Attack of the Killer Patriot Act from 20,000 Fathoms
Unfortunately, what I’ve written for this post appears to be too long for Movable Type to process properly, so I’ve uploaded it to a page here.
(Note: This entry was originally published on my now-defunct political blog, Attilathepundit.com.)
That’s quite the analysis, Eric, to only conclude that the article wasn’t really about the Patriot Act. Sorry I wasted your time. As you might note from the title of this entry ( http://improvist.org/Blogs/2003/9/1063728138-entry.xml ), I’m being critical of Ashcroft directly. So is Neas’s article.
The Patriot Act is one of several examples of the attorney general’s agenda to increase the branch’s powers (yes, to combat terrorism) at the expense of Americans’ civil liberties. If your intent is a dissection of the law, rather than the trend, then no, the article probably isn’t the best starting point. Since most all your comments concern the absence of the Patriot Act in the text, it’s difficult to catch your point. That the Patriot Act is a scapegoat?
You make too many (often irrelevant) points here to address all of them, but I’ll respond to a few of them with the little time I have.
Quoting: “Ashcroft’s Justice Department now acts with little regard for civil liberties. I assume this means criminal defendants are no longer allowed legal representation, the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended, there are no more jury trials, Assemblies of God is the established religion of the United States, troops are being quartered in private homes, newspapers are not allowed to print anything derogatory about Republicans, blacks and women no longer have the right to vote… Or is it possible that most of our civil liberties are still intact? ”
I sense a trend. Restate the author’s argument in as exaggerated a way as you can, and then refute it. I stopped counting these, actually. Mr. Neas’s words were, “the Justice Department seemed to act with little regard for civil liberties” following 9/11. I don’t read the point where it says those liberties were obliterated, as you imply. Your latter ackowledgment that “OK, if this is true — and according to John Ashcroft’s Justice Department, it is — then it seems there were some violations of civil liberties”, seems pretty much in-line with the previous statement. Does it follow that you can posit the opposite? That is, “the Justice Department acted with high regard for civil liberties”, but that these violations still occurred?
“Still no mention of the Patriot Act”, “did the Patriot Act oppose affirmative action?”, “and still no Patriot Act”, “unrelated to the Patriot Act”, “under the Patriot Act? No?”, “did I miss where he talked about the Patriot Act?” I’ll summarize your post: “I did a ‘find’ on that document, and didn’t see the Patriot Act mentioned.” Thrilling!
Clearly, you are not arguing against the theme of the article, but against my suggestion that you critique it. That’s my fault.
Concerning the immigration issues, the holding of these prisoners, as you again make very clear, is not being effected under the Patriot Act. It is, however, another example of disregard for civil liberties.
So, pick a topic. A) The Patriot Act does not erode our rights, or B) Ashcroft is not pursuing an agenda that violates civil liberties, or C) Dan thinks this article is about the Patriot Act, but it isn’t.
Dan, your post about Ashcroft ( http://improvist.com/Blogs/2003/9/1063728138-entry.xml ) is not a general critique of Ashcroft for violating civil liberties. It is a very specific critique for “call[ing] civil liberties groups criticism of the Patriot Act ‘hysteria’.” You said he did “not address the the real problems with the law…” and that “[d]espite the ‘hysteria’ over Americans’ civil liberties, the law is already being used…”
Your post is clearly focused on the Patriot Act as the source of civil liberties problems, and your criticism of Ashcroft is that he is wrong to say that there is hysteria and hyperbole surrounding the Patriot Act.
I think I have shown pretty clearly that you have had a false impression about at least some aspects of the Patriot Act. You are not the only one, because — as Ashcroft said — there is a lot of hysteria and hyperbole out there about the act.
Bona fide civil rights are the issue, as was the point of my original post that Eric took issue with. The thread is continued over there, BTW.
And there’s no need to demonize Ashcroft; his actions since 9/11 have solidified this legacy already.
Good job on “fisking” PFAW. The overwhelming majority of criticism aimed towards the Patriot Act really is this hollow. There may be sincere concerns but they seem to be misguided towards concerns over library records (which have never been used) or inconvienences as opposed to bona fide civil rights. It seems to me to be a concerted effort to demonize Ashcroft as the new “Gingrich” of this decade for political gain, rather than really confront the serious issues.
What legacy? That there have been no more attacks since? That some people are inconvenienced with some extra searches at the airport?
I’m not saying the PA is perfect but the over-heated and unsubstantiated rhetoric combined with fear-mongering doesn’t do the arguments any good. They diminish their credibility.
Jonah Goldeberg sums it up nicely here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200310020917.asp
It’s not entirely about the PA but it makes a good point that some examples would be useful than just poison aimed at convenient targets.
I love that there is an effort to be critical of the arguments leveled at the Patriot Act, but no refutation of the fact that it has, in a very calculable way, reduced our privacy protections.
Crying that the Act “hasn’t yet been abused” does not change the fact that it erodes your and my rights. It seems something clearly worthy of criticism.