small-government loving conservatives

Would that be the tin-foil-hat wearing conservatives, or the Ross Perot conservatives?

Or the Andrew Sullivan conservatives.

All of whom do not vote for Republicans. Ever.

Nah, I think that they are the "lifelong Republicans" who call into Rush to say that Bush lost them when he cut taxes or let the assault weapons law perish.

Or the instapundit.com conservatives, who are really just A.N.S.W.E.R. members in clever disguise.

The Patriot Act may go too far in some ways and not far enough in other ways.

I tried to read it, but it was really boring. What little I read looked good. (For example, changing wiretap warrants to apply to an individual person, rather than a phone number.) But people I trust say there are some problems with the act, for whatever that's worth.

I would have respected the democrats if they had come up with an alternative which does what needs doing, rather then merely demonizing the only proposal on the table.

I think it's weird that people say there are problems with the act but then don't really explain, except for this silly business about library records.

Instapundit is always talking about how the act "goes too far" but never provides specifics. I'd appreciate specifics. It could be that I agree with him. But he never does.

Can't we agree that it's poorly written and that 4 years later, we could do better?

Ace,

If I recall correctly, Instapundit's objection is not that the Patriot Act goes 'too far', but that it contains a lot of provisions that aren't relevant to the fight on terrorism, but which have been on a lot of 'wish lists' for years and only got passed into law because they were tucked into the Patriot Act. (But what those provisions are I don't know - he may have written about them, but if so I've forgotten the specifics.) He even psoted about this on 9-11-01 if I recall correctly.

Max is correct. The only specifics I know of were the new provisions trying to get in, which did include certain drug enforcement policies.

Uh, just noticed 5 posts in a row with no h/t Allah.
Either he's slippin' or you are.

"Uh, just noticed 5 posts in a row with no h/t Allah.
Either he's slippin' or you are."

Hell hath no fury like a lover scorned, anonymous.

Can anyone point out to me the list of abuses which have occured because of the Patriot Act cause I am unaware on any. Much ado about zilch.

Foamy

The only criticisms I've heard range from the "I've never seen a terrorist but it's spooky to see law enforcement personnel" take (journo and KOS types reax to M-16s and guard dogs after 9/11), to the slightly more serious "it's being used to fight non-terrorist crimes like drug smuggling, so let's put this dog down" position.

In other words the best PA critics can do is to cite the possibility of abuse as grounds to squelch the govt's efforts to evolve in an asymmetrical war (think making a shark stop swimming).

Ragged and incomplete as the Patriot act may be, it seems unserious to knock it without pointing to an alternative; we should stick with what we've got until someone can think of a better idea.

Well, if anyone gives a shit, here's my two cents:

I don't like giving the government a pass on domestic surveillance. It's not so much that I think they've abused the ability in this particular case; in fact, based on the merits, I think this particular op was run pretty well (at least until the fuckheads at the NYT blew it up). However, this kind of power is like catnip to people in the government and military: the more they have, the more they want. And modern technology makes this kind of surveillance not only effective but relatively easy. Most people don't think about how easy it really is to monitor electronic and voice traffic, and they take few if any precautions.

I suppose for me it comes, as always, down to a question of trust. I trust W. to do the right thing, but W.'s not alone here: he has an FBI, a clearly-dysfunctional CIA, an NSA that has some divided loyalties, a DIA, an ONI, and a whole constellation of other agencies who want to use SIGNIT/ELINT...and not just against foreign enemies, whatever they may say. As a country, we must have robust SIGINT/ELINT assets; I accept that as an inevitability. But with that requirement comes a requirement for robust and impartial civilian oversight, and that's the piece that's missing here.

I should add that the Democratic postion here (as on the Patriot Act vote) is a deeply meretricious one. They are playing the very worst kind of lowball politics, and this in a time of war. However uncomfortable I am with government-run domestic SIGINT/ELINT operations, I am far more angry at the liberal establishment for committing what is nothing less than treason in a time of war. I hope they find the leaker, and charge him or her with treason -- there simply is no other just punishment for this outrage.

Its pretty lame, some Senator blamed her filibustering of the Patriot Act because of Abu Gharib. AG was an incident arising from the punishment of prisoners who were fighting (I guess Oz really was tame). These prisoner were run-of-the-mill scum, not Al Qaeda types. They were not being interogated.

But why deal with facts when you can live in your own myths.

Has anyone "seen" Allah since yesterday? Maybe Ace killed him?

I left several comments in the Hoist thread, carin.

If anybody was going to do anybody in, it would be Karol. She was the alpha heterosexual last night.

I don't have a link at the moment, but I've heard about a U.S. Attorney using the Patriot Act to go after a strip club owner.

If I've got the basic facts right, then yeah, that sounds like a world-class abuse of the statute. Um, maybe I should Google around a bit before going from memory on this.

Here we are.

It's a public corruption case (racketeering and bribery) involving a strip club owner, not activities related to the club itself. Still, that seems like it ignores the plain purpose of the statute.

Say, was that the real Rodney King up there at 5:30pm?
Sure sounded like it- "Can't we all juz git along?"
For the record, I'm a bit to the right of Monty's position on this.
Especially the treason part.
And in this day and age, were true abuse of such an Act to start to take place, I don't think the gubmint would get away with it.
We haven't given up our guns yet.

Maybe we should get of RICO as they are using it against abortion protestors. Seems like another growth of a law deviant from its orginal spirit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051221/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Sorry to be OT, but why is it that the Sunnis in Iraq, who are the terror enablers, sound just like the Kossack/Olbermann/DU/MSM crow that claims Ohio was stolen?

I am for the Patriot Act. I believe it's one of the main reasons why we have not had another terrorists attack since 9/11/01.

I would guess that there are some people who know of planned terror attacks that were busted because of the Patriot Act - but we will never know.

I am for the Patriot Act.

Me, too. But I bet it could be improved upon.

What Monty said.

It hurt to say that.

Remember, the Patriot Act was a rush job. It had to be; we had just been attacked.

It makes sense, now that we've had a few years to formulate and act on a national security strategy, to take a look at what we do and don't need in a new version of the Patriot Act. Now is a great time for some honest healthy debates. (If the democrats could stop shrieking and lying, they might actually serve a useful purpose as the loyal opposition. But I won't hold my breath.)

monty: "I trust W. to do the right thing" Thank you, thank you - that was the best laugh I had today.

"am far more angry at the liberal establishment for committing what is nothing less than treason in a time of war" Also pretty funny, and sad. So old W breaks the law so he can spy on Americans without any constraints and you're only upset that someone leaked it? And "liberal establishment" - ???- in what country - last I heard we had a Republican government in both houses, a republican president, and solidly conservative multi-billionaires owning everything and getting richer. That looks like the "establishment" to me. I don't know if this establishment is treasonous but they sure aren't interested in helping the average American. (Actually, I don't want help - I just want the government to stop stealing my money and giving it to the big corporations.)

And in this day and age, were true abuse of such an Act to start to take place, I don't think the gubmint would get away with it.
We haven't given up our guns yet.

Well said. I'm sick and tired of all this theoretical "it's the principle" BULLSHIT. Deal with reality, please. Fuck nuance, theory, and all that overlawyered crap (no offense intended to the lawyers who are here; I'm pretty much talking about law professors).

Seriously, you guys, we are Americans. When the Patriot Act or FISA or this latest NSA thing starts reaching into REAL freedom, we'll talk. For now, I don't give a shit if the NSA or CIA comes and drags people who do so much as talk to terrorists out of their homes and beats 'em until they run back to Saudi Arabia with their tails between their legs, only to have them chopped off in Chop-Chop Square upon their arrival. Fuck 'em. With a Desert Eagle.

I expect nothing better than a lot of pointy-headed hand-wringing about "civil liberties" from law professors and the like, anyway.

Sure beth - when the govmint screws the bad guys that's OK but when they come for us good guys, then we'll stand up and put our foot down, so to speak. Might be a tad late by then. A government with too much power is going to do what a government with too much power always does. Like giving a pit bull speed -can't be sure who they're going to bite.

I agree with Beth. I work in the IT industry and there are many who let the process become more important then the product. The same idea is in play here. Some object to what NSA is doing because they're victims of BDS. Then there are some who object because of a perceived loss of civil rights (unlawful search and seizure). These are the people who really baffle me. We're talking terrorism here, not organized crime. We're talking about monitoring communications between people in the US and foreign countries WHO ARE KNOWN TO HAVE LINKS TO TERRORIST ACTIVITIES OR ORGANIZATIONS! If you somehow think that this shouldn't be done, please explain to me what principle is involved here that would be more important then trying to prevent another attack that could potentially kill millions? Who among you people wouldn't crucify the President if he had a tool he could have used to prevent such a thing AND DIDN'T USE IT! Perspective, people, perspective.

The 9/11 Commission Report's chapter 8, "The System Was Blinking Red", describes several occasions in the late summer of 2001 in which law enforcement agencies and security agencies each had information about the 9/11 plotters that, if assembled, could have prevented the attack - but were blocked from sharing information with each other by the "wall" that the Clinton administration had erected.

An FBI agent wrote the following about the "wall" in August 2001 when he was blocked from sharing data with his CIA counterpart:

"Whatever has happened to this - someday someone will die - and wall or not - the public will not understand why we were not more effective in throwing every resource we had certain 'problems'.

"Let's hope the National Security Law Unit will stand behind their decisions then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, UBL [Usama bin Ladin], is getting the most 'protection'." (page 271.)

I don't know all the details of the Patriot Act, so I must withhold judgement of Congress's action yesterday. But I do know for certain that to restore the "wall" blocking the sharing of information between law-enforcement and security agencies is stupidity bordering on madness. If that's what the Democrats want, then they are doing the country serious harm.

It really doesn't bother me that W is spying on people with connections to terrorism, or anything else this administration has done involving the Patriot Act for that matter. What concerns me is having the precedent set for a Hillary Clinton administration. Those of us who frequent blogs like this will suddenly be a threat to national security, and the MSM will suddenly not be so concerned with civil liberties. The only thing that keeps me supporting the Patriot Act and domestic survelliance is that I fear crazed Muslim lunatics more than a potential Hillary administration. But just barely.

The information in question can't be used in criminal prosecutions. Period. The info can't even be used to get warrants to gather evidence for criminal prosecutions. So where are our liberties being trampled?

The IRS requires all sorts of information about me for "revenue gathering" purposes. All sorts of banking transactions get monitored by the Federal Reserve for regulatory purposes. No foul.

Bush is accused of gathering information about people with links to terrorists. If I turn out to be one, I sure as hell want someone talking to me about it. Say someone contacts me about a harmless seeming service for a person or group that appears to be native or associated with a friendly power - sort of a "false flag" recruitment where the significance of the job is unclear. Even if I turn the guy down, do I want the FBI showing up to get info on the character who tried to recruit me? Absolutely. That's the effin' JOB they are supposed to be doing.

No attacks on our soil since 9/11 and it isn't because the bad guys haven't been trying. AQ has been getting rolled up left and right. What Bush is doing is obviously working and it is suicidally stupid to start taking intelligence gathering tools away out of fear he'll -- do what, exactly? I'm still not clear on what the nightmare scenario is.

It appears all our presidents at least going back to Carter have taken the position that they have inherent power to gather info without warrants for purposes of foreign intelligence. Again, that's foreign intelligence, not criminal prosecution. Clinton even allegedly wiretapped STROM THURMOND, for heaven's sake, on those grounds. In a time of war, Bush isn't accused of even going as far as his predecessor did.

I would understand what we are debating a lot better if someone could just explain what practical use they fear the information might be used for. Can we sharpen the issue at least that much, please?

Actually, apparently both the Clinton and Carter administrations also used these powers. Fear of abuse is a legitmate concern and the Patriot Act is probably flawed - it was written by humans and under pressure. But there is no excuse for the donks' (and RINOs') political posturing. We need now is a constructive approach to correct the flaws. What we are NEVER going to get is an Act that fully protects the rights of US citizens and ALSO is effective against terrorists. Not. Going. To. Happen. So now we need to decide whether the right to "unreasonable" search and sizure trumps the right to life.