Patriot Act takes a hit

Wired News: Part of Patriot Act Struck Down

I've been against the Patriot Act since it was first proposed. I wrote then-congressman Ernie Fletcher several times about the problems with the Patriot Act and its potentially far reaching consequences for a free society. The first thing I thought of was the Alien and Sedition Acts which nearly caused a civil war with Kentucky in the eye of the storm. We don't fight our enemies with thought police in the U.S. You'll see me complain about this trend in the U.S. a lot. I can't stand the idea that the governent or society can make conclusions about your or my thoughts. It's just wrong... Our thoughts are our own and it is only our actions which are to be judged. I hate this deconstructive, psychological archeology that says someone can guess your motives and judge you on their interpretations. It shows up in extreme left wing thinking, in hate "crime", and in this Patriot Act. What we think can only support the case against us... it is not the case itself. In the U.S. we are understood to be innocent until proven guilty. Therefore no suspicious activity can be considered a crime in and of itself... we have to act to break the law. So our emotions don't change that fact. I resent the temporary insanity pleas, I resent the notion that killing someone because you hate that they are black is more serious than killing someone because youhate the fact that they chew with their mouth open. I'm not going to avoid reading books because they might get me arrested, and I'm not going to stop writing John Ashcroft because it might be considered seditious.

I have never been opposed to the actual idea of the Patriot Act's tools for law enforcement... only that there was significant lack of oversight and balance in the proposal. There was no time limit on the provisions... it was simply written into law. One article about this over-ruling talked about American's willingness to put up with temporary privacy inconveniences for the greater good... and I am certainly willing to give our government a year or two of unprecidented latitude to capture our enemies. However, I'm not going to give them unlimited power to do whatever they want whenever they want... that's against the grain of the constitution and the spirit of the country's foundation.

In a small way both sides of this argument were right. In the short term only people doing bad things need to worry, in the long run we all need to worry. The problem with Patriot was that it was written into long terms... not temporary terms. This is classic Ashcroft. He is so utterly inept that it sickens me. He is so completely without tact or insight that he just closes his eyes and beats on whatever is placed in front of him. Just about everything he's done in office has been wrong by me; from the RAVE Act to the INDUCE Act, it's been one bad piece of legistlation after another. Then again he's no Janet Reno and inspite of the crack down we haven't seen any Wacos as a result. He's intellectually heavy handed where Reno was just plain heavy handed. (I looked for an objective article outlining Reno's stint as Attorney General but, since she's running for Governor in Florida, everything on the net seems to be forgiving of her actions at Waco or demonizing them... politics strikes again.)

So maybe we can let the courts work it out? Unfortunately I don't give the ACLU much credit for being a balancing force in the U.S. They are really out there these days. The Patriot Act may have been poorly conceived and executed but the idea was sound. Kudos to them for a deserved victory, but if they continue pressing it, they'll inevitably toss the baby out with the bath water. Why is it that balance is so hard to get in this country?