Newspaper logo  
 
 
   Where’s the Media Coverage of 'Patriot II'?

MEDIA CRITICISM:

Where’s the Media Coverage of ‘Patriot II’?

The response to US Attorney General John Ashcroft’s latest legislative juggernaut has been muted in the press. Why?

A report by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)

The legal definition of domestic terrorism is now so broad that it could encompass traditional forms of political protest, such as non-violent civil disobedience.

In an attempt to further increase the government’s surveillance and law enforcement powers, and decrease judicial review and protections of civil liberties, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has secretly drafted a sweeping sequel to the USA Patriot Act of 2001.

Despite the draft legislation’s authoritarian provisions—including one that would empower the government to strip Americans of their citizenship if they participate in the lawful activities of any group that the attorney general labels “terrorist”— mainstream U.S. media have responded with only a handful of news stories.

The news was broken on February 7 by the Center for Public Integrity, which obtained and published a full copy of the DOJ’s draft “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003”—or “Patriot Act II”—legislation (www.public-i.org).

According to CPI, the January 9, 2003 draft was prepared by Attorney General John Ashcroft’s staff and has not been officially released by the DOJ. Elected officials were kept in the dark about Ashcroft’s initiative, says CPI: “Senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee minority staff have inquired about Patriot II for months and have been told as recently as this week that there is no such legislation being planned.”

Among other things, the draft includes provisions that would:

  • Authorize a DNA database of “suspected terrorists”—a category so broadly defined that it could, according to CPI, include anyone associated with “suspected” groups, and any “noncitizens suspected of certain crimes or of having supported any group designated as terrorist.”

  • Nullify most law enforcement consent decrees passed before September 11, 2001 that do not relate to civil rights violations. Consent decrees are legal agreements that limit law enforcement’s ability to gather information about individuals and groups. Many, such as New York City’s Handschu agreement (which has since been severely weakened by a federal court ruling), were arrived at in response to police abuses, including the harassment of social justice groups.

  • Enable the government to “expatriate” US citizens “if, with the intent to relinquish his nationality, he becomes a member of, or provides material support to, a group that the United Stated has designated as a ‘terrorist organization.’” Currently, you must formally state your intent to give up US citizenship in order to lose it, or take a drastic action such as serving in the military of a state that is at war with the US. CPI warns that Patriot Act II would allow the government to “infer” that intent from an individual’s political associations, and possibly deport any citizen who participated in the work of a group that the attorney general chooses to brand as “terrorist,” even if he or she broke no laws.

These provisions build on the expanded law enforcement powers established by the first USA Patriot Act, which created the new category of “domestic terrorism,” a crime defined in part as activities that “involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws” and which “appear to be intended” to “intimidate or coerce” civilians or the government.

In examining the measures that Patriot Act II would authorize against “suspected terrorists,” it is important to recall that the legal definition of domestic terrorism is now so broad that it could encompass traditional forms of political protest, such as non-violent civil disobedience. The Patriot Act II draft also includes measures to weaken the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) system by curtailing public access to information about accused terrorists being held in custody, and by restricting access to the “worst case scenario” reports that companies are required to file with the Environmental Protection Agency about the potential effects of environmental disasters.

Despite all this, the story has barely made a ripple in the U.S. news media. On PBS, “Now with Bill Moyers” featured an extensive interview with CPI’s Charles Lewis (2/7/03), but apart from that, a search of the national television news programs archived in the Nexis database found only one report on the DOJ’s plan for a Patriot Act II, a segment on Fox News Channel’s “The Big Story With John Gibson” (2/10/03). The story was apparently ignored by ABC, CBS and NBC’s nightly newscasts and newsmagazine shows.

It wasn’t hard for newspapers to do better than that, but even so, their coverage amounted to a handful of stories. Of major papers included in Nexis, the Washington Post gave the story the most prominent treatment, with a front-page article (2/8/03), a news brief (2/11/03) and an editorial (2/12/03). The New York Times and Los Angeles Times ran articles on the draft legislation the same day, but on inside pages (A10 and A24, respectively). The Chicago Tribune printed a version of the Los Angeles Times story, and New York’s Newsday ran an article about Patriot II on page two.

Aside from a brief news item in the Seattle Times (2/8/03) and editorials in the San Francisco Chronicle and Rocky Mountain News (2/11/03), that was the extent of the stories Ashcroft’s plans generated.

The fact that the DOJ has secretly prepared legislation that would fundamentally alter the protections afforded Americans by the Constitution is, by any measure, a huge story. The first USA Patriot Act was rushed through Congress in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks with very little media coverage or public debate. (See “Are You a Terrorist?,” Extra! 11-12/01). Media must not let this happen a second time— there is too much at stake.


Read the Center for Public Integrity’s Report on “Patriot Act II,” along with the full draft legislation.

To contact FAIR: (212) 633-6700, fair.org/ or E-mail: fair@fair.org


Copyright © 2003 The Baltimore Chronicle and The Sentinel. All rights reserved. We invite your comments, criticisms and suggestions.

Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.

This story was published on March 5, 2003.
  
MARCH 2003
LOCAL NEWS
3/5NEWS BRIEFS
3/5CALENDAR
3/5 Sports: Death of a Prospect: Steve Bechler, 1979-2003
3/5 ‘Treatment, Not Prison’ Says MD Budget Study
3/5 Environmental Crisis Center Struggles
3/5 Funding for Legal Services for the Poor In Jeopardy
3/5 Court Clarifies Procedures of ‘Victims’ Rights’ Laws
3/5 Local Assistant Principal Gets National Honor
3/5 State’s Unemployment Benefits Among Lowest
3/5 100K Trash Cans for the City
LETTERS
3/18 Letters
OPEN LETTERS:
 3/21Open Letter to The Sun
 3/19An Open Letter to Americans from a Concerned German
  3/5 Another Open Letter To America from a Canadian
  3/11 Open Letter to President Bush
  3/11 Open Letter to Maryland's Senators
  3/12 An Open Letter from Veterans for Peace and Military Families To Maryland's Senators and Congresspersons
  3/12 Open Letter to the "Major Media" Cohorts of the "Chicken Hawk" White House Agenda
ART & ENTERTAINMENT
3/5Book: Cash for Blood Details City’s Sorry Slavery History
3/5Book: Painful Questions Dares to Address 9/11
3/5Best Films of 2002: ‘The Pianist’ and ‘Rings’ Towers’
3/5Book: No Better Time to Read No Greater Threat
3/5Book: Bio of Miles Davis Distills His Genius
3/5Quotes: Philosophical Musings
3/5Words of Wisdom from James Madison
NEWS MEDIA CRITIQUE
3/5Where’s the Media Coverage of ‘Patriot II’?
3/5Liberal Talk Show Set to Provide Alternative to Limbaugh
SPEAKING OUT
3/28 EDITORIAL: MD Legislators Consider Stealth Anti-Small Business Taxes
3/19 Progressive and Neo-Conservative Journalists Face Off on Iraq
3/5Where Are Our ‘Commons’ for Free Speech?
3/5Blizzard of ’03: Will Bush Listen to Cold Questions?
3/5Why the ‘Drug War’ is Racist
3/5What Would You Do If You Saw Your Nation Going Fascist?
3/5Why Haven’t I Done More to Oppose War in Iraq?
3/5Viewpoint from Europe: What Went Wrong?
3/5 WV ‘Mountaintop Removal’ Alarms Environmentalists
3/5On Asbestosis, Health Insurance, & Union Work
NATION & WORLD
3/28 Republicans defeat conflict of interest amendments to Procurement Bill, including one prohibiting chemical and biological weapons sales
3/13 The Administration Plays "Russian Roulette" With Our Economy
3/5 “L’affaire Chavez”: Larry Birns on How Venezuela Can Avoid Civil War
3/5 US Must Budget Enough for States’ Security Needs
3/5 The Real American Taliban
3/5 It’s Okay to Eat Belgian Chocolate
3/5 Right Livelihood Awards
3/5 ‘Death Tax’ Deception
3/5 Quick Political Scholastic Aptitude Test
3/5 “The Righteous War”
FROM OTHER SITES
  Websites We Like!
  Outstanding Analysis & Perspective

Public Service Ads: