So Joe Biden has been selected as Barack Obama's running mate. What does this mean for civil liberties?
Not a whole lot, actually, since the vice-president's power is limited to a tiebreaking vote in the Senate. But it is reassuring, from my vantage point, that Obama didn't choose Evan Bayh, Chet Edwards, or Tim Kaine, all noted centrists on social issues, or Jim Webb, who brings to the table both the social centrism and a disconcerting macho vibe.
The good:- Biden was one of the original sponsors of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and played a central role in getting it passed in 1994 and reauthorized in 2005.
- Biden holds an 80% lifetime rating from the ACLU, higher than any 2008 presidential candidate not named Dennis Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney.
- Biden was one of the Senate's most forceful voices against the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
The bad:- Biden is principal author of the 1994 Biden Crime Bill (as one might expect given that it's called the Biden Crime Bill), which expanded the federal death penalty to include some nonviolent offenses, such as drug trafficking.
- Like most members of the Senate, Biden voted for the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996--though he has since supported civil unions, and stated that he doesn't understand why people are scared of same-sex marriage.
- Despite his strong voting record on civil rights, Biden has a history of making racially insensitive remarks. Perhaps most notable in recent years was his description of Obama as "the first African[-]American [presidential candidate] who's clean, bright, and articulate," and his statement that "you need a slight accent" to enter convenience stores, an unwieldy reference to the success of many Asian-American immigrants in operating same.
Civil Liberties Profiles: Barack Obama | Joe BidenAccording to four U.S. senators, the FBI is in the process of making a pretty audacious policy proposal. Nobody outside of Congress and the Bush administration seems to know exactly what they're asking for, but the early reviews are less than promising. The
New York Times reports:
The plan, which could be made public next month, has already generated intense interest and speculation. Little is known about its precise language, but civil liberties advocates say they fear it could give the government even broader license to open terrorism investigations.
Congressional staff members got a glimpse of some of the details in closed briefings this month, and four Democratic senators told Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey in a letter on Wednesday that they were troubled by what they heard.
The senators said the new guidelines would allow the F.B.I. to open an investigation of an American, conduct surveillance, pry into private records and take other investigative steps "without any basis for suspicion." The plan "might permit an innocent American to be subjected to such intrusive surveillance based in part on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or on protected First Amendment activities," the letter said. It was signed by Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey, meanwhile, argues that...
... the F.B.I. would still need a "valid purpose" for an investigation, and that it could not be "simply based on somebody's race, religion, or exercise of First Amendment rights."
Except that we know it
has been--many times--since 9/11. So until we're actually provided with the text of the new FBI policy, it's probably best to operate on the assumption that Feingold, Durbin, Kennedy, and Whitehouse are telling the truth, and that Mukasey is not. After all, the purpose of this policy--like most of the Bush post-9/11 policies we've seen over the past year--is to put existing policies in writing, not to create new ones. When it comes to the Bush administration and citizens' privacy rights, it's clearly easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
Related: History of Government Surveillance Programs
