Patriot Games

I've never found a leftist who can explain, cogently and with citations, exactly what's wrong with the Patriot Act. As former Attorney General Ed Meese writes:

Too much of the debate. . . has focused not on what the Patriot Act truly does, but on what some people perceive it to do. Most of the proposals for reform mistake the appearance of potential problems and abuse (the myth) with the reality of no abuse at all. Factual analysis, however, shows the case for change has not been made.

The latest hyperventilating hysteric is blogger 'Thivai Abhor,' who references an ACLU agit-prop webpage. According to the ACLU's first three bullet points, the Patriot Act:

1. Authorizes the government to collect information about the books you read, your purchases and your personal finances.


2. Permits the government to search your home and not even tell you.


3. Allows the government to spy on innocent Americans.

Each of these arguments is wrong:

1. The law prior to the Patriot Act permitted (18 U.S.C. Section 2709) examination of records (such as library and medical) upon the request of a Grand Jury (which also wouldn't be disclosed to the target). Such a subpoena actually was issued in the Unabomber investigation. The Patriot Act extended the practice to judge-issued warrants--which still must be supported by probable cause OR be "relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism" and involve criminal acts, not merely advocacy.



2. The Patriot Act did (18 U.S.C. Section 3103a) broaden the scope of permissible sneak-and-peak search warrants but ONLY after a judge concludes that (a) prior notice could be expected to result in destruction or removal of the evidence; and (b) the intrusion only "looks" without seizing any property. Indeed, sneak-and-peak warrants predate the Patriot Act--but only for investigations of organized crime, narcotics and pornography.



3. The Patriot Act does (18 U.S.C. Section 2709) permit law enforcement officers to share some information with the CIA. But this is limited to "foreign intelligence collection and foreign counterintelligence investigations" that are "clearly relevant" to the CIA's "authorized responsibilities." Senator Joe Biden (D-Del.), hardly a fan of the Bush Administration, defended expanding inter-agency cooperation:

   [Prior to the Patriot Act,] it simply did not make sense that many of our law enforcement tools were not available for terrorism cases.
   
   For example, the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What's good for the mob should be good for terrorists. 147 Cong. Rec. S11048 (Oct 25, 2001).

Conclusion: None of this seems draconian. Most of the tools to which the ALCU objects predated the Patriot Act. The Act mostly just expanded surveillance authority over terrorists, not jaywalkers or pot-smokers. Since when is there a civil right to be warned of an impending investigation, allowing the target to flee or cover-up? And the 9/11 Commission concluded that the lack of cooperation between U.S. law enforcement and the CIA was one of the principal reasons we failed to detect the terrorist plot three years ago.

The Patriot Act was passed with overwhelming and bi-partisan support in Congress (House vote: 357-66; Senate vote: 98-1). But now, the left doesn't think its support was right. They should stop blaming the legislation for every ill, relevant or not. Otherwise, Americans might become suspicious liberals are trying to obscure their underlying actual motive--such as demonizing the Bush Administration or impeding the war on terror.