Gallup has done an interesting survey on attitudes about the Patriot Act. No surprise, most Americans are not uncomfortable with it, and trust Attorney General John Ashcroft more than the ACLU.
Even a majority of self-described "liberals"--a majority of them--think the act is just about right or doesn't go far enough.
Which is as it should be, so far as I'm concerned, because as a former card-carrying member of the ACLU, I have long found them a shrill, irresponsible outfit that cannot be trusted with many important civil rights. At all. In fact, they are an avowed enemy of many important civil rights.
Furthermore, most Americans, quite rightly, perceive that we are not living in anything like a police state.
Furthermore, while the survey shows that the majority of Americans have no big qualms about the Patriot Act, when asked about specific parts of it they're a little more ambivalent.
"Aha!" cry the act's critics. "Proof that the American people are dunderheads and ignoramuses and the ACLU is right!"
Balderdash. Proof that the everyday American has better things to do than pore over thousands of pages of legislation when, in fact, in the entire time since its passage, very, very, very few of them have been negatively impacted at all. Furthermore, and much more importantly, it's proof that shrill rhetoric full of hand-waving generalizations gets you nowhere.
I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again. Those of you who fancy yourselves "civil libertarians who are concerned about the Patriot Act" should stop with the handwringing, the handwaving, the generalizations, and cheap shots at a good man (John Ashcroft) and start concentrating on specific things you want changed. This act can be amended, if there are things you don't like about it. But, just for example, how many of you who complain about the horrible Patriot Act--and you who do are a distinct minority among Americans--are even aware that it contains significant enhancements to civil liberties and privacy protections over what came before it? Do you want to get rid of those too?
For decades, the Justice Department has been able to order "roving wiretaps" when following organized criminals. All the Patriot Act did was extend that to suspected terrorists. Do we need to get rid of that? So we can have roving wiretaps on John Gotti but not on Mohammed Atta? That will make our civil rights safer? Not allowing the Justice Department to get a court order--a court order!--to look at someone's library records will protect all our civil rights? This is the thinking?
Generalizations are a waste of everyone's time and energy. Anyone who's really concerned about civil liberties issues should stop with the generalizations and start with the specifics: what they like, what they don't like, and what compromises might make them happy.
Heck, I was surprised to learn that library records are secret at all. I just assumed that since, you know, a library is a public place, and like, the librarian can see what you take out, and people have the right to look over your shoulder....
I think most Americans are not worried about the PATRIOT Act because their lives have not been changed by it or by homeland security. Mine has slightly in that I am in the Coast Guard Auxiliary and have done harbor security patrols on the Detroit River, both on land and water. Other than that, nothing.
Of course, calling it the PATRIOT act is a sure way to scare people....
yeah, most americans don't have the time to read over the thousands of pages that are the PATRIOT ACT, but, neither, apparently, did many of the legislators who voted on it.
More than the ACT itself, that was what i thought was a little nervewracking.
I am actually one of those nerds who read the thing (at least most of it). By and large I agree that Patriot I is mostly needed expansion of already useful law enforcement tools. It was however, made in haste and does need some fine tuning. My main problem is the secrecy of the review process, the traditional warrant requirement upon probable cause and appellate oversight role of the courts are chillingly diminished. No, the thought police aren't knocking on the door, yet. But surely you have to acknowledge that this is another step in that direction.
What a shame we live in a world where National Security overrides Ben Franklin's admonishment that "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." That shrill sound you hear from the left is scared because thay know that many of the Patriot provisions could be used against honest dissenters and they would never know it. And they are the usual suspects.
After college I moved away from any association with the National Lawyers Guild, the ACLU and Amnesty International whom I had flirted with before I figured I might need a job someday. Not only could I not buy hook-line-and-sinker their whole laundry list of causes, I believed in some but rejected others (I support capital punishment for one); but I also did not desire to be stigmatized with guilt by association. My basic belief system did not change, but vilification of such organizations also keeps anyone like me with some semblance of realism and moderation from their ranks. Ah well, they probably would have kicked me out eventually cuz I couldn't be converted to a true believer anyway.
On 9/11 I knew that the world I thought I grew up in was gone forever. I simply have to trust in the government to know what's right for me. I should not be afraid that there is some sinister Herbert Hooverite lurking out there keeping a record of my every move and logging every anti-establishment utterance. This is America and I've been mouthing off for years and haven't been thrown into the gutlag yet.
It's just that I don't like even the thought that this great country I love, its spirit and proud heritage, could move in even the slightest bit toward some totalitarian fascist state. Certainly the folks on the right hate communist regimes for the same reason, the lack of freedom of expression.
Fascism scares me more because I don't think our economic dynamic could ever support any kind of socialism, but I grew up in a family who lost soldiers fighting Hitler and Mousselini's excesses, and they were from nice little capitalist countries who freely elected those monsters.
That's probably why I was never completely impressed with R.Reagan's accomplishments in fighting communism. I always considered it absurd that we were afraid of such a system getting a foothold here. The American commercial miracle was more than enough to hold that marxist dreamworld at bay. Yes, the USSR was a threat, just as terrorists are real and dangerous. But inch toward suppression of basic rights like access to attorneys for the detained, sealing of even the existence of a prosecution, reading my mail, checking my reading habits,listing my associates....it all stinks of Macarthyism. Setting up your political enemies by clever use of a scary boogyman.
Will it ever affect me or anyone I know? Probably not. But I am quite aware that what I say and do might be on some list somewhere, waiting to be used against me if I get out-of-line. Here's the thing, you won't even know if they are using Patriot act provisions against you until they haul you away. That's how it works.
You won't be able to challenge whether or not they had a right to investigate you in the first place because the file leading to the warrants being issued are sealed in the name of national security. That is too easily abused. Nixon tried that National Security canard to keep his tapes sealed. Power like this can corrupt and no matter how well intentioned, Mr. Ashcroft and all his successors will be falible human beings with a very tempting tool.
Pril: hell, Congress never bothers to actually read all that stuff they vote on, generally. The people who put it together or go over it in committee do, but it seems like nobody else bothers to read the whole thing.
(I'm not sure if anyone reads every line of the Farm Bills or the budgets, actually. They're too frickin' huge.)
On another topic, I've found that in my discussions with various (generally left-leaning, but mainly because of source bias) people who complain about USA-PATRIOT (truly, one of the worst. names. ever. for a law), very few of them can actually tell me one specific thing that's wrong with it, and why such provision is wrong. (I've heard lots of "library records!!!", but no real answer to "why shouldn't it be possible to see those, if a judge thinks it's necessary?")
I concur entirely with Dean on the ACLU. Their rank disregard for the civil liberty of personal armament and defense (Hey, guys? There's an amendment between 1 and 3. It "counts" like all the others. Arguably more) was the first straw; the way they seem to have been diverted into something more like an advocacy group against religion rather than one for freedom of religion (or freedom from religious coercion, which is what the first amendment is actually about) is the last straw. And, mind you, I'm not a believer.
Mark: You need to learn more about history--especially the history of both communism and fascism. You really do.
That aside: I would really appreciate it if you would start actually trying to understand the points I'm making before firing off at me about them. My entire article was about why critics of the Patriot Act should get more specific about their concerns. So what do you do? You disagree with absolutely nothing I said, but act like I'm wrong anyway. How does that parse?
Unfortunately, you cut yourself off at the knees--you started with specific criticisms, then veered off into handwaving generalizations once again.
This is an act, passed by the Congress. It can be repealed or amended. In order to get that done, you should try to sway public opinion. The way to sway public opinion is to get specific about what you like about the act, and what you don't. Isn't that what reasonable, liberal-minded people are supposed to do?
By the way: Suggesting that the ACLU is extreme simply because they've been criticized is simply perverse. They got criticized for their own behavior, and, to be blunt, it's rather absurd to suggest that they're extreme because their critics pointed the finger and said they were extreme.
Sigivald: You're absolutely right that most legislation isn't read by most people in Congress. There is so much legislation now, so many bills debated, and the bills all routinely so long, that no human being can read them all.
The budget is, in fact, so big, that one human being could not read it even if they made it their full-time job for an entire year.
But as for the ACLU: they've been taking an extreme and ridiculous stance on a host of issues that are directly antithetical to individual rights at least since the 1980s. Then, they play martyrs and victims to evil McCarthyites when they're criticized, piously claiming that they "only stand up for the Bill of Rights!" Bullshit liars. They spit at the bill of rights every bit as often as they defend it, and that's been going on for a long, long time. And it's not just the 2nd amendment they spit on. They often spit on the 1st, just for starters. And don't even get me started on their contempt for property rights.
Well that was insuting. Where did you get your political science and history degrees, I know where I got mine.
I have to agree with Dean about the ACLU. They have done a lot of good, especially on free speech issues, but I'm finding I disagree with them, or with some of their state branches, as often as I agree. They have a very selective interpretation of the Bill of Rights, especially when it comes to the Second Amendment. They also stray into a lot of areas where they have no business such as affirmative action and welfare "rights".
A good alternative is the conservative Institute for Justice, which defends gun ownership, property rights, and other liberties. They filed an excellent brief in defense of John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner (the "sodomy" case).