<a href="http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12032">It's only the Constitution</a> by Nat Hentoff on <a href="http://www.alternet.org">AlterNet</a> provides more details on John Ashcroft's plain for domestic vigilance. One of the more interesting provisions is "roving wiretaps": <span class="quote"><q> ... a single warrant for a suspect's telephone must include any and all types of phones he or she uses in any and all locations, including pay phones. If a suspect uses a relative's phone or your phone, that owner becomes part of the investigative database. So does anyone using the same pay phone or any pay phone in the area.</q></span> The article also (finally) extracts the official definition of domestic terrorism: <span class="quote"><q> ... A person "commits the crime of domestic terrorism if within the U.S., activity is engaged in that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any State, and appear to be intended to: 1) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; 2) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or 3) affect the conduct of the government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.</q></span> So, if you were a protester before 9/11 who set a car on fire, you would get tried in a regular court and probably get fined and/or jail time. Now, you're a domestic terrorist and would get convicted by a military tribunal. I feel safer already. Don't forget that you're in the minority if you feel uncomfortable with some of these new laws. From the same article, a July 2001 "State of the First Amendment" poll went like this: <ul> Seventy-one percent believe "it is important for the government to hold the media in check." Only 53 percent strongly agree that "newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of a story." Only 57 percent agree strongly that "newspapers should be allowed to criticize public officials." </ul> As the article points out, that was <i>before</i> September 11. Think of the answers you would get now. Ellis Henican, of the <a href="http://www.newsday.com">New York Newsday</a> writes <a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/newyork/ny-nyhen072499767dec07.story">Crusade Against Due Process</a> about John Ashcroft's meeting with the Senate over the last few days. In response to concerns that "Without the precious due process we've honed for 200 years, how exactly are we supposed to know we've arrested the right guys?", he answered: <span class="quote"><q>Are we supposed to read them the Miranda rights, hire a flamboyant defense lawyer, bring them back to the United States to create a new cable network of Osama TV or what have you, provide a worldwide platform from which propaganda can be developed?</q></span> That's reassuring. No zealotry there. Who is this guy anyway? Why does he have so much power? Almost exactly one year ago, he was most known for being the only guy in American history who lost a Senate race to <i>a dead guy</i>. Now he's running the country. How does a non-elected office hold such power in a supposed democracy? <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org">CounterPunch</a> has published <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/edwards1.html">a transcript</a> of the proceedings. They're a true testament to speaking without saying anything. On <a href="http://www.antiwar.com">Antiwar.com</a>, Justin Raimondo published <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j120301.html">Ashcroft's Reign of Terror</a> (nicer <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/justin/pf/p-j120301.html">printable version</a>), which talks about current programs and their similarity to previous programs from our more recent history, like "Cointelpro", which was "designed to infiltrate, disrupt, and discredit domestic dissident organizations". All signs indicate that activity of this sort will be on the rise again. But, this time, we've traded in the hackneyed, 20th-Century "Communist" for the more apropos 21-Century "Terrorist". Don't like something or someone? Accuse them of supporting terrorism, or, better yet, <i>being</i> a terrorist. Problem solved. Go ahead, everybody's doing it...even Martha Stewart. (Check out <a href="http://www.newsday.com/features/printedition/ny-p2bottom22496510dec04.story">Filing Nails in the Fight Against Terrorism</a> for a list of accusations already thrown.)