Lifeandliberty.gov

New website at Justice: http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/. So now life and liberty are supposed to be associated in the public mind with the PATRIOT Act, and more particularly, with the current AG's beating the hustings in defense of the Act and in defense of his actions at Justice.

The site requires serious consideration (not forthcoming from me right now), but I want to note a few things:

• Note especially the "myths" page, here. In its current iteration, the site addresses itself to three points made by the ACLU, which is named. Clearly this administration sees itself as engaged in a public battle with the ACLU in particular. I suppose that DOJ is right, in a sense.
  

  In addition, if the PR campaign is aimed at conservative fence-sitters, then there's an additional reason to bring up the ACLU: they're the enemy #1 of conservative fundamentalists. Take a look at the ACLJ's materials, for example. I recently got an e-mail from them with the subject line "Take a stand against the ACLU!" which was part of a fundraising campaign ("Your gift can be DOUBLED - matched dollar for dollar up to $350,000 - but time is short, so please give generously right now!"). The ACLJ has also acted as Ashcroft's mouthpiece; see here, for example. And recall that the ACLJ is the only major law-related interest group that has a national radio show (at least as far as I know). It's also worth noting that ACLJ does not speak for all Christians, evangelical or otherwise, on the issue of the war on terrorism. Take a look at the commentary at the Rutherford Institute, for example.



• Note the "fair and balanced" polling on the "Support of the People" page, here. The AG is re-writing the old saying to read, "two polls do a summer make."


• Note also the "Congress speaks" page, here. Note that all of the quotes save one are from mid-October, 2001. 21 of the selected quotes are from Democrats and 15 are from Republicans (2 of the Republican quotes are from Senator Snowe). John Edwards gets two quotes, Bob Graham gets one. Not to put too fine a point on it, but did Janet Reno use taxpayer dollars to put up web sites to engage in partisan games of "gotcha"? I can't recall ever seeing one.
  

  Quotes from October 2001, in the direct aftermath of the September attacks, and in the midst of the anthrax letters which disrupted congressional activity, about a piece of legislation that has been criticized in a bipartisan fashion on grounds of both the process of its passage and its substance, are meaningless. They only prove that people supported (in public) a piece of complicated legislation at a difficult and trying time.

I'm sure that there's more to be said about this page. See Talk Left's commentary, for example. And I am by no means an expert on the PATRIOT Act, on law enforcement, on the war on terrorism, or on DOJ. I believe that John Ashcroft really is attempting to prevent future terrorist attacks and that DOJ is staffed by honorable people who know more than I do about government successes in the war on terrorism -- which makes it jarring when DOJ touts things like the Help the Needy prosecutions as a victory in the war on terrorism, at least absent additional public information.

A lot of center-left folks like me want to support the administration (none of us want to be subject to terrorist attacks) but are put off by the aggressive partisan tactics of the current AG, or what you might call John Ashcroft's political style, something that is more appropriate for the Senate floor than for DOJ. This website is an excellent (if transparent) effort at spinning information as part of a media campaign in favor of preferred policies. The fact that it wraps itself in the robe of "life and liberty" and the Declaration of Independence makes that fact more jarring, not less. But, then again, I am not the target audience for this site, I imagine.