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 August 20, 2003

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.)

Ashcroft's '03 Tour: Defending USA Patriot Act
Prospects for Democracy in Iraq Shaken by Bombing
Bush Demands Reliability in Energy Bill

Ashcroft's '03 Tour: Defending USA Patriot Act

"Attorney General John Ashcroft, in his most forceful defense of the Bush administration's antiterrorism efforts, said yesterday that any attempt to strip law enforcement agents of their expanded legal powers could open the way to further terrorist attacks," reports The New York Times.

"His remarks were an acknowledgment of the momentum achieved by opponents of the USA Patriot Act, as the law that grew out of the 9/11 attacks is called, as well as a declaration of the administration's commitment to preserve and possibly expand that law.

"Some members of Congress and civil liberties groups say the act has given federal agents too much power to pursue suspected terrorists, threatening the civil rights and privacy of Americans."

In "Breaking the Vicious Cycle: Preserving Our Liberties While Fighting Terrorism," Timothy Lynch, director of Cato's Project on Criminal Justice, writes: "To assuage the widespread anxiety of the populace, policymakers make the dubious claim that they can prevent terrorism by curtailing the privacy and civil liberties of the people. Because everyone wants to be safe and secure, such legislation is usually very popular and passes the legislative chambers of Congress with lopsided majorities. Too many people indulge in the assumption that they are now safe, since the police, with their newly acquired powers, will somehow be able to foil the terrorists before they can kill again. The plain truth, however, is that it is only a matter of time before the next attack."

Prospects for Democracy in Iraq Shaken by Bombing

"The back-to-back bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem on Tuesday shook the twin pillars of President Bush's ambitious Middle East policy: building peace and democracy in Iraq and settling the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict," according to the Los Angeles Times.

"The attacks were a one-two punch to an administration that has been relentlessly upbeat about its ability to tame the region.

"Some conservative members of the Bush administration have argued that by establishing a friendly government in Iraq and taking a more aggressive stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U. S. could solve a pair of problems that have bedeviled Bush's predecessors. Tuesday's events put both goals in jeopardy, at least for the moment."

In "A Democratic Iraq? Don't Hold Your Breath," Cato Senior Fellow Patrick Basham writes: "The Bush administration's plan for the reconstruction of a post-Saddam Iraq includes the laudable goal of a democratic political system. This new democracy, it is argued, will serve as a model throughout the Islamic world, like the so-called Velvet Revolution that swept across Eastern Europe at the Cold War's end. Unfortunately, the White House will be disappointed with the short-to-medium-term result of its effort to establish a stable democracy in Iraq, or any other nation home to a large Muslim population."

Bush Demands Reliability in Energy Bill

"President Bush said yesterday he will insist that an energy bill contain mandatory reliability requirements for utilities along the nation's electricity grids, and he said that congressional leaders promised him they will be at work on the legislation within weeks," reports The Washington Post.

"The requirements are aimed at preventing outages from leapfrogging from system to system, as occurred last Thursday, and would be accompanied by monetary penalties, congressional aides said."

In an op-ed in yesterday's New York Post, Jerry Taylor, director of natural resource studies and Peter VanDoren, editor of Regulation magazine, write about their recommendations for shoring up the grid: deregulation.

"Deregulation would also mean an end to rules that force grid owners to do business with anyone who wants access to their wires," Taylor and VanDoren write. "Deregulation can't guarantee that blackouts would never again occur. But it would almost certainly lead to a faster flow of dollars into overdue investments in reliability and a far wiser use of such dollars than would the orders and mandates being contemplated in Washington."

Jonathan Block, editor, jblock@cato.org