'PATRIOT ACT II': THE WRITERS WILL GO FIRST

[barbara100 at jps.net]

'PATRIOT ACT II': THE WRITERS WILL GO FIRST 

Speaking of the power of art, guess who will be the first to get carried 
off to the dungeons under the just-leaked "Patriot Act II," the Domestic 
Security Enhancement Act of 2003.

It'll be artists and writers (as usual) - and not the published-on-paper 
writers, either. It'll be the more identifiable underground, the 
incensed webloggers and the angry chat-room talkers and the outraged 
commentators who this week have been writing blistering columns on the 
Internet about the "obscene," "atrocious" and "disgusting" 
Constitutional violations of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 
2003. 

Thank heaven for that dear patriotic soul in the Justice Department who 
leaked the 120-page draft of the DSEA/2003 to Chuck Lewis of the 
nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity. Lewis then rushed it over to 
Bill Moyers at PBS, who in turn interviewed Morris on "Now with Bill 
Moyers" a week ago today. 

Immediately, the Internet erupted with noisy and furious reactions that 
ended up calling for the impeachment of George Bush and a host of White 
House staffers. 

But not so in the print-on-paper media. In fact, a "muted response to 
Ashcroft's sneak attack on liberties" has been monitored by the media 
watchdog group FAIR, which noted that very few newspapers ran the 
DSEA/2003 on the front page -  even the New York Times buried it in the 
back - and that ABC, CBS and NBC ignored it. Other than a few editorials 
against it, "the story has barely made a ripple in the U.S. news media."

How could that be? The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 goes 
much farther than the USA Patriot Act in terms of crippling debate and 
dissent, crushing Constitutional protections and sending dissenters to 
jail or even out of the country. 

Just to refresh your memory: If enacted, this legislation will give the 
federal government the power to: 
    
*declare war on individuals as well as terrorist groups
*prohibit information and legal representation for people "detained" 
*create a DNA database of suspected terrorists (holy cow! that 
alone..!)
*override all state bans to curb law enforcement abuses 
*enable the government to "expatriate" U.S. citizens (whoa whoa whoa!)
*reduce judicial oversight on secret intelligence "courts"
*further deny Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests
*enhance racial profiling to an obscene degree (OK, my "obscene")

It's "an incredibly offensive" proposal, Lewis told Moyers, and guess 
why it had to be leaked before anybody heard of it? Because the Bush 
administration was waiting for the kind of "fear and paranoia" that 
followed 9/11 and that ushered the first atrocity, the USA Patriot Act, 
through Congress with nary a negative word. 

So the thing that's "incredibly offensive" now, said Lewis, is that the 
Bush administration is "taking advantage of the insecurity that we all 
feel today" and waiting for the "worries and fears" about national 
security Americans will feel very deeply during a war against Iraq.

"Then they're [Ashcroft et al] gonna pop this baby out and try to jam it 
through (Congress)" again, as Lewis put it in his inimitable way.

What awaits the Bush administration if it passes? An enemies list that 
would make Richard Nixon drool: Tens of thousands of email addresses 
locating writers on the Internet who have been howling against The 
Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 since it was first leaked a 
week ago. 

And sure, we've seen some discussion of the DSEA/2003 in the print 
media, but most of it has been the kind of spineless, lame coverage that 
hardly provides in-depth analysis. 

Here's a possible reason for this. As Eric Alterman points out in his 
book, "What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News" (Basic), 
the problem with the press today is not that it's liberal but that it's 
afraid to *appear* liberal to those vociferous and relentless 
conservative critics who have hounded the media since the Reagan 
administration.

Instead of standing up for itself against such onslaughts, the press has 
reacted with a typically "muted response" about such civil liberties 
matters as the leak of The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. 
Instead the attempt by media editors is to show "balanced coverage" of 
"all sides" of every controversy - few other "sides" exist.

Clearly, TV news editors don't get it. During the January 18 antiwar 
demonstrations, I remember one TV channel attempting to "show the other 
side" after scene after scene of hundreds of thousands of protesters 
chanting and carrying signs against war with Iraq.

The news anchor then explained the next scene would show "the other side 
as we go now to an opposing march" of people who represent America's 
right to defend itself." Viewers were then whisked over to a park where 
40 people shook "Saddam Must Go!" signs at the camera.

Today whether the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 passes or 
not, we face the fact that "if you're a disfavored political group, or 
from the wrong ethnic background," as Lewis told Moyers, the feds can 
"come after you, get your credit card data, your library records, your 
Internet searching, everything. And they'll decide whether or not you're 
a suspect." 

Maybe there are people in the United States who think this is a good 
thing. If so, let's have more public debate; let's take the time to, as 
Lewis and Moyer said, "chew over the consequences." Otherwise, the Bush 
administration, in its rush to war, may succeed in rushing a bill like 
the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 that will not only cart 
writers off to jail without legal representation, it will also trample 
Constitutional freedoms far beyond war's end.

HOLT UNCENSORED  #359
http://www.holtuncensored.com