Give It Up for Osama!

One of my favorite moments during the State of the Union address came when President Bush noted that "key provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire next year." Critics of the law applauded. Then Bush added emphatically, "The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule." Supporters of the law applauded: Let's hear it for the terrorist threat!

Comments

[Citizen]

Sorry James, can't do that. It'd be possibly too effective in swaying voters and therefore is not protected free speech.

[TMW in NY]

Ben Franklin said it best: Those who would give up liberty for a little safety or security deserve neither. (I'm paraphrasing.)
The look Georgie gave the opponents of the PATRIOT act when they applauded was priceless. Of course, neither he nor Dickey have to worry about safety or security or liberty....

[Andrew]

When I first saw British parliamentary debates on C-Span in the '90s I was shocked at how uncivil they were, with the PM and his ministers routinely jeered and drowned out. America's political culture is far more decorous...which is OK by me.

[Tom - people's republic of mas]

I frankly have a hard time seeing what?s wrong with the Patriot Act ? it?s not like we are going back to the days of Roosevelt during WWII. Terrorists are foreign soldiers they certainly didn?t giver the victims of 9/11 due process.

Historically we have not put enemy combatants into our court system. Roosevelt actually had some German spies executed.

Why should this not be renewed ?

[Rick Barton]

Many parts of the Patriot Act take away checks on law enforcement and threaten the very rights and freedoms that we need to protect.

Without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your medical records, your library records, and your student records and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done.

From an ACLU press release:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=14750&c=206

Among the provisions of the Patriot Act scheduled to sunset is the controversial Section 215, which allows the FBI to obtain orders for the production of any "tangible things" (which can include library, travel, genetic, health, business or firearms records) without any meaningful standard of judicial review and no mechanism for the person affected to challenge the order.

Also, the Justice Department has been taken to task for its aggressive use of the Patriot Act in non-terrorism-related cases.

[Jon H]

Andrew writes: "When I first saw British parliamentary debates on C-Span in the '90s I was shocked at how uncivil they were, with the PM and his ministers routinely jeered and drowned out. America's political culture is far more decorous...which is OK by me."

You say decorous, I say obsequious.

I wish we had the British system, and Bush had to face actual questions, rather than the fawning kiss-ass system we have in the US.

The Brits save that behavior for their queen, but George isn't royalty, and shouldn't be treated as such. He's a temp. An office-holding bureaucrat, just passing through.

[Thorley Winston]

Why should this not be renewed ?

Good question, I am willing to support having it reexamined (and was glad it had a sunset provision as I wish most federal laws would have) but on the whole it's mostly about allowing federal law enforcement agencies to cooperate more fully with each other and clarifying some surveillance rules.

In terms of how this affects the balance between liberty and security, I am not very concerned about the Patriot Act because (a) unlike many other things the federal government does, protecting the public from foreign and domestic enemies (e.g. terrorists) is both a legitimate function of government (although we can disagree about the mechanisms for this function) and constitutional, (b) as far as the things that government is able to do to you, governmental surveillance is pretty far down on the list of things which can harm people (as opposed to confiscating wealth, destroying your livelihood with regulations and lawsuits, infringing on freedom of association, etc.), and (c) so many of the scare stories being told about the Patriot Act seem to be either distortions or exaggerations, that I frankly am unworried the AG Ashcroft or anyone else is going to care what I read at the library.

Again, I agree with reexamining the law but frankly think that much of the concern about the law is more about scaring people for ACLU fundraisers (much the same way many of the political environmental groups scream bloody murder about petroleum exploration in a relatively tiny portion of the ANWAR), that it is difficult to get worked up about it. Unless you are predisposed to lead with your emotions, which I am not.

[Rick Barton]

Thorley,
Read what fellow conservatives say about what's wrong with the Patriot Act:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12632&c=206

[david]

Thorley, your interpretation & analysis is rational, sane, and realistic. Thank you.

Everyone else: TAKE OFF THE TINFOIL HATS.

[Randall Loffelmacher]

When I was watching it everybody thought that was very funny, although I never thought of it as applauding the terrorist threat. Even funnier.

Btw...I won the betting on the number of times Bush said "terrorist". I bet 14. The count was 15 after I stopped watching. Maybe 20 would have been an even better bet, huh?

[Jesse Walker]

I had the same reaction, Jacob. Best moment of the night, at least until Rangel dozed off.

[?]

I wonder if Congressman Ron Paul was amongst the few that applauded the forthcoming (iffy) demise of the Alien and Sedition... oops... I mean the PATIROT Act?

[Rick Barton]

Fight the Patriot Act! Tell your congressperson and senators not to renew the provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire. These provisions were considered such a threat to civil liberties that even conservative Republicans led the fight, against the wishes of the Bush administration, to put sunset time limits on them!

It is likely that if not abolished these parts of the Patriot Act will be used to punish dissent. Remember Nixon? Clinton?

Our future liberty and that of our children may well depend on our taking action now. Contact your representatives:

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

[Rick Barton]

What in the Hell?
This sounds like a nightmare!: Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention: http://antiwar.com/article.php?articleid=1748

[Andy D.]

Do I hear an echo in here?

[Rick Barton]

What? And let them zap my brain? So David why would you suggest that? Perhaps Earth isn't your native Planet...hmmm David.

But seriously, the Patriot Act is already being used for purposes beyond it's advertised scope and the new powers it gives government are substantial and undesirable even if they are never abused.

[James Merritt]

Rick Barton says, "Fight the Patriot Act! Tell your congressperson and senators not to renew the provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire."

Somebody ought to post the pictures (cropped from the SOTU broadcast) and names of all the Reps and Senators who applauded Bush's praise of the PATRIOT act and calls to renew it. We should remember their names and faces, and fire as many as we can in November. It's the only way they'll leran.

[Dan]

That was an excellent summary, Thorley.

Rick -- the ACLU believes that the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an individual's right to keep an bear arms. That says all that needs to be said about their honesty and competence.

[Rick Barton]

Dan,
Read what conservatives say bothers them about the act. http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12632&c=206

The important thing is that the provisions that are supposed to expire (due to conservative leadership, btw) do so.

That way, they can no longer be a threat to us.

We should contact our representitives and tell them so: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

[rst]

What's wrong with the Patriot Act is not so much the act itself as the precipice it represents. You don't have to believe in the slippery slope, but you're standing on it anyway.