According to an article in the New York Times, Attorney General Ashcroft's Justice Department has refused to let the FBI check its records to determine whether any of the 1,200 people detained indefinitely after September 11 had recently purchased guns in the US. This, even though it's part of the biggest criminal investigation in US history (funny how it's a crime, not an act of war, when you get right down to it); this, even though a BATF check showed that 34 guns seized in crimes had been purchased by people on the detainee list; this, even though a number of people on the list had already committed a crime (e.g., overstaying a visa); and this, even though an initial check of 186 detainees' records produced two gun sales.

The FBI now cannot use that information, nor make similar requests, due to an October decision by "senior Justice Department officials." The moves reflect John Ashcroft's fiercely pro-gun politics--politics, like those of the NRA, that go well beyond defending the Second Amendment to include decrying any law that has anything to do with firearms. It turns out Ashcroft's hostility even applies to basic law enforcement tools--tools we take for granted when dealing with, say, vehicles, which we fully register even though they actually have a purpose other than killing or threatening to kill. By this calculation, a law that does not prevent people from buying guns, but lets law enforcement authorities know who bought them, apparently is part of the slippery slope that might somehow someday lead to further laws that actually do call the 2nd Amendment into question. Meanwhile, Ashcroft is frantically trashing the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and probably some other amendments. One could argue that those detainees deserve rights and have been accused of no crime; but in that case, they deserve the rest of the constitution, too. --Geov Parrish

Last Wednesday, a hundred or so anti-WTO citizens crowded into Seattle's city council chambers to hear and give testimony on SPD's abominable treatment of N30 demonstrators. The public comment period came in a meeting of the Parks Committee (scheduled and chaired by the heroic Nick Licata), so only three council members--Licata, Steinbrueck, and Nicastro, the three who least need to hear such horror stories--were present. And as with 1999's 18 hours of WTO city council testimony, this year's record of SPD abuses will probably never be acted upon. The most telling moment came near the end, when Jim Gottler, whose five months of legal battles finally forced the city to give him an N30 permit for 2001, presented Virginia Anderson, Special Events poobah for the city, with a permit application for N30 2002. She rejected it out of hand. Meanwhile, Michael "Redbear" Mossberg, one of the peacekeepers arrested on N30, writes of his bogus case that "after intake this morning [last Friday], they've declined to file charges against me at this time. The arresting officer perceived me `tripping and falling into the crosswalk.' The city attorneys apparently decided that it would've been to hard to win the case. Oh well, that's three arrests in three years on Nov. 30th or Dec. 1st and so far none of them have gone to trial. Our tax dollars at work. Maybe I'll have better luck next year."--GP

It's mostly only gotten attention among libertarians, but an essential initiative drive is entering its final days needing a lot of signatures to come before the legislature. The item in question is I-256, the "Innocent Property Owners Protection Initiative," which would make major changes in Washington's asset forfeiture laws. As those laws stand, people can have their property seized by the state without having been convicted of any crime, an astonishing violation of due process that is only one of the truly evil innovations of the War on Drugs. I-256 would force the state to actually convict someone first. Organizers face a January 4, 2002 deadline to get enough statewide signatures to force the measure before the legislature, which would then either adopt it or put it on the ballot. To find out more, contact I-256 organizer Erne Lewis at 360-866-7347. --GP

And what of those Afghan civilians? ETS! has run two long articles documenting only some of the civilian casualties reported around the world but ignored in the US. Now efforts are starting to emerge to actually count the casualties. Professor Marc W. Herold of the Univ. of New Hampshire has released the results of one such study, finding an improbably precise 3,767 civilian deaths from the US bombing. That's more, apparently, than died in the World Trade Center, though nobody should be keeping a scorecard--any mass murder of civilians should be condemned. Almost all of Herold's citations--numerous ones for each incident--are from the foreign press, while US media obediently parrots the Pentagon line about precision targeting of exclusively military targets. Herold will be interviewed on KEXP-90.3's Mind Over Matters this coming weekend (Saturday or Sunday; the program runs from 6-9 AM); he's reachable at mwherold@cisunix.unh.edu.--GP

The "smoking gun" tape proving Osama bin Laden's guilt seems to stand up to foreign criticisms of erroneous translation or outright forgery. But it still doesn't justify the US war on Afghanistan. It was illegally obtained, first of all; the U.S. didn't know of bin Laden's guilt before they launched the attack on the entire country, and in doing so attacked the whole country, and its government, not just the Al-Qaeda strongholds. And by not aiming narrowly, and killing all those civilians, Bush's strategy has set the US back, badly, in the drive to prevent future terrorist acts against US residents.

Such observations aren't merely post-war quibbling, because similar "bomb the whole country and look for justification" approaches may well be invoked for launching wars against Iraq, Somalia, North Korea, Libya or whatever other victims our Strangelovian leaders pick next. A War on Terrorism can't move forward, in these folks' thinking, without a target that represents terrorism, and if the bin Laden experience can be used to justify warring first and justifying later, we're in deep, deep trouble. --GP

And hey, did anyone else notice the Fox News story of our 1,200 detainees including dozens of Israeli citizens, at least some held directly in connection with 9-11--apparently because they had advance knowledge of the attacks and didn't notify the US. If those reports are true, and the bin Laden tape's description of how the terror plotters organized their plot is true, then how could Israel have found out in advance? The arrests are reportedly part of a long-running investigation into an enormous Israeli intelligence operation that spies on US lawmakers, law enforcement, and Arab American citizens. But if bin Laden is to be believed, Israel would have had to have extremely well-placed connections inside Al-Qaeda or the plot, which raises all sorts of interesting, and troubling, questions. --GP