A recent article published in the journal well known for their liberal bias (LA Times), reports on the subject of the renewal of the Patriot Act. The article, admirably devoid of the Times' customary slant, shed light on a number of issues which liberals (embodied in Congress as the Democrats, and a couple of Republicans thrown in for good measure), take issue in regards to this law. Why is it that Democrats take such offense to a law designed and exercised as a means for law enforcement to combat terrorism and other criminal behavior, drugs, child molestation, murder, etc?
On one extreme it could be credibly argued that their obstruction of the renewal is in direct favor to terrorists, drug dealers, and child molesters, and though I don't think that counts in their convoluted (or simplistically naive, if you will), intentions, the outcome will be very much the same. The other extreme is that these are the defenders of the "free", and that together with organizations such as the ACLU and Islamic charities, they work, with the most altruistic intentions to safeguard our rights. Horse excrement!
Take a look at some of the provisions of the Patriot Act that they take such offense to: (All taken from the LA Times article, link provided.)
Quote:1. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III ?- testifying at the same hearing ?- argued for expanding the bureau's authority to issue administrative subpoenas in terrorism cases, something that would give it access to a wider range of data without having to go to court.
The FBI has that authority in cases that include drug trafficking, healthcare fraud and child exploitation, Mueller said. But Democratic lawmakers have rejected previous administration requests for broader subpoena authority.
They want a terrorism investigation be forced to comply with what, very likely, will be weeks of bereaucratic paper shuffling and court appearances, obviously tipping off the suspect to the investigation, and thereby rendering any surprise or intelligence obtained invalid. Their excuse ... I'm not sure, as it is inconceivable to me why someone would want to protect terror suspects. Any verbose Democrats care to explain?
Quote:2. Committee members grilled Gonzales over such concerns as the standards the government used in obtaining a new form of search warrant that allowed authorities to delay notifying the target of an investigation, sometimes until weeks after the search had occurred. The authority for that type of warrant under the Patriot Act is one that does not expire this year, but has been targeted for repeal by critics of the act.
Gonzales said the delayed-notification provision ?- known to critics as "sneak and peek" ?- had been used 155 times in cases that included drug dealing, murder and terrorism. He said that represented less than 1% of all search warrants the department sought.
1% people. 1% of cases in drug, murder, and terrorism cases, ONLY! What possible objection can the whiners of Congress, and the rest of America, have against such an incredible law enforcement tool? This provision greatly assists in keeping the suspect in question in the dark. The law is simply dummy proof. If a terrorist, or murderer for that matter, doesn't know he's being investigated, he won't likely go on a evidence destruction binge, and may lead police to accomplices. Anyone who objects to this law, obviously has no notion of the value of intelligence in the war on terror, how that intelligence is obtained, or even in the case of murderers or child molesters. Admit it, if you object, chances are you are a person who's greatest brush with such creatures is through the blogosphere.
Quote:3. Some of the sharpest questioning came from Specter, who asked whether Gonzales would agree to limits on a provision in Section 215 of the law, targeted by library groups as possibly allowing the government to investigate the reading habits of ordinary citizens.
Gonzales told lawmakers that the government had used Section 215 on 35 occasions ?- to obtain information about drivers' licenses, apartment leases and telephone subscribers but never against libraries.
Sometimes simple information (such as in a library database), like drivers licenses, addresses, etc, are a vital and annoying part of gathering intelligence. If the suspect has any connections to institutions like libraries, credit card companies, banks, etc, why shouldn't law enforcement be allowed to use those resources in the investigation. If you have nothing to fear, who cares if the police sees what you have been reading? And the Justice Department never used the code against libraries in the first place. Why make it harder for police, the FBI, or even another agency, to gather information on terrorists or murderers? What sensical arguement can you raise to that?
Simply put, if you're not breaking the law you have nothing to fear. If you are not a terrorist, murderer, or child molester, chances are the worst thing that could possibly happen is you may be investigated in error for a little while, but that is possible regardless of the law. Anyone who strongly objects to such a law is either merely a first class obstructionist, who probably raises objection to anything that has "force" in its nomenclature (law enforcement), or they are engaged in activities that they know would come to very bad light if it got out. Either way, they must get over it.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=716&e=26&u=/latimests/20050406/ts_latimes/patriotactiscalledvital
(edited to add link)
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace