Dan Z.  12-02-2002
08:01 PM ET (US)
|
There's certainly enough shame and blame to go around, but as I read it, Ashcroft has increased the damage by an order of magnitude. Besides refusing to release Justice Dept. data under the FOIA as Reno's JD also did, Ashcroft's JD is overtly offering immunity from prosecution to all Federal departments that turn down FOIA requests, essentially repealing the Freedom of Information Act during his term in office. Big difference there.
I'm no apologist for the Democrats; they sold their soul to big business years ago. Even so, they are more likely to defend civil liberties and civil rights, and perhaps even restore them. We need Instant Runoff Voting, but we won't have it in time for the next election.
|
cypherpunks 12-02-2002
06:00 PM ET (US)
|
If you read the article carefully, you'll see that the Democrats were no better.
The dispute is over a database called TRAC which includes information about law enforcement, and which relies on Justice Department releases. It was the Clinton administration which first stopped sending data to TRAC because some of it was embarrassing to the administration. TRAC sued, the Justice department under Janet Reno settled out of court, but then reneged on releasing the data and TRAC sued again, with the case still pending.
The Clinton administration then tried denying the validity of the TRAC data, but records which came out after the 2000 election showed that they knew all along that the data was accurate.
Further careful reading of the article reveals that the Ashcroft order quoted by BB was in October 2001, just after 9/11, and that despite the extra review, the TRAC data was released in April 2002.
What apparently prompted the recent outcry was a Justice decision a few weeks ago not to release data related to pending criminal investigations. The TRAC people don't buy this excuse, and the author of the Washington Post article is a friend of theirs, so he's pushing their interpretation. But it's not completely clear that Justice is out of line in this particular decision.
I recommend reading the actual article and you'll see that the situation is really far more complex than the brief BB excerpt suggests.
|
chico haas 12-02-2002
04:45 PM ET (US)
|
Worse, you're on the enema list.
|
Stefan Jones 12-02-2002
03:36 PM ET (US)
|
Am I on an enemies list yet?
|
Dan Z. 12-02-2002
03:03 PM ET (US)
|
I wish we didn't have 2 years left of this. They're already chugging out Orwellian nightwares faster than the press can keep up. Perpetual war, Total Information Awareness, a parallel "legal" system where the accused doesn't have their Constitutionally guaranteed rights? The question has become not, "What's next?" but "What's left?"
As for "educating the American public", well, we'd better educate ourselves to vote for the Democratic candidate, or else sign up for 4 more devastating years of this. It's unfortunate, but it really is that simple.
|
cypherpunks 12-02-2002
02:09 PM ET (US)
|
Pardon me for spewing the obvious. These people are out of hand. How do we educate the American public to nip this in the bud next election, instead of worshiping the "National Security" ground these bastards walk on? ... um, if we are still bothering with elections... Ashcroft seems to be forgeting/ignoring that the American government (and it's investments, properties, websites...) belongs to the people. Not to the government, visa vi the Republican majority. "Hey, we control the house, the senate, the president, and the supreme court. Is there no end to what we can get away with?" Hell, I'm not saying the Democrats are any less devious, but if the Democrats want my green assed vote back, they gotta earn the mother fucker. Edited 12-02-2002 02:19 PM
|
cypherpunks 12-02-2002
12:32 PM ET (US)
|
What a pisser.
|
|
|
New Topic
My Topics
Views:
464
(Unique:
336
) / Subscribers:
1 | What's this?
