Many thoughtful people have set forth in detail their reasons for opposing the manner in which the Patriot Act permits info to be gathered, with what they consider to be insufficient oversight or notice.
Bricker has made clear that he considers such position unfounded. But it is disingenuous for him to suggest that folks have not been able to clearly articulate teir areas of disagreement. As usual, he is careful in covering his ass with weasel words like “In my experience,” “most people,” and "“people will say things like.” A credit to his profession!
Unfortunately, I agree with him that I am unaware of any showing that a majority of Americans disagree with the Patriot Act either in its entirety or regarding specific provisions.
A distinction without a difference. A law that says “SteveMB can garnish Bricker’s wages whenever he feels like without having to possess proof that Bricker owes him money” differs technically from a law that says “SteveMB can garnish Bricker’s wages whenever he feels like without having to show proof that Bricker owes him money” differ in technical meaning, but are identical in actual practice (either way, I can take your money and there’s jack all you can do about it).
Er… no, if you mean a warrant is never required at any point during the process of doing any of the above.
No, it isn’t. This is the “in my experience” and “most people” that Dinsdale suggests I was using to weasel.
Yes, D, there are plenty of people that object to provisions of the Patriot Act for reasons they are clearly able to articulate, and that are grounded in actual provisions of the Act. But they are NOT the majority of objectors in this country, or indeed even on this board. You have only to review the many threads over the last several years on the subject. “In my experience” is EXACTLY correct to describe this.
No, that’s not correct. Section 114 was changed to correct the some of the deficiencies of 213, creating specific time period for notification where previously it was vague and indefinite.
Also worth remembering that the search provisions of the act were found unconstitutional and the appeal has not yet occurred.
Yes, they set it to a default of 30 days. Of course, they also added the text below, which takes us right back to where we were.
So basically, they can delay it as long as they’d like, as long as they come up with justification to do so.
As an aside, and not addressed specifically to you, what does this rule have to do with “fighting the war on terror”, which is why the less informed American public, as well as those who get their information from the current administration, still thinks the Patriot Act is a good thing?
Yes, on this matter as many (if not most), the number of uninformed generalized opinions significantly outnumber the informed and specific. Your point is?
This administration has proven itself to be impressively adept at manipulating and appealing to uninformed public opinion in order to pursue its policy objectives, while ignoring informed opinion to the contrary. Not saying this admin is unique in this approach. Just marvelling in its effectiveness in scaring the public into supporting all manner of distasteful actions.
I can’t think of a major legislative issue for which this isn’t true. Opposition to McCain-Feingold, the immigration reform, welfare reform, etc., for most people comes down to a soundbyte: it hurts free speech, it’s amnesty, it hurts poor people. If pressed, most of these critics wouldn’t be able to cite a single provision they object to, specifically, or be able to outline exactly how the bill violates, say, free speech. And so it is with the Patriot Act, the moreso because it is in some ways more complicated than other major legislation. People know vaguely that it violates civil liberties, specifically the Fourth Amendment, but can’t say much beyond that.
But raising that point in a debate on this board about a bill seems designed to say something more than just “most people don’t know the specifics of legislation they oppose.” That statement is more or less axiomatic and probably true of our legislators as well. So why bring it up if not to suggest, none too subtlely, that people who dislike the Patriot Act are somehow uninformed? That if they really knew what they were talking about, they’d agree with it?
In truth, it’s the opposite, most likely. If they really knew what the content was, they would be more vehement in their disagreement. This is born out by the polling, which suggests that the more people know about the provision, the more opposed they are.
People can agree with the Patriot Act as a piece of legislation but be opposed to way it’s been used. If a President pardoned Charles Manson that doesn’t mean that the idea of Presidential pardons is a bad idea, it just means that particular President is misusing the power. Same thing with the Patriot Act. I doubt there’d be as much opposition to its powers if President Bush had demonstrated more responsiblity in using them. A different president, using the exact same law in a wiser manner, might carry out useful actions that would benefit the United States and the world.
Of course the “front runners” all support the Patriot Act. It’s patriotic! It has the word “Patriot” right in it! People like George Washington, and John Hancock, all those guys were patriots! I’m a patriot. What’s not to like – it’s all about patriotism.
While I don’t disagree with you, the causality does not necessarily flow this way. I did more research about the provisions of the Patriot Act because I was so horrified by the sound bytes. The people who care the most at first glance are probably the ones who take the trouble to research it to begin with.
I’ll defer to your political science knowledge, but we know it flows that way if we see it happen within a single poll, don’t we? For example, a poll asks whether you favor the Patriot act, and 54% say yes. Then, when it asks about specific provisions (which it then reads the text of), overwhelming majorities oppose it. This suggests a causal relationship between knowledge of the act and opposition, right?
You’re right: I just misread the way the survey was carried out.
Either that or people are more cognitively dissonant than I had supposed. Could they support a measure whose individual components they disagreed with?
Its not so much the provisions of the law are onerous in their suppression of rights, the law isn’t that bad in terms of its specifics. If it has any flaws, it is the flaw of not restricting the power of the Bushiviks adequately to protect from abuse. And even if it had, it wouldn’t matter much, they have shown quite clearly that, so far as they are concerned, the law says whatever they say it does.
If the law were a gun, and that gun were in the holster of an intelligent, well-trained and humanistic policeman, it would be a good thing. In the wrong hands, fo course, that is not true, but that isn’t due to any inherent flaw in the manufacture of the gun.
Well, if we’re talking about parts of the act that haven’t changed, presumably a new poll wouldn’t make a difference. But I can’t find any polling done on the details of provisions since the amendments.
In any case, we are talking about the disapproval of a law that has been found unconstitutional in federal court. So if you’re making a mootness argument, I’m right there with you.
I kind of doubt whether most people in this country could accurately identify specific provisions of any legislation passed in the last decade. (At least, not to the level of accuracy you seem to demand.) So what? That doesn’t mean that their impression that they disagree with it is innaccurate.
Suppose Joe Citizen has seen various news stories over the last few years that mention the Patriot Act. Many of these reports strike him as excessive violations of privacy by the government. Maybe he can’t remember the specifc details of these reports, but he’s come to understand in general terms that the Patriot Act increased the govenment’s ability to monitor the actions of U.S. citizens or allowed the govenment to circumvent the usual procedures for doing so. And he’s gotten the general sense that the government now has too much power to monitor its citizens, and that this is the result of the Patriot Act.
Are you seriously telling me that the fact that Joe Citizen can’t cite the Patriot Act chapter and verse makes his opinion less valid? Even though his impression is probably correct, in that if you put the Act in front of him and let him read it it would confirm that he disagrees with several of its provisions? (After all, his impression that he disagrees with it is based on news reports on how the act was actually applied, even if he doesn’t remember all the details accurately.)
If that’s your opinion, it smacks of pretty severe elitism. But if that’s the standard you want to take, what fraction of people who claim to be for the Patriot Act do you think are able to accurately identify specific provisions they support? I suspect it’s just as low a percentage.
The Patriot Act has certain similarity to the authorization for military force: if it had been delivered into the hands of responsible, trustworthy men, it would not have been so bad. It wasn’t, so it is.