Useful Fools

A Different Look at the Patriot Act

Posted in My Opinion | Trackbacks

3 Responses to “A Different Look at the Patriot Act”

1. comment number 1 by: Noel
   August 25th, 2003 at 9:20 pm
   

   As a recovering liberal, I sometimes involuntarily wince at ‘patriot’, ‘hero’ & and ‘homeland’.
   But I’ve made a conscious decision to ‘take back’ those words…for the Glorious Revolution!

   Thanks, John.

2. comment number 2 by: Kevin Baker
   August 29th, 2003 at 10:01 am
   

   My problem with the USAPATRIOT Act isn’t so much what it does, but what it can be twisted to do. There is a saying: “Never give powers to a friend that you would not give to an enemy.” My correlary: Never give power to government and expect to get back. The Patriot Act, like the Assault Weapons Ban, has a “sunset” provision, but instead we’re hearing that the Justice Dept. wants to make it permanent and would like to see a Patriot Act II.

   So while it is perhaps not being abused now, the risk of future abuse bothers the hell out of me. The way it was written and passed bothers the hell out of me.

3. comment number 3 by: John Moore (Useful Fools)
   August 29th, 2003 at 10:28 am
   

   First, keep in mind that the Patriot Act is not a single thing… it is a whole bunch of changes to the law. There may be a few of these that should be repealed.

   Unfortunately, everyone seems to attack the whole law as a unified thing!

   I would argue that roving wiretaps are a no-brainer. If you accept that police need wiretap authority (with suitable protections), how can you possibly oppose wiretaps. If you don’t accept it, how do you explain the relatively good functioning of our society since the invention of the telephone (and the wiretap)?

   I would suggest that some parts of the Patriot Act (such as roving wiretaps) should be made permanent, but perhaps other portions should not. Again, it shouldn’t be viewed as a unitary thing!

   The risk of future abuse exists throughout our justice system. It is one of the prices we pay for having a government. I would suggest that it is far more important to concentrate on specific provisions and how they might be abused than on the whole thing. And we also have to remember that we cannot have absolute safety from government and have any government at the same time!

   I have not read the whole law, but I have read some of the more criticized parts, and I found it to be carefully drafted. For example, the wiretap provision gives more protections than Americans had for the first 75 years of the 20th century! It is important to keep this stuff in historical context!

   There are other laws that I think are less important to US security and far more scary in terms of abuse that perhaps deserve more focus.

   I would make one major criticism, though. I would prefer to separate the criminal justice system from the internal security system. The British do this, with MI5 having no police powers. Doing such and writing the law appropriately would remove much of the incentive for abuse of national security laws.

Leave a Reply.