Federalism vs. the Patriot Act

A summational report from Wired.com on the grassroots movement to get localities and states to reject the Patriot Act--at least rhetorically. An excerpt:

In the past two years, more than 300 cities and four states have passed resolutions calling on Congress to repeal or change parts of the USA Patriot Act that, activists say, violate constitutional rights such as free speech and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

Barring that, the resolutions declare that their communities will uphold the constitutional rights of their residents should federal law enforcement agents come knocking on the door of local authorities for assistance in tracking residents. This means local authorities will insist on complying with federal orders only in ways that do not violate constitutional rights. The resolutions are not binding, however, and do not affect the federal government's actions.

Comments

[tg]

Fred Hemmings is quite the scholar of the Constituion, huh?

[clueless]

you just gotta love the good Senator from Hawaii....Fred Hemmings, a Republican state senator in Hawaii who voted against a resolution passed in his state, called the resolution a political play by leftists bent on criticizing the government.
"There are constitutional zealots that somehow believe, especially in times of war, that some of our adversaries should be protected by rights given to us by the Constitution," he said. "But the people on the left are forgetting that we're fighting a war against a nationless enemy. It has to be fought on completely new terms."

and the real money line here?.....

He said although he has NOT READ the Patriot Act in detail........yada yada yada...HEY!...it's been HOW LONG NOW SENATOR???.....one might actually think that if you wanted to debate the pros or cons of a resolution that PASSED in the state that elected you..........you might find the time to read up and see what the locals are thinking?.

or is it more fun to just sing the party tune?

[Larry]

I've always found that the closer the government is to you, the better it is at oppressing you, since it knows you better.

[Fred]

You know what would be really cool? If local authorities refused to cooperate with the Patriot Act which allowed a terrorist to commit an act where thousands of Americans died.

[clueless]

your point fred?......

[Thorley Winston]

Will wrote:

It's difficult to find a whole lot of logic to support the Patriot Act...

Are you sure? A lot of people seem to agree that there are many good things in the Patriot Act such as allowing different agencies to share information (which could have prevented 9/11) and some of the surveillance provisions (e.g. clone cell phones) seem to be rather commonsensical as well.

I can't believe the Administration has not only not backed away from support for the Patriot Act, but that they are actually spending campaign funds to run TV ads in support of the Patriot Act.

Considering that most polls show that a majority thinks that the federal government is doing the right amount or needs to more to stop terrorism, it?s probably a smart political move on his part. Particularly when the Democratic nominee voted for it and now condemns the act without being able to articulate a substantive reason why.

But yes, I am still going to vote for George W. Bush, because the alternative is much much worse.

I?m glad to hear that although I am voting to reelect George W Bush not merely because the alternative is much, much worse (he is) but because he (a) wants to begin privatizing Social Security, (b) delivered on health savings accounts, (c) introduced means-testing to Medicare, (d) has adopted a saner attitude towards regulations, (e) has nominated some terrific judicial nominees, (f) supports tort reform, etc.

[Another Kevin]

"If the price of the liberties taken away by the Patriot Act is a 9-11 every few years, I am sorry but that is too high of a price to pay. If you don't feel that that is too high of a price, then be honest and take that position instead of pretending that there was no need for the Act and no reason to have ever passed it flawed or not."

500,000 people died of various cancers in the US in 2002:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/09/02/cancer.rates.reut/

529,000 mothers died in childbirth worldwide in 2000:
http://www.fact-index.com/m/ma/maternal_death.html

15,000 people died of HIV/AIDS in the US in 2001:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

Do you not think small changes in US policy could drastically change some of these numbers? Say, the FDA getting out of drug development, testing, etc.? How many more women will die in pregnancy due to illness, age, or other complications that could have been alleviated by proper contraception/abortion?

1,000 people a year (3,000 dead/3 years for a 9/11 type tragedy) is inconsequential when held to light of other issues. EVERY human life lost is a terrible tragedy. Did my best friend's mother's death from breast cancer mean any less than someone who died when the towers fell? Which one is the easier to prevent?

I'll be honest - I'd be willing to trade the possibility of infrequent attacks for keeping my civil liberties.

[jc]

"I don't start from the anarcho-capitalist viewpoint that the government IS THE ENEMY"

Why not? That's what the Declaration Of Independece, the Constituion and its Preamble do.

[jc]

"I don't start from the anarcho-capitalist viewpoint that the government IS THE ENEMY"

Why not? The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and its Preamble do.

[Joe L.]

"Why not? The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and its Preamble do."

No they hold the unjust actions of the King to be wrong, and the Constitution creates a GOVERNMENT, so it is by definition not anarcho-capitalist. It creates a LIMITED, but all powerful government. Limited in scope, but within its scope it is all-powerful and National Security is fundamentally within its purview.

[Joe L.]

Another Kevin: By that logic I assume you would have opposed the US entry into the Second World War, after all how many people die of polio and diptheria every year? The loss of 2000-3000 wia/kia at Pearl Harbour pales.

Government isn't designed to prevent AIDS, BUT the purpose of the state is to provide security for its citizens. So I can question the Federal Government's decisiion to spend money on AIDS research but have far less kick about its expenditures to defend ME, from terrorists.

And 9-11 wasn't just the loss of human life alone, the economic impact was fairly large, too. So are you willing to lose several thousand people and several billion dollars every few years to Usama Bin Laden? How about if its YOUR 401K that's affected?

[Joe L.]

However, Another Kevin answer my question, what specifically would you change in the Patriot Act? Again the tone of your answer seems to be that the Act is "wrong". Well that's as may be, but what is the worst about it and how would you change it?

We live in a reasonably practical Republic. Nancy Pelosi may favour its repeal, but most don't so given that what is the most unpleasant aspect(s) that should be amended?

[Gadfly]

Ahem. If I may tip toe into this, try Section 215, for instance. Here's an url: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/PATRIOT/sunset/215.php

"Section 215 violates your Constitutional right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, by allowing the FBI to search through your most personal information -- including financial records, medical records, student records, even your library records -- without ever having to prove that they have probable cause to suspect you of a crime, or even that your records are relevant to an investigation"

[Joe L.]

Good Gadfly, now would you abolish those sections or amend them? I have read that your library records are already fair game, without the Patriot Act. If so, would you amend the USC in general to require that a public document such as a record be kept and subject to subpeona?

[Joe L.]

Another Ken, Some other thoughts. By your logic I can assume that you advocate the abolition of the homocide bureaus around the nation. After all if the murder of 3000 persons is nothing as compared to the deaths brought on by natural causes, then why worry about other murders. If the 9-11 20 are not to be worried about, compared to the numbers you quote then why worry about Son of Sam, Ted Bundy, or the Washington Sniper?

And finally, is there no difference between AIDS and murder? One is a tragedy and one is an act of man. I'm sorry people die of breast cancer, but you'd see no difference between your friend's mother dying from breast cancer and someone KILLING your friend's mother? If you can see no moral distinction between a tragedy and travesty then I can see there is no point of futher discussion.

[Evan Williams]

Yes, Fred, the death of thousands of people sure would be, how did you put it, "cool".

What trashy hyperbole! Your argument is a logical fallacy. Using that line of thinking, you could justify almost any unjust act by the government, or anyone else for that matter. You know, if the government just put every single person in this country in internment camps, then we'd be guaranteed to have no terrorist attacks! And that's why 9/11 happened. Those 3000+ people died because the government didn't have the insight to lock up the entirety of the population, or at least outlaw flying. You know, we'd probably be less vulnerable to a terrorist attack if the United States simply turned into a military dictatorship, and locked up or killed every last "suspicious" citizen. You know, we'd also probably be less vulnerable to terrorist attacks if we put up a huge fence around the country, and shipped out all the minorities!

You know what would be really cool? If the government refused to lock up the entire US population in internment camps, which allowed a terrorist to commit an act where thousands of Americans died.

If you're going to defend the PATRIOT Act, at least start off with a bit of logic on your side.

[Will]

It's difficult to find a whole lot of logic to support the Patriot Act...

I can't believe the Administration has not only not backed away from support for the Patriot Act, but that they are actually spending campaign funds to run TV ads in support of the Patriot Act.

But yes, I am still going to vote for George W. Bush, because the alternative is much much worse.

[Gary Gunnels]

Some portions of the Act are wise and good, and other portions are potentially dangerous; so the Act itself is a mixed bag.

[garym]

Michael Badnarik used to have a claim on his website that a larger number of states (I forget exactly how many, but mentioned it somewhere in an old H and R reply) had passed anti-Patriot Act resolutions. He seems to have removed that claim in his post-nomination update.

Evan Williams: I'd have preferred to present the counter-argument as something plausible in a dictatorship, but unpalatable (we can hope) to Fred, e.g., "You know what would really be cool? If the cops didn't shoot somebody who looked suspicious, and then he committed a terrorist act where thousands died." Or "if the government didn't start interning Moslems..." or "if the government released a suspect because of lack of evidence..."

I suspect he wouldn't get the point even then, but you never know.

[Evan Williams]

Hey, I thought my examples were pretty poignent. Either way, it's not difficult pointing out logical fallacies like that one there.

[Evan Williams]

Hey, I thought my examples were pretty poignent. Either way, it's not difficult pointing out logical fallacies like that one there.

[John]

It will be interesting to see what happens when there is another big terrorist attack and that attack is in a town that refused to enforce that Act. How do you deal with people who infiltrate your society and use your society's openness to kill you? Anyone who complains about the Patriot Act ought to be required to 1)explain exactly how it doesn't help stop terrorism, 2) what specific provisions of the act violate the Constitution (I read a lot of allegations but I never read how section blah blah prevents this activity and that is a violation of our rights and a threat to our way of life. Could someone please be specific about the Act and not just speak in hyperbole?) and 3) how exactly they would prevent terrorism while still holding government to the standard you hold it to now.

I never hear any of the above specifics. All I ever hear about the Patriot Act is a bunch a generalized bitching and moaning. I am not saying its not the first step on the way to a totalitarian state. I would, however, like to hear exactly why that is the case rather than the generic, "John Ashcroft likes it it must be bad" rhetoric. More importantly, what do we do about terrorism? If the price of the liberties taken away by the Patriot Act is a 9-11 every few years, I am sorry but that is too high of a price to pay. If you don't feel that that is too high of a price, then be honest and take that position instead of pretending that there was no need for the Act and no reason to have ever passed it flawed or not.

[Thorley Winston]

Some portions of the Act are wise and good, and other portions are potentially dangerous; so the Act itself is a mixed bag.

I agree, moreover the idea that this is a ?federalism? issue is rubbish since the Constitution gives the federal (not State or local) government supremacy in the area of national defense.

[Thorley Winston]

It will be interesting to see what happens when there is another big terrorist attack and that attack is in a town that refused to enforce that Act. How do you deal with people who infiltrate your society and use your society's openness to kill you? Anyone who complains about the Patriot Act ought to be required to 1)explain exactly how it doesn't help stop terrorism, 2) what specific provisions of the act violate the Constitution (I read a lot of allegations but I never read how section blah blah prevents this activity and that is a violation of our rights and a threat to our way of life. Could someone please be specific about the Act and not just speak in hyperbole?) and 3) how exactly they would prevent terrorism while still holding government to the standard you hold it to now.

Good questions, I?d add one more ? 4) explain what things it is that Patriot Act empowers the federal government to do that you find objectionable that it could not do before.

[Joe L.]

John makes a very good set of points. The Act has been over-attacked and over-defended. To the extent that it makes it possible for Intelligence and Law Enforcement agencies to share information it is a good thing. Many of the complaints seem over-wrought and blame the Act for things the FBI could already do.

I don't start from the anarcho-capitalist viewpoint that the government IS THE ENEMY, given that what sections ught to be removed and why? What would take their place? What sections ought to be amended and why? What would the amendments do and how would they impact security? That seems a useful and logical starting place.

Anyone starting from Rick Barton-land, please don't bother responding. I don't see the Federal Government as the problem and see government actions over the last 50 years to be only minimally involved in 9-11 (feeling that an earlier Bush Doctrine would have transformed the Middle East sooner, so I am in favour of MORE interventions, not fewer). I would submit that 75-80% of the US agrees with me on this, too. That being the case the Patriot Act isn't going away. So, what ought to be done to it that might palliate it worst excesses whilst maintaining security?