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.)
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?
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.
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)