In April 2003, the U.S. Justice Department disrupted what appears to have been a horrifying terrorist plot. In the small town of Noonday, Texas, FBI agents discovered a weapons cache containing fully automatic rifles, remote-controlled explosive devices disguised as briefcases, 60 pipe bombs and a chemical weapon -- a cyanide bomb -- big enough to kill everyone in a 2,700-square-meter building.
Strangely, though, Attorney General John Ashcroft didn't call a press conference to announce the discovery of the weapons cache, or the arrest of William Krar, its owner. He didn't even issue a press release. This was, to say the least, out of character. Jose Padilla, the accused "dirty bomber," didn't have any bomb-making material or even a plausible way to acquire such material, yet Ashcroft put him on front pages around the world. Krar was caught with an actual chemical bomb, yet Ashcroft acted as if nothing had happened.
Incidentally, if Ashcroft's intention was to keep the case low-profile, the media have been highly cooperative. To this day, the Noonday conspiracy has received little national coverage.
At this point, I have the usual problem. Writing about John Ashcroft poses the same difficulties as writing about the U.S. administration in general, only more so: The truth about his malfeasance is so extreme that it's hard to avoid sounding shrill.
In this case, it sounds over the top to accuse Ashcroft of trying to bury news about terrorists who don't fit his preferred story line. Yet it's hard to believe that William Krar wouldn't have become a household name if he had been a Muslim, or even a leftist. Was Ashcroft, who once gave an interview with Southern Partisan magazine in which he praised "Southern patriots" like Confederate leader Jefferson Davis, reluctant to publicize the case of a terrorist who happened to be a white supremacist?
More important, is Ashcroft neglecting real threats to the public because of his ideological biases?
Krar's arrest was the result not of a determined law enforcement effort against domestic terrorists, but of a fluke: When he sent a package containing counterfeit UN and Defense Intelligence Agency credentials to an associate in New Jersey, it was delivered to the wrong address. Luckily, the recipient opened the package and contacted the FBI. But for that fluke, we might well have found ourselves facing another Oklahoma City-type atrocity.
The discovery of the Texas cyanide bomb should have served as a wake-up call: The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks have focused our attention on the threat from Islamic radicals, but murderous right-wing fanatics are still out there. The concerns of the Justice Department, however, appear to lie elsewhere. Two weeks ago, a representative of the FBI appealed to an industry group for help in combating what, he told the audience, the FBI regards as the country's leading domestic terrorist threat: ecological and animal rights extremists.
Even in the fight against foreign terrorists, Ashcroft's political leanings have distorted policy. Ashcroft is very close to the gun lobby -- and these ties evidently trump public protection. After 9/11, he ordered that all government lists -- including voter registration, immigration and driver's license lists -- be checked for links to terrorists.
All government lists, that is, except one: He specifically prohibited the FBI from examining background checks on gun purchasers.
Ashcroft told Congress that the law prohibits the use of those background checks for other purposes -- but he didn't tell Congress that his own staff had concluded that no such prohibition exists. Ashcroft issued a directive, later put into law, requiring that records of background checks on gun buyers be destroyed after only one business day.
And we needn't imagine that Ashcroft was deeply concerned about protecting the public's privacy. After all, a few months ago, he took the unprecedented step of subpoenaing the hospital records of women who have had late-term abortions.
After my last piece on Ashcroft, some readers questioned whether he is really the worst attorney general ever.
It's true that he has some stiff competition from the likes of John Mitchell, who served under Richard Nixon. But once the full record of his misdeeds in office is revealed, I think Ashcroft will stand head and shoulders below the rest.
Paul Krugman is a columnist for The New York Times, where this comment first appeared.
Strangely, though, Attorney General John Ashcroft didn't call a press conference to announce the discovery of the weapons cache, or the arrest of William Krar, its owner. He didn't even issue a press release. This was, to say the least, out of character. Jose Padilla, the accused "dirty bomber," didn't have any bomb-making material or even a plausible way to acquire such material, yet Ashcroft put him on front pages around the world. Krar was caught with an actual chemical bomb, yet Ashcroft acted as if nothing had happened.
Incidentally, if Ashcroft's intention was to keep the case low-profile, the media have been highly cooperative. To this day, the Noonday conspiracy has received little national coverage.
At this point, I have the usual problem. Writing about John Ashcroft poses the same difficulties as writing about the U.S. administration in general, only more so: The truth about his malfeasance is so extreme that it's hard to avoid sounding shrill.
In this case, it sounds over the top to accuse Ashcroft of trying to bury news about terrorists who don't fit his preferred story line. Yet it's hard to believe that William Krar wouldn't have become a household name if he had been a Muslim, or even a leftist. Was Ashcroft, who once gave an interview with Southern Partisan magazine in which he praised "Southern patriots" like Confederate leader Jefferson Davis, reluctant to publicize the case of a terrorist who happened to be a white supremacist?
More important, is Ashcroft neglecting real threats to the public because of his ideological biases?
Krar's arrest was the result not of a determined law enforcement effort against domestic terrorists, but of a fluke: When he sent a package containing counterfeit UN and Defense Intelligence Agency credentials to an associate in New Jersey, it was delivered to the wrong address. Luckily, the recipient opened the package and contacted the FBI. But for that fluke, we might well have found ourselves facing another Oklahoma City-type atrocity.
The discovery of the Texas cyanide bomb should have served as a wake-up call: The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks have focused our attention on the threat from Islamic radicals, but murderous right-wing fanatics are still out there. The concerns of the Justice Department, however, appear to lie elsewhere. Two weeks ago, a representative of the FBI appealed to an industry group for help in combating what, he told the audience, the FBI regards as the country's leading domestic terrorist threat: ecological and animal rights extremists.
Even in the fight against foreign terrorists, Ashcroft's political leanings have distorted policy. Ashcroft is very close to the gun lobby -- and these ties evidently trump public protection. After 9/11, he ordered that all government lists -- including voter registration, immigration and driver's license lists -- be checked for links to terrorists.
All government lists, that is, except one: He specifically prohibited the FBI from examining background checks on gun purchasers.
Ashcroft told Congress that the law prohibits the use of those background checks for other purposes -- but he didn't tell Congress that his own staff had concluded that no such prohibition exists. Ashcroft issued a directive, later put into law, requiring that records of background checks on gun buyers be destroyed after only one business day.
And we needn't imagine that Ashcroft was deeply concerned about protecting the public's privacy. After all, a few months ago, he took the unprecedented step of subpoenaing the hospital records of women who have had late-term abortions.
After my last piece on Ashcroft, some readers questioned whether he is really the worst attorney general ever.
It's true that he has some stiff competition from the likes of John Mitchell, who served under Richard Nixon. But once the full record of his misdeeds in office is revealed, I think Ashcroft will stand head and shoulders below the rest.
Paul Krugman is a columnist for The New York Times, where this comment first appeared.
A Message from The Moscow Times:
Dear readers,
We are facing unprecedented challenges. Russia's Prosecutor General's Office has designated The Moscow Times as an "undesirable" organization, criminalizing our work and putting our staff at risk of prosecution. This follows our earlier unjust labeling as a "foreign agent."
These actions are direct attempts to silence independent journalism in Russia. The authorities claim our work "discredits the decisions of the Russian leadership." We see things differently: we strive to provide accurate, unbiased reporting on Russia.
We, the journalists of The Moscow Times, refuse to be silenced. But to continue our work, we need your help.
Your support, no matter how small, makes a world of difference. If you can, please support us monthly starting from just $2. It's quick to set up, and every contribution makes a significant impact.
By supporting The Moscow Times, you're defending open, independent journalism in the face of repression. Thank you for standing with us.
Not ready to support today?
Remind me later.
Remind me later.
×
Remind me next month
Thank you! Your reminder is set.
We will send you one reminder email a month from now. For details on the personal data we collect and how it is used, please see our Privacy Policy.