I protest.

Ashcroftian lies.

Emma at Notes on the Atrocities points out this article by the ACLU: "ACLU Demands Truth From Justice Department; New Report Details False Claims About Scope, Impact of PATRIOT Act." To my complete lack of surprise, it turns out that Ashcroft has been lying when he has said that the so-called "USA PATRIOT" Act doesn't permit anything that wasn't permitted before:

The American Civil Liberties Union today said that it has found a consistent pattern of factually inaccurate assertions by the Department of Justice in statements to the media and Congress, statements that mischaracterize the scope, potential impact and likely harm of the now-notorious USA PATRIOT Act. … Specific instances of what the ACLU termed the Attorney General’s legal version of "voodoo economics" include:

• The Justice Department’s repeated assertion that the USA PATRIOT Act’s surveillance provisions cannot be used against U.S. citizens. In fact, the surveillance provisions are applicable to citizens and non-citizens alike. Some of the surveillance provisions can be used even against citizens who are not suspected of espionage, terrorism, or crime of any kind.
• The Justice Department’s repeated assertion that Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which permits the government to demand that any organization — including a library, bookstore, or hospital — turn its records over to the FBI, cannot be invoked unless the government can show “probable cause.” In fact, the law contains no such restriction. Section 215 requires only that the government declare that the records are “sought for” an ongoing investigation. The “sought for” standard is an extremely lenient one, and it bears no resemblance to “probable cause.” That the standard is so low is especially troubling in light of the Attorney General’s recent acknowledgement (at a June 2003 Congressional hearing) that the FBI could use Section 215 to obtain not only library and bookstore records but also computer files, educational records, and even genetic information.

The report itself can be found here; (note that this is a PDF file and you need the Adobe Acrobat Reader to read it). In addition to the above, it points out that Section 215 of the Act can be applied to anyone, not only to "terrorists and spies," as the Justice Department would have it. They also remind us that Ashcroft's assertion that "[t]he American people can trust the authorities not to abuse their powers" is false: "Democratic societies are based on checks and balances, not on blind faith in the good intentions of government officials."

Emma points out that, in fact,

the Ashcroft dragnet has been largely a failure at producing links to terrorism (though it's great at harrassing immigrants). In addition to work done by the ACLU, the Migration Policy Institute released a report last month that described widespread arrests, but few terror-related convictions. Moreover, among those detained (and of the 1,200, the MPI could only identify a third) were "persistent violations of due process as well as harsh law-enforcement measures directed solely at males from Arab and Muslim countries." Forty-six percent had lived in the states over six years, and half had wives and children.

I watched a large part of Ashcroft's most recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee a few weeks ago and was revolted by his calm arrogance and his matter-of-fact lying regarding the Act. Even worse is his desire for even more intrusive and wide-ranging powers. And over and over he maintains that we "can trust him."

Right. Like a mouse can trust a snake.