Cato Daily Dispatch for October 2, 2002
Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via email
Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via PDA (AvantGo)
(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 Defends Efforts to Thwart TerrorismSupreme Court to Clarify ADA Provision
Bush Urges Congress to Adopt Terrorism Insurance Legislation
Ashcroft Defends Efforts to Thwart Terrorism
Attorney General John Ashcroft yesterday made his strongest defense yet of the Justice Department's efforts to thwart potential terrorist threats. He urged federal prosecutors to use "every weapon in the criminal justice arsenal" because the security of the country was at risk, reports USA Today.
"There are no second chances in the campaign to prevent another Sept. 11," Ashcroft told the annual conference of U.S. attorneys meeting in New York. "If we fail in our responsibility to secure justice, we invite more than the risk of additional criminality. Failure risks the security of our nation and the survival of freedom."
Civil libertarians have cast federal authorities as overzealous in a campaign to round up potential terrorists, denying some access to counsel in extreme cases.
Cato scholars have written extensively on issues related to civil liberties in post-Sept. 11 America. For example, In "United We Stand, but We'll Snoop Divided," Senior Fellow Robert Levy decries the Justice Department's controversial Operation TIPS program (Terrorism Information and Prevention System), which encouraged domestic spying by ordinary citizens. "Every 20th century dictator appointed civilian armies to watch over their neighbors. The Bush administration would do well not to follow in those footsteps."
Other writings on civil liberties are available.
Supreme Court to Clarify ADA Provision
The Supreme Court said yesterday that it will clarify when some companies are small enough to avoid complying with a law requiring wheelchair ramps and other accommodations for the disabled, The Washington Post reports.
An Oregon medical clinic is challenging a ruling that it must follow the law because it has more than 15 employees. At issue is whether company shareholders -- four doctors -- also count as employees.
The clinic was sued by an employee who was fired in 1997. The worker claimed she was discriminated against because of a debilitating tissue disorder. Deborah Anne Wells was demoted, then pressured to resign because of her illness, her attorney told the court.
In "How the ADA Handicaps Me," disabled lawyer Julie Hofius reflects on the 10th anniversary of the ADA. She writes that, "the physical obstacles have been removed, but they have been replaced with a more daunting obstacle: the employer's fear of lawsuits."
In "Handicapping Freedom: The Americans with Disabilities Act," Director of Regulatory Studies Edward L. Hudgins calls the law "one of the worst cases of the Bush-era regulation of the economy" and explains all its drawbacks. In "EEOC, Supreme Court Open Floodgates for Disabilities Claims," James M. Taylor explains how the ADA and its interpretation by the EEOC and the Supreme Court allow for a slew of unfair lawsuits.
Bush Urges Congress to Adopt Terrorism Insurance Legislation
President Bush urged Congressional leaders yesterday to resolve their differences by the end of the week and adopt legislation to protect the insurance industry from losses from future terrorist attacks, according to The New York Times.
At a meeting in the White House, Bush asked House and Senate lawmakers working on the legislation to reach an agreement quickly, saying that lack of affordable terrorism insurance was costing hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Both the House and the Senate have adopted measures intended to make terrorism coverage widely available at affordable prices by limiting the liability of the industry. But the House and Senate approach the issue differently, and administration officials and Senate Democratic leaders have been squabbling over a largely symbolic provision that would limit the ability of terrorism victims to sue for punitive damages.
Last week, Cato held the policy forum, "Insuring against Terror: Is There a Role for Government Reinsurance?" which examined whether the federal government should provide insurance coverage against future terrorism losses. Video of the event is available online.
Jonathan Block, editor, jblock@cato.org
/div>