Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff' has a new column out today-- Ashcroft Out of Control --on the Patriot Act II. If you've been wondering what Ashcroft's proposal provides in plain English, go read.

Like Hentoff, we too are curious as to why this hasn't gotten more attention in the mainstream media. We think the reason that the draft of the proposed bill was sent to House Speaker Dennis Hastert instead of being introduced in Congress, is that Ashcroft and Bush were planning on waiting until we were officially at war with Iraq, when there would be less oppostion, and then they were going to try to get it past Congress without hearings and opportunity for review--the way they did Patriot Act I. By sending it to Hastert, they could claim (unjustifiably) that this wasn't a stealth move since they had put Hastert on notice.

War or no war, the Patriot Act sequel is an unnecessary piece of legislation that will strip Americans (and non-citizens) of their rights without any guarantees it will make us safer. Be prepared to jump on the phone to your Congresspersons the second it is introduced, if not before.

For more, visit EPIC and the ACLU and the Center for Public Integrity.

The ACLU reports that a bill that would require the Department of Justice to formally disclose information about its use of the secret intelligence court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is garnering bipartisan support in Congress.

The major Republican sponsor of the bill, called the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Reporting Act of 2003" is Senator Charles Grassley. Another sponsor is Patrick Leahy (D-VT.)

Specifically, the bill would require public accounting of the number of Americans subjected to surveillance under FISA and the number of times FISA information is used for law enforcement purposes, information that up until now has been kept close to the Department of Justice’s chest despite repeated requests from Congress, the ACLU and other advocacy groups.... A sign-on letter to Senators Leahy, Grassley and Specter on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Reporting Act of 2003 can be found here.

"Coloradans who clear criminal background checks and pass training courses on handgun use would qualify for permits to carry concealed weapons under a law approved Monday in the state Senate."

"Sheriffs would be required to issue permits to anyone who met all of the qualifications. Current law allows police chiefs and sheriffs to determine who should get permits."

"Senate Bill 24 was one of two gun measures that won Senate support despite vocal objections by gun critics, who said the bills would cripple the ability of cities to keep guns off their streets and out of venues from parks to hospitals."

"The second bill, Senate Bill 25, won final approval on an 18-16 vote and now goes to the House. It bars local governments from enacting ordinances that conflict with federal or state statutes on the sale, purchase or possession of guns. It also allows the carrying of guns in cars for legal purposes within jurisdictions - a provision in direct conflict with current Denver law."

Here is a the ACLU's section-by-section analysis of the proposed Patriot Act II--officially known as the Justice Department's draft of the “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003.”

Among the objectionable provisions:

For example, Ashcroft's proposals include broader wiretapping authority; reprise the Operation TIPS program by granting broader immunity to private businesses that phone in fake terrorist tips and allow the President the sole power to strip Americans' citizenship if they are found to have supported organizations deemed "terrorist" by the Administration, even if they know nothing about alleged links to terrorism.

Here are some Bills of interest to us that have been recently introduced in Congress

S 402 (Feingold, D-WI), to abolish the death penalty under federal law, to Judiciary. S2457, CR 2/13/03.

S 407 (DeWine, R-OH), to provide loan forgiveness for attorneys who represent low-income families or individuals involved in the family or domestic relations court systems, to Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. S2457, CR 2/13/03.

S 399 (Campbell, R-CO), to authorize grants for the establishment of quasi-judicial campus drug courts at colleges and universities modeled after state drug court programs, to Judiciary. S2457, CR 2/13/03.

S 390 (Levin, D-MI), to provide retroactive effect to a sentencing safety valve provision, to Judiciary. S2456, CR 2/13/03.

More opposition to Patriot Act II, this time coming from the Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial.

"Patriot Act II" offers everything an aspiring autocrat might wish for: It would expand government's spying power and curb judicial checks -- permitting 15-day wiretaps without court approval in a "time of emergency." It would expand aw-enforcers' power to secretly arrest and indefinitely detain anyone thought to be linked to a suspected terror group. It would tighten the Freedom of Information Act to keep the public from discovering whom the government has arrested and why.

Most troubling, perhaps, is a provision that would strip American citizenship from anyone who supports political groups of which the executive branch disapproves. That could mean expatriation for any citizen who makes a contribution to a charity that the Justice Department decides is subversive -- even if the gift was otherwise legal and made in good faith.

We need to keep spreading the word about this rights-abusive bill so that when the Bush Administration tries to sneak it past Congress, they'll be ready to spot it, understand the issues and resoundingly reject it.

Via Hamster, we find this commentary on Patriot Act II by Anita Ramasastry. She says the sequel is even scarier than the original.

Patriot II, as drafted by the Attorney General and his staff, would begin to make TIA [the Total Information Awareness Project] the law.

For instance, under Patriot II, federal agents would not need a subpoena or obtain a court order to access our consumer credit reports. This provision would open the wedge for TIA to be implemented through a huge database. Our credit reports are repositories of a great deal of sensitive information - from our employment history to where we shop, borrow and transact.

To see the information, the feds would only have to certify that they will use the information "in connection with their duties to enforce federal law." Note that they would not have to certify that the person whose information was accessed was suspected of terrorism, or indeed, any other crime. And no one would be notified that their records had been accessed. When a commercial entity requests a consumer's credit report, a note is made in the consumer's file alerting him to this fact.

Patriot Act I was passed in haste, without adequate opportunity for review by Congress. It seems Ashcroft now is trying to pull the wool over Congress' eyes the same way--he sent a copy of his draft legislaiton to Speaker Hastert, but not to the members of Congress. Listen to Ms. Ramasastry when she says:

If the introduction of Patriot II in Congress coincides with the Iraq war, it may well be because the Administration has planned it that way, to take advantage of circumstances to ram the bill through both Houses quickly.

Even if Patriot II does end up being introduced in wartime, citizens and their representatives should fight this legislation tooth and nail, for it threatens to take even more of our liberties away. It is a wholesale assault on privacy, free speech, and freedom of information.

We've added a newsection to our blogroll called "Government Watchers"--click on Patriot Watch often-- he promises to stay on top of this new legislation. We'll do our best as well. You can find our Patriot Act critiques here.

Cheers to The Tennessean for its editorial today urging Congress to pass the Innocence Protection Act..

Since 1973, 107 death row inmates have been exonerated by DNA evidence. That's the identifier of a genetic fingerprint unique to each person. If DNA proves a person was not guilty of a crime, the game is over. The suspect is innocent. Gradually, states are beginning to realize the risks of executing innocent people. Congress should push hard for new protections under federal law.

The bill, authored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., goes beyond DNA in an attempt to shore up fairness in the system. It also includes a provision for improving the quality of defense counsel with grants to states to help fund legal representation.

There is no question that events in some states have brought new attention to the DNA issue. Gov. George Ryan in Illinois, in light of 13 death row inmates being exonerated from 1977-2000, commuted the sentences of 167 death row inmates to life in prison. The odds suggest that some of those 167 are probably innocent.

Congress is right to get involved. If governments in this country are going to impose the death penalty, which is the wrong remedy even if the inmate is guilty, they must make certain they get the conviction right. DNA is showing that convictions have not always been right. Any course of action that continues executions in the face of such knowledge is injustice at its worst.

The Innocence Protection Act (H.R. H.R.912 / S. 486) is a carefully crafted package of criminal justice reforms aimed at reducing the risk that innocent persons may be executed. Among its most important provisions are affording greater access to DNA testing by convicted offenders and helping States improve the quality of legal representation in capital cases.

The IPA is a bipartisan bill, with 250 co-sponsors in the House in the Senate. It has received widespread support from newspapers across the country, faith-based organizations and criminal justice professionals.

In the last Congress, hearings were held in both houses and the bill was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it remained, due to opposition from a very few ultra-conservatives, like Orrin Hatch.

The bill's sponsors have promised to push for hearings and passage in the 108th Congress. On February 4, 2003, Senator Leahy, Rep. Delahunt and others issued this statement.

Here is list of the co-sponsors.

You can help. Contact your elected officials in Congress today. It will only take a few minutes and a few clicks of your mouse to let your U.S. Representative and Senators that we must pass the IPA before the end of this Congress.

EPIC has a critical analysis of Patriot Act II's provisions. Bottom line:

The draft touches on a number of areas of law, including wiretapping, law enforcement access to business records, freedom of information, search and seizure, encryption policy, and immigration law. When the language was leaked, the DOJ immediately issued a press release minimizing the importance of the draft. However, the draft indicates that DOJ intends to continue to increase executive police power while either limiting or eliminating congressional or judicial oversight.

Why is the mainstream media barely reporting on Ashcroft's Sneak Attack on Liberties ? FAIR explains.

Update: Jake Tapper at Salon writes this article about Ashcroft's grand plans for more eavesdropping, privacy invading powers.

The ACLU also has analysis of the bill up.

Atrios reports that one of the new powers Ashcroft is seeking in Patriot Act II is expanded autopsy powers on U.S. victims of terrorism.

But tucked inside the 87-pages of revisions is new authority for the Justice Department to authorize autopsies to learn more about terrorist perpetrators.

"Autopsies of the victims of terrorist attacks and other deadly crimes, as well as other persons, can be an effective way of obtaining information about the perpetrators," according to the recommendations drafted by the Justice Department Office of Legislative Affairs. "In addition to revealing the cause of death, autopsies sometimes enable law enforcement to retrieve forensic evidence (such as bomb fragments) from the deceased body."

The department suggests that Congress, "create federal authority, in the attorney general, to conduct autopsies when necessary or appropriate in the conduct of federal criminal investigations. This authority is not limited and may be delegated to others."

Finally, a resounding defeat for the Total Information Awareness project -- "House and Senate negotiators have agreed that a Pentagon project intended to detect terrorists by monitoring Internet e-mail and commercial databases for health, financial and travel information cannot be used against Americans." The conferees also voted to restrict further research on the program absent "extensive consultation with Congress."

The only way this vote will not become law is if the Senate and House fail to agree on the total Spending Bill in which TIA is buried. Or, if Bush vetoes the Congressionally approved bill.

One of the principal objections Congress had to the bill involved the participation of John Poindexter.

Several members of Congress have said that the admiral was an unwelcome symbol because he had been convicted of lying to Congress about weapons sales to Iran and illegal aid to Nicaraguan rebels, an issue with constitutional ramifications, the Iran-contra affair. The fact that his conviction was later reversed on the ground that he had been given immunity for the testimony in which he lied did not mitigate Congressional opinion, they said.

Praise goes to Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who co-sponsored the Wyden amendment. Grassley said,

"Protecting Americans' civil liberties while at the same time winning the war against terrorism has got to be top priority for the United States. Congressional oversight of this program will be a must as we proceed in the war against terror. The acceptance of this amendment sends a signal that Congress won't sit on its hands as the TIA program moves forward."

From an editorial in today's Washington Post:

...the draft contains many troubling provisions. It would further expand intelligence surveillance powers into the traditional realm of law enforcement. Like a Senate bill soon to be taken up by the Judiciary Committee, it would allow foreigners suspected of terrorism to be watched as intelligence targets -- rather than subjects of law enforcement -- even if they could not be linked to any foreign group or state.

But it would go much further. It would allow intelligence surveillance in certain circumstances even when the government could not produce any evidence of a crime. It also would allow certain snooping with no court authorization, not only -- as now -- when Congress declared war but when it authorized force or when the country was attacked.

The result of such changes would be to magnify the government's discretion to pick the legal regime under which it investigates and prosecutes national security cases and to give it more power unilaterally to exempt people from the protections of the justice system and place them in a kind of alternative legal world. Congress should be pushing in the opposite direction.

Before the department asks Congress for more powers, it needs to disclose how it is using the ones it already has. Yet the Justice Department has balked at reasonable oversight and public information requests. In fact, the draft legislation would allow the department to withhold information concerning the identity of Sept. 11 detainees -- a matter now before the courts. At the very least, Congress should insist on a full understanding of what the department is doing before granting the executive branch still more authority.