Mr. Ashcroft's Tantrum (washingtonpost.com): "The attorney general followed with a sarcastic harangue of critics of the Patriot Act. 'The charges of the hysterics are revealed for what they are: castles in the air,' he scoffed. 'Built on misrepresentation. Supported by unfounded fear. Held aloft by hysteria.' And he continued: 'Allow me to take a moment to clarify who should, and who should not, be worried about these tools in the hands of law enforcement. If you are spending a lot of time surveilling nuclear power plants with your al Qaeda pals, you might be a target of the Patriot Act. If your idea of a vacation is two weeks in a terrorist training camp, you might be a target of the Patriot Act. If you have cave-side dinners with a certain terrorist thug named bin Laden . . . if you enjoy swapping recipes for chemical weapons from your 'Joy of Jihad' cookbook . . . you might be a target of the Patriot Act.' "

What kind of statement is that? Surely, if any of the above conditions held, then you should be a target of investigation. The Patriot Act is criticised for extending the powers of government in ways that infringe our civil liberties.

The government already had enough power to investigate people who are haning out with Bin Laden. It needs to do more with what it has, not get more power. Especially not powers that are exercised in secret and infringe our rights. Those are the kind of powers that we would expect a fundementalist government to impose.
- posted by geoff @ #