Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20001-5403
Phone (202) 842 0200
Fax (202) 842 3490
 Contact Us
Support Cato

Cato Daily Dispatch for July 14, 2004

Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via email

(Links to outside sources were active as of the date of this dispatch; however, not all news sources maintain links to current stories indefinitely. Some links also may require registration.)

Justice Dept. Issues Report on Patriot Act Use
Concern Growing over Prospect of Draft
FCC Head Wants Indecency Rules Updated

Justice Dept. Issues Report on Patriot Act Use

"The Justice Department unveiled Tuesday extensive new details of its use of the USA Patriot Act in a bid to shore up support for the embattled anti-terrorism law, asserting that it has helped thwart al Qaeda plots and led to scores of criminal convictions since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks," the Washington Post reports.

"According to a 29-page report to Congress released by Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, Justice Department terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against 310 people and have yielded 179 convictions or guilty pleas. The report says the Patriot Act was central to those cases."

Timothy Lynch, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice and author of "Breaking the Vicious Cycle: Preserving Our Liberties While Fighting Terrorism," says, "The Patriot Act was designed to reduce privacy and increase security. It has succeeded in at least reducing privacy."

In "More Surveillance Equals Less Liberty," he writes: "Too many conservatives have brushed aside grievances about civil-liberties violations in the mistaken belief that President Bush's political opponents are simply trying to dress up a partisan attack in noble-sounding rhetoric about liberty, privacy and the Constitution. The opposite is true. President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have given their political opponents a just cause--namely, resisting the growth of a surveillance state."

Concern Growing over Prospect of Draft

"No law has been signed to revive the draft, and the president, the Pentagon and the presumed Democratic presidential nominee all oppose forced military service. Yet as fatalities in Iraq increase and as troops see their tours extended, there is a growing concern across the country that a draft may be in the offing," the Los Angeles Times reports.

"At summer barbecues, kids' baseball tournaments and worksites, conversations focus on whether a new generation will be called to mandatory military duty. Parents, grandparents and others are wondering how long America can rely on volunteers and reservists to supply a strong defense."

In "Fixing What Ain't Broke: The Renewed Call for Conscription," Cato Senior Fellow Doug Bandow argues that a renewed draft would not only be bad for the military, but would sacrifice "the very constitutional liberties that the military is charged to defend.

"The purpose of America's armed forces is to defend a free society built on respect for and protection of individual liberty. Ultimately, the preservation of liberty is the most important reason to reject conscription," he writes. "A draft would be costly, especially to the military. More basic, however, conscription would be incompatible with the government's duty to protect the individual liberty of the American people."

FCC Head Wants Indecency Rules Updated

"Politicians who refuse to overhaul the nation's broadcast television regulations--particularly regarding indecency--are 'ignoring reality,' Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell said," according to the Associated Press.

"Such regulations don't reflect the fact that 82 percent of Americans regularly watch cable television, he said. Few viewers distinguish between cable and broadcast stations, and TiVo, Internet programming and streaming media on other devices will increasingly blur the lines between media, he said."

In "Should Government Censor Speech on Cable and Satellite TV?" Adam Thierer, director of telecommunications policy, writes: "Congress doesn't have the right to censor pay TV, thanks to the First Amendment and America's strong tradition of freedom of speech and expression. Lawmakers have never been able to censor supposedly 'indecent' material in newspapers, magazines, books, cable, satellite, or the Internet the same way they have broadcast television. Courts will simply have none of it."

Jonathan Block, editor, jblock@cato.org