More of Ashcroft's antics...

If that creepy "homeland" tour wasn't enough, now General John is at it again. Not content with labelling everyone that does not completely accept the "trust us, we're the government" statement as a "hysteric", he's back in the press again defending the socialist strongarm of Homeland Security. To quote the beloved general:

"Not a single court in America has validated any of the charges of violations of constitutional rights in connection with the Patriot Act...And so the charges of the hysterics are revealed for what they are: castles in the air, built on misrepresentation, supported by unfounded fear, held aloft by hysteria." That sounds awful authoritative, Mr. Ashcroft. No, really. I almost buy it.

Almost.

I only have a few minor problems. But first, let's hear from the defense. Mr. Ashcroft, in a memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller, divulged that the Patriot Act has not yet been used to secretly obtain citizens' library checkout information and business records without notifying the subject being investigated.

Critics then ask: "If you don't need it, then why is it such a big deal to take it away?" Answer: "You never know when you may need it. You could have a career FBI agent or a career police officer who has never fired his gun. Does that mean you take it away from him?"

Another qualified person to speak in behalf of the Patriot Act is Beryl Howell, former Senate Judiciary Committe Democratic Counsel, one of the drafters of the National Socialist...err, sorry, Patriot Act.

"The whole USA Patriot Act has been getting a bad rap. It's been scapegoated". Really. How englightening.

Paul Rosenzweig, a senior legal research fellow with the Heritage Foundation says "If they had told us two years ago that they haven't used the Patriot Act to go into a library or a bookstore and they don't plan to, that would have saved a year and a half of ACLU ads." Is that right Mr. Rosenzweig? Thank you for the reassurance.

OK. Two-thirds of the newspaper article (today's Dallas Morning News) was devoted to quoting and commenting on the defense of this law. Do I really even need to say anything? This is ridiculous! "Oh, don't worry. We have no intention of using these un-Constitutional laws, trust us". Let's extend that mentality.

"Sure, we want to pass a law that says we can put troops in your house whenever we want, but don't worry, we'll never actually use it". or;

"We're passing this law that says you have to run your church doctrine through the OK channel here in DC, but its just a potential provision. We never plan to acutally do that."

"Just because we say we can imprison you without cause doesn't mean we're actually going to do it."

Remember the Constitution? You know, that old yellow piece of paper with some rambling or another about rights? Something about limiting the government? Something about "Congress shall make no law"? The government isn't even supposed to be able to entertain thoughts of the sort they have legislated into law. If these sorts of laws were acceptable in a free society, would our founders have worked so hard to ensure that the exact opposite of this authoritarian legislation was the rule in America? If it were truly of benefit to our society to have a government that can legally trample on any citizen's rights they wish, would our founders not have made provision for it?

And as far as Ashcroft's claim that they have not used Section 215 (the provision for searching library, bookstore records and business records without the subject's knowledge or consent), is it not true that

1. It would not be in the best interests of the Administration to admit such a use, and

2. The legislation in question actually states that the government doesn't have to provide this information?

Wake up America. The tides are changing and I don't like the garbage coming in.