The results of an in-depth probe of American attitudes about the war on terror and individual liberties post-September 11 revealed some bizarre anomalies.  Thirty-three percent of people polled believe that the "war on terror" is strengthening their rights, 22 % says it is having no impact, and 19% believe it is eroding rights.

But when questioned about their support or key provisions of the Patriot Act that subvert those rights, an overwhelming number--between 70 and 80 percent--rejected the principles of these intrusions.

The pollsters suggest that the respondents are not aware that the provisions they loathe are part of The Patriot Act and are undermining their rights, a possibility attributable to the media's dearth of attention to the law until recently.

They obviously have not been following Civil Liberties Watch.

The GAO says that all these watch, no-fly, no-entry, no-go, lists have got to go. Too confusing. We need one big black list of all suspicious persons. 

Read the GAO recommendation. 

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in the case of  Virginia v. Hicks.  The case arose out of a young black man's conviction for trespassing on public housing property in Richmond, Virginia.  Kevin Hicks served a year in jail for his crime--visiting, he says, the mother of his child to deliver diapers for the baby.

The housing authority, to deter crime it says, issues warning notices to undesirables to stay off the property, including sidewalks. Not surprisingly, most who are warned off are young, black men, suspected of being the drug-dealing "type."  Entry after notice constitutes cause for arrest for criminal trespass. Hicks spent a year in jail for his crime, before the Supreme Court of Virginia found the regulation a violation of the First Amendment. 

The housing authority appealed to the Supreme Court.  Hicks and various friends of the court ("amici") filed briefs arguing that the policy was a violation of rights of speech, association, and due process.

This case brings home the comment of a friend of mine, a young black man himself who teaches American history at Michigan State University. He reads my rantings and ravings about the post-September 11 loss of liberties and muses, "We {young and black} never had that kind of freedom to lose."

Read Julie Hilden's insightful analysis on the case in Findlaw's Writ.

According to a report in today's New York Times, immigration authorites have in place biometric identification procedures that will scan faces and other "body parts" to identify "certain" foreign visitors at airports, ports, and other border crossings. All in the name of fighting "terror."

How terrible looking do you have to be to be nabbed as a terrorist?

Americans (including this blogger) have been led to believe that the Pointdexter Total Information Awareness program was DOA. Not so, according to this report that details funding of a multi-million dollar study to develop software that will weed out the terrorists from the non-terrorists in the data bank.

All in the name of protecting our privacy while collecting every bit of electronic data available on us. 

Attorney General John Ashcroft doesn't care much for court orders or ethical rules that interfere with his way of looking at the law.  Read about how he and some of his prosecutors subvert fair trial rights in my article in today's Findlaw Writ.

The Senate is considering a bill that would create greater powers for the secret FISA court. Go to this ACLU site and send a fax or email to your Senator to stop the encroaching powers of a court in which the identity of the judges are secret, the location of the court undisclosed, and the rules clandestine.

The Supreme Court ruled today, in the case of Demore v. Kim, that immigration authorities can detain an immigrant pending deportation after release from incarceration.  In a case involving a legal resident alien, the court ruled that bail and habeas corpus relief can be denied while the government finds a country to accept the non-U.S. citizen. 

The 5-4 majority decision was further fractured by several confusing "dissent in part," "concur in part" opinions. Hard as they are to unravel, the news for immigrants is not good.

The decision upholds sweeping quasi-judicial powers granted to INS and DOJ in the Clinton administration, powers that have led to increasing burdens on immigrant populations. Some immigrants have lived here since children, and have no connections to the home of their birth, but because they never became naturalized citizens, they do not have the rights of U.S. citizens.

Read an analysis in The New York Times.

From The Progressive's site, word that producer of the CBS miniseries on Hilter was fired for saying it was a good time to revisit Hitler's rise to power, given the times we live in.  The CBS suits said he was equating Bush with Hitler.  Were they engaging in Freudian projection?

Maximum irony here, apparently lost on CBS. 

Remember TIA (total information awareness)?  Masterminded by John Pointdexter, convicted of lying to Congress about Iran-Contra?  Homeland Security supposedly scratching the plan, due to such public outcry. But something even more sinister is afoot at the FBI. A massive database collecting all sorts of information (including news stories) and intelligence about people and known as TID - Terrorism Intelligence and Data. 

The FBI admits that civil liberties' "groups" won't like it. But, get this!  They tell us not to worry--for the CIA is watching over them to make sure they don't run afoul of the law!  What law?  Any laws we had on the side of liberties flew out the window with Patriot. 

Read all about it in a magazine for government executives. TID gives new meaning to the term "Orwellian."