Letter to the NYT

[libertango]

Sirs:

When Mr. Giuliani writes (on 12/17), "Americans must use every legal and constitutional tool in their arsenal to fight terrorism and protect their lives and liberties," he leaves out an important consideration: Effectiveness.

According to the Department of Justice's own statistics, there have been 401 criminal prosecutions under the USA PATRIOT Act in the four years since it was passed. The results have been only 212 convictions. This is a conviction rate of 53%. As Mr. Giuliani surely knows as a former prosecutor, this rate is barely better than the 50% of flipping a coin to determine guilt or innocence, and dismally below the 85-95% most prosecutors think necessary to get re-elected.

It is simply false to claim, as some of its proponents do, that the PATRIOT Act is either constitutional, or effective. It enhances our security not one whit. It failed on its merits.


Sincerely,
etc.

*^*^*^*

NOTES NOT SENT: This is largely a follow up to this post of July, 2004, for all that the topic has been in the news recently. But the numbers are not only no better than then, they've gotten decidedly worse. Since that post, there would appear to have been 91 additional prosecutions under the PATRIOT Act, but only 33 more convictions, even though those convictions were drawing upon the full four year pool. That's why the aggregate conviction rate has dropped since 2004, from 57.7% to 52.9%, or nearly five full percentage points.

So this would seem to be yet more evidence that it is also simply false to claim, as some do, that this administration gives a damn about combating terrorism. They simply want to play with their toys, and rescinding any portions of the PATRIOT Act qualifies mostly as taking toys away from them, friovolous and ineffectual as they may be. (The toys, not the administr------- oh, never mind.)

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/little_e_/]

Dinna you think they'd just respond that those are *additional* convictions which wouldn't have been had at all were it not for the Patriot Act, while the low conviction rate shows that the act is being applied judiciously?

I mean, I agree with you, but I think I can see the response pretty easily. :(

[gfrancie.livejournal.com]

so this whole patriot act thing? not so hot?
word.

Choices

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

"Dinna you think they'd just respond that those are *additional* convictions which wouldn't have been had at all were it not for the Patriot Act, while the low conviction rate shows that the act is being applied judiciously?"

Um, no. What the low conviction rate shows is that if you'd prosecuted these guys on shoplifting charges you'd be more likely to get them behind bars than charging them under the PATRIOT Act. It means that, on its own terms, the Act is allowing possible terrorists to go free at a much greater rate than if you charged them for, say, murder, extortion, money laundering, kidnapping, etc.

As I said in 2004, you're left with this set of choices:

"* It's really tough to get judges or juries to convict on terrorism charges.
* The DoJ isn't pushing terrorism cases hard enough.
* The DoJ is incompetent.
* Some mix of the above three.

I don't really think #1 is plausible. I've been using #3 for rhetorical fun, but, oddly, I find it more comforting than #2. #4 is pot luck."

There's another possible motivation (a subset of #2). The administration has been insisting we're in a "war", in which we'll achieve "victory". (Personally, I'd like to know who can surrender on behalf of terrorism, so we'll know when such a victory has taken place, because otherwise it means they're deliberately pursuing an Orwellian "war without end".) But my point is, they may be trying to have it both ways, as they so frequently do: The PATRIOT Act is indispensable, a necessary tool in the fight, yadda, yadda, but they're not willing to use it too often because that would imply terrorism is a criminal issue and not one of "war".

That would imply the administration is deliberately tubing some prosecutions, just for political gain. Of course, they have no history at all of stooping to tactical political moves at the expense of the safety of the American people... {cough} -- Plamegate! -- {cough}

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

And most of those convictions had nothing to do with terrorism.

B

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Not so hot.

B

Drill

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

I haven't been able to drill down that far into the data. I've only seen such summaries as they've released, as cited.

But I'll defer to your own expertise. It helps it doesn't surprise me in the least (moderated by the knowledge how dangerous that attitude may be).

Hot or not

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

Like Bruce says, not so hot. On its own terms, no less. To use a phrase, it's been "security theater" -- It doesn't make anyone any safer, it was passed to give the appearance of doing some-damn-thing to make us safer. Or, to use the Billy Crystal/Saturday Night Live gig, "Feeling safe is better than being safe, dahling." At least for some.

NSA story

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

As I'm sitting here thinking about it (and while I have your ear)... I haven't been looking too diligently, but what coverage I've heard of the domestic taps NSA ran against US citizens upon executive order seems to be taking the line the adminstration did it because they found the FISA Court method too onerous. What they haven't been questioning is how that can be true, when the FISA Court has been so deferential to administration wishes. It seems to me the only plausible explanation is that the taps in question have nothing at all to do with terrorism, but rather tactical political uses with "terrorism" being used as a shield. At that point, they would have been afraid the FISA Court would turn them down (for a change). Hence, the end run. I heard an interview with Bamford on NPR, and he seemed fairly circumspect, but I got the sense this had crossed his mind, too.

What do you think?

Re: Drill

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

TRAC (http://trac.syr.edu/) (the boring sounding Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse) has the best data here. Speficically, see this (http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/terrorism/report031208.html) (overview here (http://trac.syr.edu/media/news/newsadvisory031208.html)).

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Convictions are public. We have the data. The median sentence for those classified as international terrorists was 14 days.

Makes you wonder who they're classifying as internatinal terrorists.

B

Re: Hot or not

[gfrancie.livejournal.com]

I just found it rather interesting when he made his speech this weekend.
Often when people are found out they go on the defensive. He did that. "Yeah I did it, cause we gotta be safe. You don't want to be safe? Look at all I do for you."

I wonder if he remembers this guy named Osama Bin Laden.

Re: NSA story

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Can you send me, somehow, through U and K maybe, your e-mail address. I just got the go-ahead to write a piece on this for Salon, and I'd like to bounce a draft off you.

B

Re: NSA story

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

B, I just sent you an email to the most recent address you've used to write to me. Should that not get through, the my email address listed on my LJ User Info page will do just fine.

http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=libertango

Re: NSA story

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

B

Re: Choices

[http://users.livejournal.com/little_e_/]

Those are lovely facts, but not likely to convince, especially given the current Republican attitude towards 'reality'. They'd just respond that you can't charge terrorists under shoplifting laws because they haven't been shoplifting. They could then argue that the patriot act allows them to 'sift' through large portions of the population to find the few who are terrorists.

My point is that folks who'd understand/go along with your arguments tend to be the folks who already dislike the partriot act, whereas people who do like it will continue justifying support.

After all, the wide availability of marijuana hasn't stopped politicians from claiming that the war on drugs has been successful...

Re: Choices

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

"Those are lovely facts, but not likely to convince, especially given the current Republican attitude towards 'reality'."

Either people are persuadable, or they aren't. If they aren't, then it doesn't matter what I say to them. If they are, then pointing out the PATRIOT Act fails on its own terms -- that it makes us less safe from terrorists, not more so -- is the strongest argument I can think of.

I can't take responsibility for others' openness to the truth. I can only present it as best I can, and as accurately as I can. There are some people for whom that will never be enough, sure. But I'm enough of an optimist to think that while such people are vocal, they're fewer than one would think.

I'm prefectly willing to quote John 8:32, if that's what it takes for some people. I'm willing to quote Proverbs 28:1, and point out how often this administration flees, hides, and makes secret things it never needed to.

"(T)he wide availability of marijuana hasn't stopped politicians from claiming that the war on drugs has been successful..."

The War on Some Drugs has been very successful -- as a price support program. Every day, drug lords thank us for artificially jacking up the price.

But, hey, that's just me.