I would like to apologize to my readers for overreacting and jumping to conclusions in a blog entry early Wednesday morning about the case of Ashton Lundeby, a 16-year-old North Carolina homeschooler who was arrested by the FBI on March 5 and who has been incarcerated in a juvenile lock-up in Indiana since then.
It appears that I was misled, along with hundreds of other civil liberties-oriented bloggers, by the initial news reports that appeared on line. These news reports, from WRAL-TV in Raleigh and The Daily Dispatch (a local newspaper that covers Oxford, the Lundeby family's hometown), relied too heavily on the word of Annette Lundeby, Ashton's mother, and neglected to perform the due diligence that one expects from established news media outlets.
Fortunately, Wired magazine and other sources have done some additional digging into the case and have found that Annette Lundeby seems to be prone to both exaggeration and omission.
First of all, Ashton was not arrested under the terms of the USA PATRIOT Act. He was arrested and charged under a far older (circa 1939) statute addressing the making of threats using telecommunications equipment. (He may, however, still face other charges, and it is not impossible that the PATRIOT Act will be cited against him.)
Second, it appears that Annette Lundeby was aware that her son had been making bomb threats over the Internet (using voice-over IP software) and had warned him against it, even suggesting to him that if he continued to do so, he could run afoul of the law.
William Grigg of Pro Libertate, who was one of the first bloggers to break this story, has also updated his initial report to note that there are serious questions being raised about the veracity of Annette Lundeby's media outreach efforts.
Fortunately, there are professional journalists like Kevin Poulsen of Wired who take the time to check facts and do analysis beyond hysteria. It's embarrassing to have to admit to being victimized by a too-bad-to-be-true story of a peachfuzzed adolescent abused by the law and whose mother paints him with a halo over his head, but this seems to be the case.
I am not willing to agree that Ashton Lundeby is guilty of any of the charges he faces now or in the future, but I am willing to say that I wrote too soon, without having better knowledge of the case.
Why would a 16-year-old boy from Oxford, North Carolina, who has no criminal record, call in a bomb threat to South Bend, Indiana, more than 800 miles away?
This is a fundamental question the FBI and Obama administration Department of Justice have refused to answer in the case of Ashton Lundeby, who was pulled from his bed on the night of March 5 and whisked away from his home to a jail in Indiana, without access to his family or an attorney.
The administration is using the USA PATRIOT Act, passed in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, without being read by any Member of Congress. Legislators voted for the law under a veil of ignorance and assurances by the Bush administration that the law would never be used to violate the civil liberties of American citizens.
Ashton's story is told best in this news report from WRAL-TV in Raleigh, now available on YouTube:
Notice how the 16-year-old homeschooler's bedroom is decorated with a patriotic theme. Perhaps the Obama administration is following the lexicon published by the Department of Homeland Security (uncovered by the Washington Times) that defines "patriots" as potential terrorists. "Patriot movement," the DHS says, is:
A term used by rightwing extremists to link their beliefs to those commonly associated with the American Revolution. The patriot movement primarily comprises violent antigovernment groups such as militias and sovereign citizens.
In the only local print media report on Ashton's arrest by gun-wielding gangsters-with-badges, reporter William West of the Daily Dispatch wrote:
Annette Lundeby, a disabled widow, lives in a modern home and has three cats.
She told the Dispatch that, on the night of March 5, she was about to go to sleep, that her son was asleep on a sofa and that her 12-year-old daughter was in bed when the knocking on the door began.
According to Annette Lundeby, the authorities arrived in unmarked cars and remained on the property until roughly 1 a.m.-1:30 a.m.
And according to Annette Lundeby, at the time of the search she was prohibited from making any phone calls, including to an attorney, and that agents told her she had to be at her son's detention hearing the next morning in Raleigh.
And she added that she was unable to sleep after the authorities left and that her daughter was traumatized. Both of her children are home-schoolers.
Annette Lundeby maintains that a hacker — that is, one who is determined to seek unauthorized access to a computer — got her son's Internet provider address and used such access to both make crank phone calls and falsely give the impression of the calls coming from the residence.
She claimed the judge questioned an FBI agent at the hearing in Raleigh about whether one could hack one's Internet provider address and claimed the agent replied this was virtually impossible. And she claimed that the agent told the judge that he did not know of any computer software available on the Internet to hack an Internet provider address.
"Virtually impossible"? Apparently the FBI doesn't talk to other government agencies. In that DHS "Domestic Extremism Lexicon," there is this definition of "hacktivism":
(A portmanteau of “hacking” and “activism.”) The use of cyber technologies to achieve a political end, or technology-enabled political or social activism. Hacktivism might include website defacements, denial-of-service attacks, hacking into the target’s network to introduce malicious software (malware), or information theft.
In addition to incompetences like this, government law enforcement agencies are extremely shy about apologizing for mistakes. (They almost never do so, unless by court order.) So Ashton Lundeby, no matter how strong the case for his innocence is, will likely be kept in jail for years as the government tries out new and more ridiculous charges against him, until they find one that sticks or they wear Ashton down so thoroughly that he confesses to crimes he did not commit (and probably did not occur).
Under the USA PATRIOT Act, law enforcement agencies are not our friends. John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute recently wrote:
Since 9/11, it has become apparent that the federal government, unless it is kept within the bounds of the law, will develop into an immense monster that no one can curb. The end result will be that the American people will lose control of their government.
Our government is becoming more and more intrusive. With the passage of sweeping laws such as the USA Patriot Act many find themselves questioning whether we really are living under Orwell’s Big Brother government.
"We have no rights under the Patriot Act to even defend them, because the Patriot Act basically supersedes the Constitution," she said. "It wasn't intended to drag your barely 16-year-old, 120-pound son out in the middle of the night on a charge that we can't even defend."
If President Barack Obama genuinely wants to reverse the assault on civil liberties begun during his predecessor's administration, he can start by freeing Ashton Lundeby and sacking the idiot who approved the raid on the Lundeby family's home.
UPDATE: New information has come to light regarding Ashton Lundeby. Read about it here.
After six ballots in which he was virtually (and sometimes precisely) tied with left-libertarian Mary Ruwart, former GOP Congressman Bob Barr has won the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination for 2008.
After 6 ballots, the Libertarian Party national convention has nominated former Congressman Bob Barr. Barr has turned around on many major issues since leaving congress. He now favors:
– Ending the Iraq War, withdrawal of all American troops from all foreign countries.
– Ending the federal War on Drugs.
– Repealing the Defense of Marriage Amendment, which he had authored.
– Repeal of the PATRIOT Act and Real ID.
Barr's nomination came after third-place finisher Wayne Allyn Root endorsed him over Ruwart, a longtime libertarian activist. (By contrast, Barr joined the party just about two years ago.)
Congratulations to Bob Barr and to the Libertarian Party.
A writer for National Review once described 1992 LP presidential candidate Andre Marrou, who served two terms in the Alaska state legislature, as having a résumé that, for Libertarians, was the equivalent of Elliot Richardson's. Not since Ron Paul in 1988 has the LP nominated a presidential candidate with as much credibility as a vote-getter, policymaker, and public speaker.
Bob Barr will represent the party and its issues well in the months to come. Let's hope he can get enough attention from the MSM that he can affect the terms of the debate and force the two bigger party candidates to discuss things like ending the War on Drugs and repealing the most repugnant components of the USA PATRIOT Act.
Update: The media is already getting the story wrong. The AP reports:
Barr beat research scientist Mary Ruwart, who was the party's presidential nominee in 1983 and vice presidential candidate in 1992. Barr left the GOP in 2006 over what he called bloated spending and civil liberties intrusions by the Bush administration.
Mary Ruwart has never been on the LP ticket. The 1984 (not 1983) presidential candidate was David Bergland. The 1992 vice presidential candidate was my friend, Dr. Nancy Lord. I know, because Nancy and I shared a hotel room during the nominating convention, and it was through her that I became the chief foreign policy advisor to the 1992 LP presidential campaign. (Mary Ruwart was a candidate for the veep slot that year and she lost to Nancy.)
This arrives from the office of Representative Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the only Socialist in Congress who admits to it. But, as they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. And look at his fine allies from the right!
WASHINGTON -- April 27 -- A coalition of conservative and progressive members of Congress will hold a news conference on Thursday, April 28 to announce the formation of the Patriot Act Reform Caucus. The caucus will work to support initiatives that protect the safety and security of our nation, while ensuring that the laws we pass to fight the war on terrorism do not violate our constitutional civil liberties or diminish our system of checks and balances. The caucus will work with outside groups to educate Congress on the need for Patriot Act reforms and develop legislative proposals to ensure that constitutional freedoms and protections are maintained in any Patriot Act reauthorization. The caucus is chaired by Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Ron Paul (R-TX), and Jerry Nadler (D-NY).
WHAT: News Conference announcing the formation of the Patriot Act Reform Caucus by the caucus chairs.
WHEN: Thursday April 28, 2005 at 1:30 p.m.
WHERE: Cannon Terrace, Cannon House Office Building
As the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence prepares to hold hearings on the sunsetting of the most egregious clauses in the USA PATRIOT Act -- passed quickly and without much deliberation in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- a diverse coalition of citizen groups has sent a letter to Committee members outlining the concerns of many Americans.
I should note that I have written about the USA PATRIOT Act in the past, notably on April 5 and on January 1.
The letter below was coordinated by the Rights Working Group, which describes itself as "a coalition of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights and immigrant rights advocates who seek to develop a coordinated response to policies and attitudes leading to the deterioration of civil and human rights in the aftermath of 9/11."
The debate continues. Here is the letter in full:
April 18, 2005
Dear Members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
While we applaud Congress’ promise to hold oversight hearings concerning the USA Patriot Act, we are concerned that Congress will focus too narrowly on that Act and ignore the broader civil rights, human rights and civil liberties issues that are of concern to our organizations and all Americans. Congress must recognize that widespread opposition to the USA Patriot Act reflects a more general discomfort over the government’s actions. It should note that the “anti-Patriot Act” resolutions passed by more than 360 communities and four states in fact deal with a wide array of issues outside the scope of the USA Patriot Act.
We urge the Congress to examine the many rights and liberties issues that have arisen since 9/ll, including the following:
*Mass secret arrests of Arabs and Muslims followed by detention for extended periods without charges, denials of access to counsel, secret hearings and, in some cases, abuse by prison guards;
*Abuse of the material witness authority to detain citizens and others without charges;
*Discriminatory enforcement of the immigration laws, leading to arbitrary detentions and deportations;
*Detentions of Americans incommunicado as “enemy combatants” without access to lawyers or the courts;
*Expanded use of secret wiretaps and secret searches of Americans’ homes and offices;
*Massive growth in surveillance technologies and authority (including the authority under the USA Patriot Act to seize library and medical records and all commercial databases) with inadequate legal protections against abuse;
*Spying on lawful political and religious activity; and
*Eavesdropping on attorney-client communications without judicial approval or oversight.
Taken together, these issues reflect a steady assault on fundamental rights and liberties that has served only to make us less free, and not more secure. With few exceptions, Congress has failed to address these issues. To the contrary, it is continuing to consider legislation, such as the REAL ID Act, that targets immigrants and asylum seekers unfairly without enhancing security. For Congress now to focus only on the concerns raised by the USA Patriot Act would be inappropriate.
Signed Organizations:
NATIONAL GROUPS:
American Civil Liberties Union American Friends Service Committee - Washington State Office American Immigration Lawyers Association American Muslim Voice American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Amnesty International USA Bill of Rights Defense Committee Center for American Progress Center for Democracy and Technology Center for National Security Studies Constitutional Rights Coalition Council of Ethics-Based Organizations associated with the Department of Public Information, United Nations First Amendment Foundation Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quaker) Human Rights First Human Rights Watch Japanese American Citizens League Korean American Coalition Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service Mennonite Central Committee Washington State Office Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development National Committee Against Repressive Legislation National Council of La Raza National Federation of Filipino American Associations National Immigrant Solidarity Network National Immigration Forum Immigration Law Center National Korean American Service & Education National Lawyers Guild National Legal Sanctuary for Community Advancement National Organization for Women Open Society Policy Center Organization of Chinese Americans People For the American Way Progressive Librarians Guild Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow The Interfaith Alliance The Multiracial Activist The Rutherford Institute Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
LOCAL GROUPS:
Albany Bill of Rights Restoration Committee (Albany, NY) American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado Asian Law Caucus (San Francisco, CA) Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California (Los Angeles, CA) Atlanta Bill of Rights Defense Campaign (Atlanta, GA) Bangor Area Bill of Rights Defense Committee (Bangor, ME) Bloomington Bill of Rights Defense Committee (Bloomington, IN) Carolina Peace Resource Center (Columbia, SC) Chico Bill of Rights Defense Committee (Chico, CA) Citizens for an Informed Community (Bridgewater, MA) Citizens for Peace and Justice (Jackson County, OR) Clatsop County Bill of Rights Defense Committee (Clatsop County, OR) coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles Coalition to Prevent the Erosion of Human Rights (Las Vegas, Nevada) Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights (Chicago, IL) Concord Civil Liberties Committee (Concord, MA) Constitutional Justice Society, Inc. (MO) DuPage Against War Now (DuPage County, IL) East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (Oakland, CA) Fort Collins Bill of Rights Supporters of Fort Collins (CO) Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (Charlottesville, VA) Green Party of Clallam County (Clallam County, WA) Idaho Green Party (Boise, Idaho) Idaho Patriots (Boise, ID) Jersey City Peace Movement (Jersey City, NJ) Lake County Peace Action (Lake County, CA) Lane County Bill of Rights Defense Committee (Lane County, Oregon) Las Vegas Peace & Justice Center (Las Vegas, NV) Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights (San Francisco, CA) Missouri Voters Action Team (MO) Montana Women for Peace (Livingston, MT) New Hampshire Faithful Democracy (Peterborough, and Concord, NH) New Hampshire Faithful Democracy (Peterborough, NH) New Hampshire Unitarian Universalist Social Responsibility Department (Concord, and Littleton, NH) New Hampshire Unitarian Universalist Social Responsibility Department (Peterborough, NH) Nicaragua Center for Community Action (Berkeley, CA) NYC Bill of Rights Defense Campaign (New York City, NY) Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (Huntington, WV) Organization of Chinese Americans-South Florida Chapter (Miami, FL) PA for Democracy (PA) Peace Action WI (Milwaukee, WI ) Philly for Change (Philadelphia, PA) Pittsburgh Bill of Rights Defense Campaign (Pittsburgh, PA) Port Orford Bill of Rights Defense Committee (Port Orford, OR) Potters for Peace (Berkeley, CA) PRIME-Ecumenical Commitment to Refugees (Clifton Heights, PA) Prince George Bill of Rights Defense Coalition (Prince George, MD) Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center (Boulder, CO) SAGE (Amherst, MA) South Asian Network Statesmanship National Activism Project (MO) Statesmanship Party, Inc. (MO) SW Colorado Peace & Justice Coalition (Durango, CO) Tacoma Bill of Rights Defense Committee (Tacoma, WA) Tennessee Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition (Nashville, TN) The Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (Dearborn, MI) The Bozeman Peace Seekers (Bozeman, Montana) The New York Immigration Coalition (New York, NY) The Reform Party of Missouri, Inc. (MO) Thomas Merton Center (Pittsburgh, PA ) Watertown (MA) Citizens for Environmental Safety (Watertown, MA) Westchester Bill of Rights Defense Campaign (Westchester, NY) Women For: Orange County (Orange County, CA) Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (Cape Cod, MA) Worldview, Ltd. (Peterborough, NH)
In an op-ed piece in yesterday's Washington Times, cleverly designed to persuade Americans to support extension and expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act, Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) writes:
A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing tomorrow morning will commence a new round of discussions about the Patriot Act. I welcome that hearing, because the American people deserve an honest, responsible and fair discussion to ensure that we are indeed fulfilling our dual responsibilities to protect national security and civil liberties alike. Unfortunately, the debate about the Patriot Act has not always met that standard.
While Cornyn tries to lay the blame for sub-par debate on the opponents of the PATRIOT Act -- by accusing them of distributing false information about the Act's provisions and constitutionality -- the fault really lies with Congress. As Steve Lilienthal of the conservative Free Congress Foundation noted in an essay published on Independence Day, 2003:
Paul M. Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation Chairman and CEO, has emphasized that the problem with the USA PATRIOT Act is not likely to be what the Bush Administration will do with its powers, but what will be done when future administrations come to power. After all, the USA PATRIOT Act seeks to centralize more power with the Federal government, even handing its law enforcement agencies great power to crack down on political dissent. Who dissents against centralized governmental power? Conservatives, who adhere to the philosophy that recognizes the desirability of a federal government with limited power. The House and Senate passed the USA PATRIOT Act so swiftly that many congressmen and senators had not read the bill nor had a full understanding of its measures. But the more conservatives know about the USA PATRIOT Act, the less they should like it.
One measure of the Act is called "sneak and peek" which permits searches to be conducted without informing the subject in advance that it will be taking place. This measure upends the Fourth Amendment. (emphasis added)
Now the Department of Justice has itself admitted the extent of abuse of the "sneak and peek" provision. Declan McCullagh writes in CNET News today:
Police invoked the Patriot Act when surreptitiously entering and searching a home or office without notifying the owner 108 times during a 22-month period, according to a one-page summary released by the Justice Department late Monday. On Tuesday, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate that police have employed secret court orders to obtain records 35 times so far.
In his Washington Times piece, Senator Cornyn cites a Democrat to claim that the PATRIOT Act has not led to abuse of civil liberties:
As Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, noted at a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing during the last Congress, "I have never had a single abuse of the PATRIOT Act reported to me. My staff emailed the ACLU and asked them for instances of actual abuses. They emailed back and said they had none."
McCullagh provides an answer to that -- from another Democrat:
"We have heard over and over again that there have been no abuses as a result of the Patriot Act," Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, said during a hearing Tuesday. "But it is difficult, if not impossible, to verify that claim when some of the most controversial surveillance powers in the Patriot Act operate under a cloak of secrecy."
He goes on to note that
Increased calls for openness come as the Bush administration has taken unprecedented steps to limit public scrutiny of the executive branch. The number of classified documents has jumped since 2001, Freedom of Information Act disclosures have been curbed, and the wall of secrecy surrounding the Guantanamo Bay detention camp has drawn international condemnation. Open-government watchdog OMB Watch has said that Bush has "vastly expanded the zone of secrecy that surrounds the White House and most of the federal government."
I wrote early this year about how Democrats and Republicans in Charlottesville came together to express reservations about the PATRIOT Act -- even drawing the attention of Swedish television. A truly "honest debate" (the kind Senator Cornyn says he desires) will include the strong objections to the PATRIOT Act articulated by such conservative heavyweights as former Representatives Bob Barr (R-Georgia) and Dick Armey (R-Texas) and current members of Congress Butch Otter (R-Idaho) and Ron Paul (R-Texas).
For more information on the USA PATRIOT Act, visit the web site of the Charlottesville-based public interest law firm, the Rutherford Institute. I recommend Rutherford's blog, "Operation Eroding Freedom" for up-to-date information on the PATRIOT Act and efforts by the Bush administration and Congress to expand it.
In my haste to put together a review of the year 2004, how could I forget this?
Last March, a reporter from Swedish broadcasting's equivalent of "60 Minutes" came to Charlottesville to do a story about how a typical American community has reacted to the USA PATRIOT Act. (Charlottesville's Democrats and Republicans had joined forces during the summer of 2003 to persuade the City Council to pass an anti-PATRIOT Act resolution.)
Lisa Carlsson, the Washington-based correspondent for Sveriges Television, took me up to Mr. Jefferson's home on Monticello to do an interview in an appropriate setting. Charlottesville's mayor and other political figures were featured in the report, as well.
You can see the report, which was broadcast March 7, at SVT Agenda.
Click on "Se reportage" (which, I think, means, "the report") to see the video on RealPlayer.
"One of the smarter blogs is the libertarian-leaning collection of Charlottesville posts put up by Rick Sincere..." -- Bob Gibson, The Daily Progress, May 8, 2005
