In 1997, then Senator John Ashcroft had a far different view on the expansion of electronic surveillance than he holds now. He wrote the following op-ed piece in the August 12, 1997 Washington Times (available on lexis.com):

"Welcoming Big Brother"

"The Clinton administration would like the capability to read any international computer communications. Government agencies want access to decode, digest and discuss financial transactions, personal e-mail and proprietary information sent abroad - all in the name of national security. To accomplish this, President Clinton would like government agencies to have the keys for decoding all exported U.S. software and Internet communications.

This proposed policy raises obvious concerns about Americans' privacy, in addition to tampering with the competitive advantage that U.S. software companies currently enjoy in the field of encryption technology. Not only would Big Brother be looming over the shoulders of international cybersurfers, but he threatens to render our state-of-the-art computer software engineers obsolete and unemployed. There is a concern that the Internet could be used to commit crimes and that advanced encryption could disguise such activity. However, we do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should be grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web?

The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. Two hundred years of court decisions have stood in defense of this fundamental right. The state's interest in effective crime-fighting should never violate the people's Bill of Rights. (emphasis supplied)

The president has proposed that American software companies supply the government with decryption keys to high-level encryption programs. Yet European software producers are free to produce computer encryption codes of all levels of security without providing keys to any government authority. Purchasers of encryption software value security about all else. These buyers will ultimately choose airtight encryption programs that will not be American-made programs to which the U.S. government maintains keys.

In spite of this truism, the president is attempting to foist his rigid policy on the exceptionally fluid and fast-paced computer industry. Furthermore, recent developments in decryption technology bring into question the dynamic of government meddling in this industry. Two weeks ago, the 56-bit algorithm government standard encryption code that protects most U.S. electronic financial transactions, from ATM cards to wire transfers, was broken by a low-powered 90 MHz Pentium processor.

In 1977, when this code was first approved by the U.S. government as a standard, it was deemed unbreakable. And for good reason: There are 72 quadrillion different combinations in a 56-bit code. However, with today's technology these 72 quadrillion different combinations can each be tried in a matter of time.

Two days after this encryption code was broken, a majority of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee voted, in accordance with administration policy, to force American software companies to perpetuate this already compromised 56-bit encryption system - in spite of the fact that 128-bit encryption software from European firms is available on Web sites accessible to every Internet user. Interestingly, European firms can import this super-secure encryption technology (originally developed by Americans) to the United States, but U.S. companies are forbidden by law from exporting these same programs to other countries.

I believe that moving forward with the president's policy or the Commerce Committee's bill would be an act of folly, creating a cadre of government peeping Toms and causing severe damage to our vibrant software industries. Government would be caught in a perpetual game of catch-up with whiz-kid code-breakers and industry advances. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has signaled his objection to both proposals" (emphasis supplied)

"....The Clinton administration's paranoid and prurient interest in international e-mail is a wholly unhealthy precedent, especially given this administration's track record on FBI files and IRS snooping. Every medium by which people communicate can be subject to exploitation by those with illegal or immoral intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records or translate our international communications. (emphasis supplied) "

Thanks to LiquidList for bringing this to our attention.

We have just returned back to Denver from a three day legal seminar in Key West. We spoke on the electronic surveillance changes in the Patriot Act. Others spoke on other aspects of the Act. By the last day, the Patriot Act had been renamed "The Anti-American Act" and Ashcroft was referred to only as "Cardinal Richilieu."

Cardinal Richilieu, for those of you who are not students of history, was prime minister of France under King Louis XIII. The King was considered a weak ruler. "Richelieu filled the void, more or less running the empire via his advice to the king. A clever politician and strategist, Richelieu expanded royal power, punished dissent harshly, and built France into a great European power.....He was made out to be a villain in the Three Musketeers by Alexander Dumas, and since then, his name has "become synonymous with political intrigue and ambitious power "behind the throne."

We think the shoe fits pretty well.

Daily Kos has some extensive, original analysis of the Louisiana Senate race and Mary Landrieu's win, and of the Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond controversy.

The Associated Press reports that Mary Landrieu has won the Louisiana Senate Race:

"Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu beat back a fierce Republican challenge led by President Bush and won a second term Saturday, giving her party a midterm consolation prize that limits the GOP's Senate majority to 51 seats. Landrieu fended off Republican Suzanne Haik Terrell, the state elections commissioner who touted herself as a close friend and ally of the president. With 98 of precincts reporting, Landrieu had 624,214 votes, or 52 percent, and Terrell had 587,423, or 48 percent."

Anyone have an idea of which Republican senators we should be lobbying because they might not always vote their party line....such as on judicial nomination issues? Or is it hopeless, will every critical issue come down to a 51-49 vote with the Republicans and Bush Administration winning?

The Week in Review section of the Sunday New York Times today takes on the issue of Why Confess to What You Didn't Do?. The subject of false confessions and the need to videotape all interrogations has been highlighted the past several months by the reopening of the Central Park Jogger convictions. If you are coming late into the story, here is the Times link to full coverage of the case. Included are the several excellent articles by investigative journalist and author Jim Dwyer.

Via Buzzflash we learn that Fundamentalists are losing favor with the public:

"The American Family Association, a far right lobbying group in Washington, released results from a recent survey that shows mainstream Americans see evangelical Christians as one of the least likeable groups in the country."

"Small wonder Researchers from the Barna survey asked respondents how they felt about evangelicals, born-again Christians, ministers, and other groups of people in society. According to the survey, evangelicals came in tenth out of eleven, narrowly beating out prostitutes. "

We've been on the road today, and won't have a chance to post more thoughts on the five wrongfully convicted youths in the Central Park Jogger case until late tomorrow. In the meantime, we like what Instapundit has to say on the matter.

We have blogged a lot on this case, some of our prior posts on why the convictions should be set aside, and on why the prosecutors should come under scrutiny, are here, here and here.

We also agree with Professor Reynolds that the wrongfully convicted should be compensated. Our last report on that is here.

And from Jim Dwyer's update in the Friday New York Times titled A Test the New York Justice System Failed:"13 years later, the verdict is in: The system failed, and in ways that cannot be made right. The man responsible for the rape of the Central Park jogger eluded police attention and continued a sporadic siege of violence on the Upper East Side for the next four months that included rapes, slashings and one murder. "

"Most basically, the Manhattan district attorney has asked for the dismissal of all charges against the teenagers, and provided a list of compelling reasons to believe that another man, Matias Reyes, was the sole attacker. No longer do the prosecutors endorse a story of gang rape. The sexual assault on the jogger, long viewed as the signature piece of violence in a night of mayhem by teenagers, is recast in the prosecutor's report as another episode in a rampage of crime by Mr. Reyes. "

A recap from today's Washington Post on yesterday's oral arguments on the reach of Miranda rights :

"In 1997, farmworker Oliverio Martinez was shot and seriously wounded in a struggle with Oxnard, Calif., police. As he lay racked with pain on a hospital gurney, police Sgt. Ben Chavez, investigating the police shooting, questioned him for 45 minutes despite Martinez's insistence that he didn't want to talk."

"Martinez later sued, alleging among other things that Chavez's questioning, which did not include reading Martinez his rights, amounted to an attempt at coerced self-incrimination -- even though Martinez was not eventually charged with a crime."

"Lower courts upheld Martinez's claim, but Chavez has appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing, in part, that there was no violation of Martinez's constitutional rights since they apply only if statements are used against a suspect at trial."

"Civil libertarians say a ruling for Chavez could permit police to abuse people they may not want to charge with a crime, but do want to extract information from."

"The Bush administration, however, supports Chavez, suggesting that a ruling against him could tie officers' hands when they may need information quickly."

"Justice Antonin Scalia wondered about the case's implications for fighting terrorism. "Let's assume you think someone is going to blow up the World Trade Center. Could the police beat him with a rubber hose?" Scalia asked."

"I understand the terrorism situation is a difficult one, but that's not our case," Martinez's attorney, R. Samuel Paz, replied."

"Stevens demanded to know from Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement whether there is "any protection against the police just grabbing someone off the street and beating him up to get information when they have no intention of using it at trial."

Justice reporter Tony Mauro has this account of the oral arguments, including the officers' lawyer's acknowledgement for the first time that there was coercion.

Our thoughts on the case are here. A decision is expected in June.

Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton has appointed a "Gang Czar" to help in that city's fight against gang crime. We wrote about Bratton's announcement he would seek federal aid in the fight yesterday.

The new czar is Michael Hillman, "a former SWAT supervisor and member of the anti-terrorism squad."

At his swearing in Wednesday, Hillman "served notice that while the latest anti-gang effort would not throw the Bill of Rights out of the window, it would also undoubtedly lead to an increased number of "field contacts" in which patrol officers stop citizens on the street to be questioned and sometimes frisked."

"Make no mistake about it, for us to be able to do this, we are going to need the community's support," Hillman told television station KCAL in an interview earlier Wednesday."

"We are also going to need support for the fact that police officers are going to be able to stop people based on reasonable suspicion and probable cause."

"Bratton said Wednesday that he and Hillman were on the same page in term of strategies to combat gangs and that "he understands my goal of gaining the respect of the community."

Los Angeles has the highest murder rate in the country. Officials believe the city's 100,000 gang-bangers heavily contribute to it.

Bratton's plan is to involve the feds by charging the gang members with federal crimes like racketeering and tax evasion. He said the strategy worked in fighting the mob in NY and it should also work in LA.

One criminologist is not so sure. "Criminologist Howard Abadinsky told the Los Angeles Times that the New York mob investigations were run by the FBI and took years of patient surveillance to put together. In addition, he said, Los Angeles gangs are far larger than the Mafia."

"You need to stop recruitment," he said. "The problem you've got in L.A. is you have an unlimited supply of applicants."

We think Mr. Abadinsky has a point. One way to stop recruitment is to offer options to the at-risk youth of South Central --through programs that offer a way out of that hellhole.

Hopefully, not all of LA's money will be spent on enforcement and some will go towards prevention. Knowing Bratton, he's thought of this long before we have.

"A federal appeals panel in San Francisco ruled yesterday that the atheist father who challenged the Pledge of Allegiance on behalf of his daughter had a right to bring the case. In its ruling, the panel reaffirmed its view that allowing schoolchildren to hear the words "under God" in the pledge amounts to "unconstitutional indoctrination."

Through Jim Cappozola at Rittenhouse Review, we learned that Ms. magazine is assembling a roster of women bloggers. Here are the details, and they are seeking recommendations.

Thanks to Jim for recommending us. He too is seeking the names and blog addresses of other women bloggers, both to recommend to Ms. and to add to his blogroll. So please send your favorites to him at rittenreview@earthlink.net.

Also thanks to Sisyphus Shrugged for recommending us.

Here are some of our favorites:

Lisa English of Ruminate This
Jeanne D'Arc of Body and Soul
Avedon Carol of Sideshow
Gail Davis of GailOnline
MadKane
Sisyphus Shrugged
Beyond Corporate
Kim at Free Pie
Teresa Nielsen-Hayden of Making Light
Ann Salisbury of Two Tears in a Bucket
Talkabluestreak
Eve Tushnet

Please give them a read and send your favorites to Ms. Magazine and Jim. We're know we've missed a bunch, so feel free to add them in the comments section here as well.

Check out MSNBC's Altercation which we again guest-hosted today for Eric Alterman who returns tomorrow.

Our topics include the Democrats' need to take a sharp left turn (advice former President Clinton disagrees with;) cities passing anti-war resolutions on Iraq; a new study showing marijuana is not a gateway drug; a made for Court TV movie airing tonight on false confessions; and a final Shanghai update on technology.

Via Hamster, Working for Change has reprinted a 1998 Molly Ivins column on asset forfeiture reform. The civil asset forfeture act did receive a welcome overhaul in 2000 (thanks mostly to the conservative republicans like Henry Hyde and Bob Barr, who so strongly believe in property rights) despite efforts by the Justice Department (yes, under Clinton) to weaken it.

Still, we didn't get as much as we wanted in the bill and Ivins' article highlights the problems with forfeiture laws.

For more on problems with forfeiture laws, visit FEAR (Forfeiture Endangers Americans' Rights)