This was written by Adam Stutz in the "What's Hot Off the Press" column of the newsletter of Project Censored, a media research group at Sonoma State University that tracks the news published in independent journals and newsletters.

You can view the text of the bills introduced in the House and Senate here. S. 89 is the Universal National Service Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate). HR 163 was introduced by Rep. Rangel "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."

US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005 by Adam Stutz • Wednesday January 28, 2004 at 09:50 AM

The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!

Reinstatement of the draft

Dear Friends and Family,

I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the federal government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately. Details and links follow.

Bump and Update: Senator Richard Durbin responds to Ashcroft--we received his press release by e-mail:

DURBIN RESPONDS TO VETO THREAT AGAINST THE SAFE ACT

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) today issued the statement below following the Bush Administration’s veto threat against legislation that would amend parts of the PATRIOT Act. Bipartisan legislation which I, along with Larry Craig (R-ID) and a group of other senators, introduced last October has today come under fire from Attorney General John Ashcroft and members of the Bush Administration. The legislation, known as the Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act, is a bill designed to impose reasonable limits on law enforcement’s authority without hampering their ability to investigate and prevent terrorism.

Our bill does not propose a repeal of the PATRIOT Act – far from it. I voted for that bill, as did the vast majority of my colleagues in Congress. I believed then, and I still believe, that the PATRIOT Act made many reasonable and necessary changes in the law. But in some cases the new law goes too far, and we should amend those provisions to reflect every American citizen’s right to be both safe and free. Under the SAFE Act, the FBI would still have broad authority to combat terrorism; at the same time the bill would protect innocent Americans from unchecked government surveillance.

Attorney General Ashcroft’s response today is an unfortunate over-reaction to a reasoned and measured effort to mend the PATRIOT Act. Three months ago I asked senior officials at the Department of Justice to work with me and my staff on changes to the PATRIOT Act that reflect the very real concerns of many Americans. After 90 days of silence, today they issued a veto threat. This extraordinary reaction to a bill that hasn’t even had a hearing in the Senate demonstrates that the Administration fears that this reasonable bipartisan approach is likely to succeed.

I am eager to work with the President to meet the challenges posed by the post-September 11th world, but we must do so in a way that protects the freedoms of all Americans

************
original post

This is truly a bad idea. In an effort to rein in liberal professors at Colorado colleges and universities, a conservative legislator will introduce an Academic Bill of Rights this week.

The proposed academic bill of rights is aimed at protecting conservative students who say they are targets of harassment and discrimination by left-leaning faculty because of their political beliefs.

Student leaders at the University of Colorado at Boulder reacted with fear. This whole bill is scary to me," said Sergio Gonzales, one of three student body leaders. Gonzales said the measure could affect what is taught in the classroom and the type of outside speakers invited to address students.

"Having the legislature say that controversial material not covered in the course syllabus should not be introduced is extremely dangerous. Higher education is meant to expand people's minds and challenge their ways of thinking," Gonzales said. "This isn't K-12. We're talking about adults who go to college who should be talking about controversial topics. Besides, who is to decide what is controversial?"

....Ryan Miccio, head of legislative affairs for the Associated Students of Colorado State University in Fort Collins,...said he is worried. "I would be concerned about any legislation that could potentially alter university curriculum, and it sounds like this could," Miccio said.

Rumblings about the bill, to be introduced Wednesday, made the news in September. Denver Post columnist Diane Carman called it " another goofy lesson in politics." Jesse Walker at Reason had this to say. [links to September articles via Walter in Denver .] RMPN says "Not So Fast."

[comments now closed]

In response to President Bush's State of the Union Address, the ACLU Tuesday night issued a statement on the Patriot Act: Fix it, Don't Extend it.

Reflecting deep public discontent with anti-terrorism legislation adopted in the weeks after 9/11, the American Civil Liberties Union tonight urged Congress to reject President Bush's request that Congress make permanent controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

"In his State of the Union address, President Bush once again preyed on Americans' fears and insecurities to justify extending the controversial USA Patriot Act," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director.

"The sunset provisions of the Patriot Act that President Bush now wishes to override were designed to give Congress an opportunity in 2005 to see if the law was keeping America both safe and free," Romero said. "Amidst mounting criticism of the Act from Republicans and Democrats alike, Congress must not abdicate its responsibility and cave in to the President once again."

"While much of the Patriot Act is neutral legislation for civil liberties, it contains about a dozen provisions that simply go too far," Romero added. "These dangerous provisions increase the chances that innocent Americans will be swept into terrorism investigations by removing traditional checks and balances on law enforcement and oversight powers from the judiciary."

Wired News is the latest to examine The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 that Bush signed into law last month. This is the law that expands the FBI's power to obtain records from financial institutions (including casinos, pawn shops and more) without requiring permission from a judge. [link via Cursor.]

We wrote about it here.

The Arizona Star sides with Chief Justice Rehnquist in urging Congress to repeal the repeal the PROTECT Act:

Clearly, there is a disconnect between conservative members of Congress and some conservatives in the federal judiciary. Congress believes that when it comes to doling out sentences, one size fits all. Experienced jurists know otherwise. There is no evidence that judges who imposed lighter sentences abused their authority.

The emphasis in sentencing should be on justice, not on the retribution favored by mandatory sentencing adherents. A judge who has intimate knowledge of the case before him should be allowed the independence to impose what he considers the appropriate sentence. Federal court judges should be given more discretion in sentencing.

The Commercial Appeal of Memphis agrees:

The law, by attempting to enforce rigid adherence to sentencing guidelines, effectively puts more sentencing power in the hands of prosecutors, and it also strains the quality of official mercy.

If you want ephedra before the ban goes into effect, join the throngs who feel the way you do. The Rocky Mountain News is one newspaper that opposes the ban.

We're not endorsing ephedra, nor condemning it. Jacob Sullum has a lot to say about the ban, here and here.

[comments now closed]

Chief Justice William Rehnquist ripped the PROTECT Act in a year end report and said the Act comes too close to intimidation for federal judges involved in sentencing decisions.

By singling out judges who occasionally veer from the toughest sentencing, the law "could appear to be an unwarranted and ill-considered effort to intimidate individual judges in the performance of their judicial duties," the chief justice said.

Rehnquist also blasted Congress for failing to fully fund the federal judiciary. Though he heads the Supreme Court, Rehnquist is "chief justice of the United States" and was speaking for the entire federal judiciary.

Did Bush commit another stealth attack by signing the latest anti-terror law on a Saturday--the same Saturday Saddam was captured? Probably not. While the bill does contain provisions that were in the never-introduced Patriot Act II, it did pass both houses and there was press about it at the time--and we cautioned and complained about it several times.

Our last post was when it passed both houses of Congress. Before that, we wrote about it here , and in more detail, where we called Congress' actions a "stealth attack" here .

We don't think Saddam's capture had anything to do with Bush signing the bill. It got a sufficient amount of press, but not enough people were concerned about it to make it controversial. The NYTimes covered it, but the link is now dead. Here's an article that's still accessible.

We put out an action alert when the bill was first introduced in September, pointing out that the Administration's game plan was to introduce Patriot Act II piecemeal to avoid protests.

We first warned about the piecemeal plan to pass the provisions of Patriot Act II back in May.

So, this isn't new news or surprising news or a stealth attack--but we hope it makes more people start paying attention -- because this bill certainly isn't the last one the Administration has planned for us.

From the Toledo Blade....Diverse Views on the Patriot Act

What Section 215 of the Patriot Act says: The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ... may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

What the U.S. Department of Justice says about Section 215: "Law enforcement authorities have always been able to obtain business records in criminal cases through grand jury subpoenas. ... The government can now ask a federal court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) to order production of the same type of records available through grand jury subpoenas."

What the American Civil Liberties Union says about Section 215: "Section 215 vastly expands the FBI’s power to spy on ordinary people living in the United States. ... The FBI can investigate persons based in part on their exercise of First Amendment rights. ... The FBI could spy on a person because they don’t like the books she reads. ... Those who are the subjects of the surveillance are never notified that their privacy has been compromised."

As co-author of this book on the Patriot Act (Matthew Bender, 2001) here's what we have to say about Section 215:

Sens. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) have teamed up to sponsor a terrible bill--one that panders to irrational fear but resonates politically. It is the "Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act."

The legislation seeks $450 million to aid law enforcement and prosecutors. It is rife with new categories of crimes, added punishments for having a gun or being a gang member and myriad "think twice" measures — hoping gang members will reconsider before committing a crime.

Anyone who knows gangs knows that lawmakers cannot conceive of a law that would lead a hard-core gang member to "think twice." We already have enough gang- and gun-related sentencing "enhancements" to send a 17-year-old who has never been in trouble with the law to prison for 35 years to life. And that's without his ever touching a gun or ever being an actual member of a gang. We need to overhaul these enhancements, not add to them.

Gangs are not all that mysterious. Reformers know what works with them and what doesn't. "Gang experts, intervention practitioners, social scientists, researchers and enlightened law enforcement officials all agree." What works is prevention, intervention and enforcement.

"Oh, eloquent profanity, it rolls right off my tongue" (Roll Um Easy, Little Feat, Linda Ronstadt)

This is one bill we would love to see live debate on:

HR 3687 IH, 108th CONGRESS, 1st Session

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, December 8, 2003

Mr. OSE (for himself and Mr. SMITH of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL (Introduced in House)

To amend section 1464 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for the punishment of certain profane broadcasts, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1464 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a)' before `Whoever'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) As used in this section, the term `profane', used with respect to language, includes the words `[ enumerates profane words] compound use (including hyphenated compounds) of such words and phrases with each other or with other words or phrases, and other grammatical forms of such words and phrases (including verb, adjective, gerund, participle, and infinitive forms).'.

Hopefully Atrios or someone who doesn't care about censor blocking software will print the actual words. If not, go here and type in "HR 3687.

One lawyer who read the bill speculates that it just a step toward re-instating blasphemy laws. He says "Profane" is a religious term and refers to blasphemy" and "The antonym to "profane" is "sacred."

Update: Atrios has the actual language up here.

Update: From Urban Legends, origin of the F* word