Reading PNM in the White House
Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 24 June 2004
Dashing this off because I need to drive up to Providence to the local public radio station up there and appear on tonight's NPR show "On Point." They're pretty much giving me and the book the whole hour, which works out to about 45 minutes with all the news.
Today I got to chat briefly with a White House lawyer who's here at the college for a conference. He read the book, liked it plenty, and wanted to meet me briefly as a result. This fellow told me he sees the book on lots of desks inside the White House, and that he thinks it's being read there with a real eye for long-term strategy.
But of course, he had a bone to pick. Like a lot of people I interact with, he said he agreed with over 90% of the ideas. He just didn't like how I portrayed the USA Patriot Act of 2002 as "frightening" ( a word I do use on page 257) or as a "new rule set" per se. His point was a good one: in many ways, all the act does is extend a host of old legal rules that have been used for years and years regarding a number of "regular" crimes (sexual abuse of minors being one) to terrorism. More than that, the effect of those changes effectively dismantles the information firewall between law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies, something everyone—including the 9/11 Commission—seems so hot to do.
I replied that this was a "new rule set" for me, in that sense that old rules were being extended to cover what was—subsequent to 9/11—discovered to be a rule set "gap."
We went back and forth over that a bit, but before we broke up, I had to tell him that several reviews of the book tended to view my presentation of the Patriot Act as being highly supportive of its capacity to "remake" the social landscape of the US—in other words, that I was a quasi-fascist who delighted in it.
My new White House friend had to laugh at that one, as I myself often do. We agreed, that it was almost impossible to write anything about the act that does not send the extremists in both parties into fits of paranoid outbursts—such is the political dialogue of our age.
Today's catch:
Today's page 1 new rule thanks to 9/11
"Form and Function: Disguising Security As Something Artful: Ugly Barriers to Car bombers Put Up After 9/11 Morph Into 'Designer Bollards,'" by Mark Maremont, Wall Street Journal, 24 June, p. A1.
China wants market accreditation—now!
"China Contesting 'Nonmarket Economy' Status," by Charles Hutzler and Qiu Haixu, WSJ, 24 June, p. A15.
Egypt: the forgotten man in the Middle East future worth creating
"Egyptian Aide in Talks on Future Security Role in Gaza," by Joseph Berger, New York Times, 24 June, p. A3.
Better rules or better rulers in Latin America?
"Latin America Graft and Poverty Trying Patience With Democracy," by Juan Forero, NYT, 24 June, p. A1.
Beheadings as the new asymmetrical warfare tool of choice
"Afghan Officials Deny Reports Of Soldiers Beheading Prisoners," by David Rhode, NYT, 24 June, p. A12.
"Assessing a Gruesome Toll After a Rash of Beheadings: A terrorist act called the ultimate symbol of power over an enemy," by Daniel J. Wakin, NYT, 24 June, p. A12.
US to ICC: you can your own way (go your own waaay!)
"U.S. Drops Plan to Exempt G.I.'s From U.N. Court: Political Loss in Council: No Effect Seen for Troops—Outcome Is Tied to Iraq Prison Scandal," by Warren Hoge, 24 June, p. A1