As you all probably know, Congress is debating whether to renew terms in the PATRIOT Act that are set to sunset in 2006. Atty. General Gonzales is not getting off to a good start here. From
Yahoo's news service:
"Now is not the time for us to be engaging in unilateral disarmament" on the legal weapons now available for fighting terrorism, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said. He said that some of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act have proven invaluable in fighting terrorism and aiding other investigations.
The "legal weapons" here include the numerous provisions that extend the government's authority to search, intercept communications, and so on. The ones that, in theory at least, include the "library provision" and "sneak and peek" searches.
More below...
Some observations:
1) Here comes "terror" again! One thing that really irritates me about the whole "War on Terror" is that I never get a day-to-day accounting of just what "terror" laws like these have supposedly stopped. No one, Gonzales or otherwise, has given so much as an executive summary. Just bland reassurances that the laws are doing their job and keeping us all safe.
The cynic in me thinks that there aren't very many terrorist activities getting caught by PATRIOT. On the contrary, there's a lot of reason to believe the PATRIOT Act is simply enabling the government to do more, and more intrusive, searches for mundane law enforcement purposes.
2) How can people get away with statements like this one (from the above mentioned Yahoo article) with a straight face:
The ACLU is part of an unusual coalition of liberal and conservative groups, including the American Conservative Union, that have come together in a joint effort to lobby Congress to repeal key provisions of the Patriot Act.
(emphasis added)
I assume they mean organizations like this one.
Why the hell should this organization be considered "unusual"? Groups like these aren't uncommon at all -- this sort of thing happens just about every time legislation like this gets considered. The civil-libertarian sides of both Left and Right probably agree on 8 or 9 of the 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights at any given time, and it's not hard to find some of both who wholeheartedly support all 10.
3) This Yahoo article overlooks the most important fact about such groups: when large groups of people, with differing opinions on most policies, join like this, something is wrong with the law. Even people who don't make civil liberties a big priority are legitimately creeped out by the whole thing. Whether you call yourself "liberal", "conservative", "libertarian", "moderate", or "fully whacked out loony", odds are you don't want to be searched without your permission, tracked unawares, and generally at the mercy of anyone in law enforcement, Gonzales's reassurances notwithstanding.
Or do you? Your thoughts below....