Coming to terms with the Patriot Act

For over 20 years we lived with FISA and civil libertarians were largely silent. The Patriot Act in response to 911 was a marginal revision of FISA resulting in a further loss of freedom.

The Patriot Act can be salvaged. The only thing standing in the way is the all or nothing rhetoric of the left. It is imperative that we adjust it, and not savage it. If we fail to find the fix, there will be no stopping the evil that will replace it when we are attacked again.

Post 1

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 3:04pm

I had to Google "FISA" to get this link about it:

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) has been law since 1978.

Post 2

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 7:27am

Luther,

FISA, for all intents and purposes, is the Patriot Act and has been in effect for 20 odd years. There were a few minor adjustments in what is called the Patriot Act, but it is essentially the same thing. Why the furor after all these years? My answer would be that it has to do with how people feel about Bush.

Post 3

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 7:36am

Probably a combination of

1) It was passed at a time when people were scared, adrenaline charged, and paying far more attention to politics than doldrum Carter years
2) PATRIOT was ramrodded through without anyone in congress having access to or reading it, whereas presumably FISA at least had congressional aides see the whole text. This was know, publicized, and would make average people more suspicious about what really was contained within
3) The 'PATRIOT' acronym was such a sickeningly politicized name from the start, bound to polarize people more than 'FISA'

Post 4

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 12:01pm

Aaron,

Nice try, but you can't make that argument.

There is not a dime's worth of difference between Patriot and FISA.

Problem: A wholesale slaughter of Patriot opens the door to something incredibly more toxic after the next attack.

Post 5

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 12:30pm

Oh, I see Rob. So when we can't do something right, we should just attempt to come to terms with the wrong.

What a fraud.

I'm new to this forum, but you all are starting to seem like a bunch of rationalizing Libertarians.

Post 6

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 3:07pm

"Aaron,

Nice try, but you can't make that argument."

I happen to think Aaron is correct. Robert, you have a tendency to reveal a superior knowledge of some law or other with all the tact of a slap across the face. I also do not know how a libertarian could condone or accept either. Rather than browbeating people who are upset about the Patriot Act and not the other, lovers of freedom ought to be THRILLED that people are finally paying it some attention.

Post 7

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 3:08pm

And, Matthew, we are not ~all~ like that, I assure you.

Post 8

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 6:00pm

Matthew,

We've been living with it since 1978. We know what it is. I'll take the devil I know for the Devil I don't.

Scott, baby, don't ever change.

(Edited by Robert Davison on 7/24, 7:08pm)

Post 9

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 4:39pm

Robert,

What requires that you accept either devil?

What is so vital about the about the Patriot Act? To whom is it vital? Individuals? Our geographical collective as a whole? I realize that you are not precisely arguing to the validity or necessity of the Act itself.

I understand what you are saying. If we acknowledge that our leaders will panic and exact extreme measures in the case of a future emergency, we may as well know what is coming.

Personally, I do not perceive much advantage in, "knowing what is coming." Do we have any power to protect ourselves against it, whether we know it's face or not? Will the fact that we have something in place be enough to prevent legislators from creating additional intrusive legislation? In my estimation, it will not.

I suppose my point is, I don't believe the Patriot Act can ever be, "fixed." You suggest that we must fix it, rather than scrap it in order to protect ourselves from the possibility of a greater degree of rights violations in the future. How do you propose we fix something which, by it's very nature, violates the rights of the citizens for whom it claims to function? What would constitute a, "fix" in your mind?

MCD

Post 10

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 6:10pm

Matthew,

I appreciate your point of view and mourn with you, but we are witnessing Gottedamerung not the birth of a nation.

The only difference between Patriot and Fisa is that the law now applies to terrorists and adds sneak and peek. We can allow it to apply to terrorists, lose sneak and peek, and open an appeal process to the Fisa court. This is doable. A wholesale, full frontal, we hate Bush's evil Patriot Act, let it expire (which ignores the fact that we've already lived with it for 25 years), will lead to martial law after the next attack. Choose.

Post 11

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 9:03pm

Robert,

I think your assertion that complete abolition of the Patriot Act would result in inevitable, "martial law" may be a bit presumptuous.

I'm sure in the event of an emergency that legislators would again act quickly and hastily in order to capture the approval of their constituents while they are in a highly emotional state. Depending upon the severity of the event, it could be more or less intrusive (rights-violating) than the Patriot Act.

I do not think the Patriot Act is what prevents our regression to marshall law. Barring a complete annihilation of our military and law enforcement agents, the government will enforce the law. Perhaps you mean that another emergency, without a Patriot Act (or something similar) in place, would result in the government giving themselves so much liberty to infringe upon our rights (even the ones protected in their own Constitution) that it would be akin to marshall law?

I don't think we really disagree here. I'm a youngin and a lawyer-in-training so you'll have to excuse my tendency to argue for arguments sake!

Post 12

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 7:28am

Matthew,

Perhaps you mean that another emergency, without a Patriot Act (or something similar) in place, would result in the government giving themselves so much liberty to infringe upon our rights (even the ones protected in their own Constitution) that it would be akin to marshall law?

Bingo.

Youth is not a crime, although it can sometimes be a limiting factor.:-) Good luck with that law thing.

The real issue, of course, is the war on drugs. It is the largest factor in our progress toward police state. This 'so-called' war is incredibly intrusive, does little to stem the flow of drugs and fosters a violent, uncivil society.

Some jurists talk about a right to privacy as the solution to encroaching government, but a right to privacy, although it may protect us against peeping toms, does not protect us against government force ( defend liberty). A government unable to initiate force against law abiding citizens is the protection constitutional scholars need to find. It shouldn't be too difficult.

Post 13

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 8:22am

So, what you want, Robert, is a lesser evil we know, for a bigger evil to come which is unsure?

What if I say that even to accept a small evil is wrong thing? Didn't Rand already say to compromise with evil will ultimately lead towards evil, because you can't bargain with evil.
Fact is that the Patriot Act is evil in regard to individual liberty and a due course of justice.
Perhaps the FISA went through, because terrorism at home was something unthinkable (even 9/11 hit the US as nothing before had and the signals for a bombing were already there).

Instead of sanctionizing the FISA or Patriot Act, we should start abolishing not only the second but also the first with it.

Yes, there may be the chance of martial law, but if this happens, the shit will blow up.

Post 14

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 8:53am

Exactly, Max.

I would suggest reading, "Doesn't Life Require Compromise?" from The Virtue of Selfishness. Rand touches nicely on the inability to compromise with a robber. (I hope I'm not flooded with accusations of an appeal to authority here). In this case, we're being robbed of our rights.

"And then, on some gray, middle-aged morning, such a man realizes suddenly that he has betrayed all the values he had loved in his distant spring, and wonders how it happened, and slams his mind shut to the answer, by telling himself that the fear he had felt in his worst, most shameful moments was right and that values have no chance in this world."

I guess my argument here is that Objectivists should not, "stoop to politics." It does us no good to accept (and especially not sanction) an action which is wrong simply because we believe it is less wrong. We must explicitly state what is right and refuse to sanction anything less.

MCD

Post 15

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 10:06am

Max,

So, what you want, Robert, is a lesser evil we know, for a bigger evil to come which is unsure?

FISA is not pure evil. Surveillance tools are required to fight crime. If there are no tools in place, and the shit hits the fan, we will have the worst possible circumstance. The Statists are at the ready, and will break down our doors given even the slightest excuse. My recommendation is to forego the hysteria over FISA and the Patriot Act, and deal with specific remedies for what is unconstitutional.

What if I say that even to accept a small evil is wrong thing? Didn't Rand already say to compromise with evil will ultimately lead towards evil, because you can't bargain with evil.

That is correct, but I repeat that surveillance which comprises most of the Patriot Act is required and not evil.

Fact is that the Patriot Act is evil in regard to individual liberty and a due course of justice.

This is not correct.

Instead of sanctionizing the FISA or Patriot Act, we should start abolishing not only the second but also the first with it.

Some of it, certainly.

Yes, there may be the chance of martial law, but if this happens, the shit will blow up.

There is a great possibility for Martial Law and once enacted there is a real chance it would never again be lifted.

Post 16

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 10:10am

Matthew,

See my response to Max. You've learned your lessons well, but you are putting words in my mouth. I've read everything published by Rand many times, please get off your soap box.

Post 17

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:24am

Robert,

Easy there, big fella. I come in peace.

I did not mean to imply that you, specifically, need to read the essay in order to correct an error in your thought process. Nor was I suggesting that you had already become the jaded middle-aged man from the quote I provided. I was simply referencing what I have determined to be an eloquent and efficacious presentation of my view points in this particular instance. My main point was that sanctioning things which are partially wrong, or partially evil just because they are better than one particular alternative, will eventually lead to a complete "compromise" of our values to mediocrity.

Now then, please allow me to examine the post which is addressed to Max:

You begin by suggesting the FISA (I took the liberty of assuming you were referring to the Patriot Act, as well) is not, "pure evil" and that, "surveillance tools are required to fight crime." If I understand your position correctly, you acknowledge, and even sanction the necessity of violating some individual rights to the end of, "crime prevention." Or do you instead suggest that we can implement surveillance tools which do not violate our individual rights? I suppose this is at the heart of our dispute in this case.

Personally, I hold that if rights are rights (in the Objectivist sense) it is never appropriate to violate them, no matter to which end such violations are applied. If all you are saying is, "We should fix the Patriot Act so that it doesn't violate rights," I don't think you'll encounter many objections. Again though, I don't believe that there is any possible compromise in this case. If you would not mind, which particular articles of the Act do you feel are redeemable if tempered by your policies?

MCD

Post 18

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 2:58pm

Matthew,

I also bear you no ill will. But I will limit the number of words I use.

I am against hysterical approach to the Patriot Act; the idea that it is some fascist manifesto that must be eradicated from the face of the earth. Patriot Act salvageable. Surveillance possible with proper constitutional safe guards without violating individual rights. No FISA/Patriot Act, come next terrorist attack on our soil we will face dictatorship.

Post 19

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 6:23am