The debate we never got

New at Reason: Julian Sanchez and Heather Mac Donald debate the merits of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Comments

[anon coward]

Man. Whey couldn't Pete Guither have been the guy to respond to that blowhard, Ramesh Ponnuru, the other day instead of Gillespie?

[Forbes Tuttle]

The MacDonald v. Sanchez is a nice start.

While a natural sceptic of expanded government police powers, I think MacDonald is still ahead on points. A significant amount of this is "inside baseball" where you are attempting to debunk the other's arguments--and as a result, are talking past each other (from the listener, or reader's standpoint).

My suggestion to Reason (perhaps the November issue addresses this) would be to point out the specific problems with Patriot, item by item, but also establishing what should appear in its place and why (or if nothing should appear, the threat posed by the item dropped, if retained). You have to go on offense against the act (not merely MacDonald) with answers, not just questions and concerns.

As to why Clinton's proposal 1998 didn't go anywhere--read Roger Pilon's "The Rule of Law in the Wake of Clinton," that illustrates a record of legal abuse that superceeds even Nixon.

[Pete Guither]

The title of this post says it all. I'm happy to see that real debate is finally happening. It's something we apparently weren't allowed to do before, either because there wasn't time or because (as some claimed) to do so would be to aid the enemy. The attempt by Sen. Hatch to make Patriot provisions permanent without full review added to the feeling that questioning the expansion of federal police powers was not acceptable.

The only reason debate is happening now is that those opposed to the Patriot Act have yelled loudly enough to get people's attention. For doing that, they are accused of not being specific!

Those of use who are opposed to the Patriot Act have also been accused of unreasonably parsing the language to imagine potential abuses by government. All you have to do is look at the other perpetual war (the war on drugs) to understand that the broadest possible interpretation of granted police powers WILL be used by the government.

For decades, the courts and the public have allowed infringements on the Bill of Rights in the name of the drug war. Asset forfeiture was touted as a way to prevent major kingpins from profiting in drug trade -- now it's used to seize the cars of people trying to buy a bag of pot. No-knock raids were considered necessary to deal with dangerous drug situations -- now task forces in every part of the country use these military-style tactics with squads dressed in black breaking down doors at 3 am because there was a report of drugs (often with tragic results).

And now, Ashcroft and Walters et al. are trying even more to tie the two wars together (drugs and terrorism) so they can apply the police powers gained from one war to the other (even more noticable in the early drafts of the new Victory Act).

If you want to see the absurd results that can come from increased police powers, take a look at how some state laws passed in the heat of the moment have been used, including adding money laundering charges to simple drug transactions in Ohio, and charging methamphetamine suspects in North Carolina with "manufacturing a nuclear or chemical weapon."

[Anonymous]

I just find it amusing that the people who accuse libertarians of "fearing black helicopters" are the same people who suffer from "terrorist paranoia". Even though America has the highest incarceration rate on the planet.

Apparently our government's paranoia is the only correct paranoia, which is only proving to be perpetuating itself.

The implication that lack of a PATRIOT-type act is what hindered us from preventing the 9/11 attacks is not only delusional, but also insulting. That's essentially blaming the citizens of the country for the governmental blunders because we didn't give the government enough power.

[jim]

I'm happy to let John Ashcroft talk to my librarian about all the books I read. It's not like I could get arrested or imprisoned without the right to call a lawyer or even my family. I'm very patriotic and sure Mr. Ashcroft is only looking out for good Americans like me.

[jim]

I'm happy to let John Ashcroft talk to my librarian about all the books I read. It's not like I could get arrested or imprisoned without the right to call a lawyer or even my family. I'm very patriotic and sure Mr. Ashcroft is only looking out for good Americans like me.

[cdunlea]

Actually, to see the results of increased police powers one has to look no farther than the 1933 Enabling Acts--in Germany. There, the chancellor demonized an opposition group to whip up mass hysteria and create a crisis, thus allowing the indefinate suspension of civil liberties and then lead the country to a disastrous war. Anyone care to guess who that was?

Gee, about the only real difference here is that I'm certain Bush didn't pay anyone to crash the Trade Towers...though he and his cronies seem to enjoy all the benefits.

[Greg Newburn]

Another thrashing courtesy of J. Sanchez. Ramesh needs to read more of Julian's columns before saying Gillespie is running Reason into the ground.

[Garelik Jane]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.pills-for-penis.com
DATE: 01/25/2004 10:49:40
We are as God made us, and often a great deal worse.

[Twaddell Hannah]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 195.94.1.122
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/21/2004 05:39:38
To be a human without passion is to be dead.