "encourage cooperation" in suspects, he said, not dwelling on the more concrete result of such a sentence.

We knew the headline Bush Issues Federal Ban on Racial Profiling was too good to be true.

Bush's new racial profiling policy sounds like a campaign move geared towards increasing his minority support. But it will only reach those who can't read between the lines.

President Bush issued guidelines today barring federal agents from using race or ethnicity in their routine investigations, but the policy carves out clear exemptions for investigations involving terrorism and national security matters.

...Arab-American and civil rights groups said the exemptions in the White House policy would give the authorities legal justification to single out Middle Easterners and others who may fall under suspicion, and they questioned whether the new policy — issued as "guidance" — would be aggressively enforced.

"This policy acknowledges racial profiling as a national concern, but it does nothing to stop it," Laura Murphy, director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in an interview. "It's largely a rhetorical statement. The administration is trying to soften its image, but it's smoke and mirrors."

To show you just how little change Bush and the Justice Department really intend, read this statement by White House Spokesman Scott McClellan:

"The way the president looks at it," a White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said, "this is about stopping the abuses of a few, and today's action should only strengthen the public's confidence that the vast majority of law enforcement officials have earned and deserve credit for the job they do in protecting Americans."

The abuses of a few? Is he kidding? It's been rampant all over America for years. Driving While Black. Driving While Hispanic. Driving While Muslim.

Further, what isn't a terrorist-related offense to Aschroft these days? Not much.

The U.S. is moving ahead with plans to set up a criminal court in Iraq:

Paul Bremer, the top American official in Iraq, told a news conference the new Central Criminal Court would be used for trials of Saddam loyalists who had committed crimes against occupying U.S. and British forces.

"One of the main reasons for my establishing this court is so that we can try people, in particular senior Baathists...who may have committed crimes against the coalition, who are trying to destabilize the situation here, and so we can do it rather quickly," Bremer said. "It could evolve into a tribunal to try people for crimes against humanity. That is a decision that the (future) Iraqi government should make."

The U.S. plans to open the Court next month. It is holding 1,300 prisoners out at the Baghdad airport. The court will try defendants for crimes committed after the start of the war. The court will be run by ten Iraqi judges and three prosecutors. Defendants presumably will be provided with counsel.

But, like everything else about the war with Iraq, the legality of the court is questionable:

The administration says that as the occupying power in Iraq, it has the right to issue orders which carry the force of law, and to try those who attack its forces as criminals.

But the United States has not officially declared the war over, raising potential confusion over whether attacks on occupying troops are governed by international rules of war.

Here come more reports of botched NYPD No-Knocks

We wonder how many dollars the radical right spent wooing Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade. McCorvey has filed suit to overturn the ruling in her case, aruging that new evidence shows abortion is harmful to women. Our view: a cheap stunt.

Newsweek is reporting that the taped conversations between Amber Frey and Scott Peterson don't show much. And <a href=" Fox40 KTXL reports:

Police wiretap recordings allegedly show Peterson was cool and charming, told Amber he loved her, and then got down to business, asking if she would hand over potentially damaging photos of the two taken at a Fresno-area Christmas party before they became public.

But according to people who have heard the intercepts, they reveal little more than Peterson's obsession with the potentially embarrassing photos.

And defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt says she doubts calling Amber to the witness stand will help much either.

Jeralyn Merritt says, "Even if there was love chat where he says to her I was going to leave my wife and marry you, it's a far cry from murder and an even further cry from murdering his unborn child."

Gloria Allred says, "I think that if the prosecution chooses to call her, that means they think she has something to contribute to the case and they'll decide how it is relevant and what it bears upon."

Actually, we liked another of our comments on that show better. When asked if Amber was important to convicting Scott, we said, "If this were a menu, Amber would be a side dish."

As much as Amber and her lawyer would like to portray her as a victim of this crime she is not. She may have been victimized by Scott Peterson, but she is not a victim of the murder of Laci Peterson.

Remember the Judge who asked the woman appearing before him if she was a terrorist--causing her to faint? He's stepped down.

A sad day for democracy.

A federal appeals court, reversing a lower-court decision, ruled today that the government did not have to disclose the names of more than 700 people detained in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, agreeing with the Justice Department that making that information public could allow Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to map the course of the investigation.

bq. The 2-to-1 decision by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was a rebuff to the civil liberties and other groups that were challenging the Bush administration's refusal to provide the names and other information about people, mostly immigrants, held in connection with the 9/11 terrorism investigation, on the ground of national security.

The court said the government could withhold the dates and locations of arrest, detention and release of all detainees, including those charged with federal crimes, and the names of lawyers representing them.

The case is Center for National Security Studies, et al.,
v. U.S. Department of Justice and you can read the opinion here.

Update: Jim at Unqualified Offerings has some excellent commentary on this.

This should be getting more attention. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) have successfully pushed their proposed Victim's Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution through a Senate Panel vote. But the bill has many detractors in Congress.

Every Democrat on the panel voted against her. Think about it for a moment. A constititutional amendment? Why? Wouldn't a federal law do, if that's what Congress wants to pass?

While just about everyone in Congress says they favor increasing the rights of crime victims, some say a constitutional amendment isn't needed and threatens to do more harm than good.

...33 states, including California, have victims' rights amendments in their state constitutions that provide for everything from restitution to requiring prior notice of all court or parole board appearances in their cases.

Her measure, co-written with Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., grants victims of violent crime the right to prior notice of any public proceeding in the case, as well as notice of the release or escape of the accused or convicted, the right to be heard at trials and pardon hearings, access to any court decisions in their case and the right to restitution.

But opponents of the proposed amendment said the proper route would be to first try a federal law -- which can be changed relatively easily -- rather than the far more permanent step of enshrining victims' rights in the Constitution.

"I will fight this with everything I have," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N. Y. "No one has shown we need a constitutional amendment." (empahsis supplied)

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., who as a state senator voted for Wisconsin's victims' rights amendment, said he feared the Feinstein measure would undermine the criminal justice system.

We wrote this detailed article about why the VRA is a lousy idea some years ago. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post opposed it in editorials, here and here.

A new BBC poll finds that the majority of the world is opposed to Bush and the Iraq war.

The poll, which surveyed more than 11,000 people in 11 countries, showed 57 percent of those asked had "a very unfavorable or fairly unfavorable attitude toward the American president," the British broadcaster said in a statement.

Some 56 percent felt the United States was wrong to attack Iraq, including 81 percent of Russian respondents and 63 percent of those polled in France.

[comments now closed]

The Senate Commerce Committee is voting tomorrow on whether or not to recind the June 2 F.C.C. giveaway to Big Media. This is an unprecedented opportunity to participate, go over to Ruminate This where Lisa English has all the details on how you can participate. It will only take two minutes. The petition Lisa asks us all to sign will be walked over to the Senate Commerce Committee tomorrow before the vote.

According to Eli Pariser of Moveon.org, "This bipartisan bill would keep a single company from owning broadcast outlets that reach more than 35% of American households (as opposed to 45% post-rule-change). A crucial amendment sponsored by Senators Dorgan and Snowe would keep newspapers and TV stations from merging."

Here's all you need to do:

1) Go to the petition campaign. It's easy and self-explanatory.
2) Personalize the message to your Congressional delegation
3) Enter email addresses of friends and colleagues in your state
4) Send your message. It will be printed out and walked to your members of Congress, and this message will be forwarded to your contacts. Your friends will not receive spam as a result of this petition.

Neal Pollack reports on the new Rave Act in The Right to Party.

Daniel Forbes writes in The Nation about how the Rave Act is being used to stifle political dissent.

NORML reports on how the DEA is using the Rave Act to trample the First Amendment.

A scheduled concert to raise funds for a local NORML/Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) affiliate was shut down last week after the venue's management was informed by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that they could potentially be fined $250,000 under provisions of the newly enacted "RAVE Act." The law, formally known as the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003, permits federal law enforcement to prosecute business owners and event organizers if they make their property available for "the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance." The incident is believed to be the first time the law has been used to prohibit a public event since it was enacted in April as an amendment to the Child Abduction Prevention Act, also known as the "Amber Alert" bill.

Don't forget who we have thank for this unnecessary, oppressive piece of legislation, sneakily tacked onto the Amber Alert bill at the last minute: It's Senator Joe Biden (D-DE). Just in case he decides to throw his hat in the ring for President, we want everyone to know.