PATRIOT II slips through - while we sleep

309
points

I have a theory: we, as humans, are biologically engineered to react not proact.

That's at least the best way I can explain the uproar after the PATRIOT Act became law - and the almost silent somnabulence over the wiretapping bill that is now making its way through Congress.

PATRIOT wasn't a sweetheart of a bill, but - in spite of the legitimate concerns of civil libertarians - it made relatively incremental changes in surveillance law. While it may have made it easier for the feds to get a warrant to search your home or listen in to your phone calls, it at least required the feds to go to court to get a warrant.

The new surveillance gives up the idea of warrants entirely. True, if an American is the target of an investigation, federal spies would still need to go to court to get the okay to tap your phone. But if someone abroad - or someone that is "reasonably" believed to be abroad - whom the feds thinks is connected to terrorists calls you, your conversation might be being listened in on - without a judge ever knowing.

Okay, this may not mean that we're entering an Orwellian totalitarian hell - but it is really bad. A core concept of liberal democracy (and I mean the classic "liberalism" of John Locke and those guys) is that there are checks on government to make sure no power can go the dictatorial route. One of those checks is written into our 4th Amendment - requiring the executive to go to the courts anytime they want to search us.

After the hoopla over PATRIOT, you'd think a lot more Americans would be kicking up and screaming over the No-Warrant-to-Cover-your-Behind bill. But I'm just hearing silence.

Are we asleep? Have we just given up? Do Dems not want to make noise in case it makes Obama look "soft on terror?" Do Republicans not realize that a soon-to-be-Democratic administration will have its fingers on this new wiretap-free-for-all bill?

My money is either on "asleep" or - a close cousin - our "reactive" bias. I've never heard of this bias, but I suspect it exists ant that there is something about being human that makes us dislike putting energy into warding off disasters - but assures we LOVE pointing fingers and blaming others once cataclysm has struck.

Better, then, to let a terrible bill be made into law - or a misguided war to be launched or warnings of weak levees to be ignored - and then get angry and indignant after the fact.

I hope I'm wrong, but once HR 6304 goes through, get ready for the fingers to start flying.

Agenda and emotion driven articles make me cry...

"...whom the feds thinks is connected to terrorists calls you, your conversation might be being listened in on - without a judge ever knowing." 

 

"...soon-to-be-Democratic administration will have its fingers on this new wiretap-free-for-all bill?"

 

"Better, then, to let a terrible bill be made into law - or a misguided war to be launched or warnings of weak levees to be ignored - and then get angry and indignant after the fact" 

 

What a really poor article. I thought the point here was to serve up facts without the partisan gloss? 

 

Scott (not verified) | August 10, 2008 - 10:04am
talker's picture

thanks...

For your on target comment, Scott.

It tells me that I shouldn't have taken down the JoeBlog disclaimer that, unlike the issue briefs and articles on the rest of cJ, bloggers are invited to express their - partisan or nonpartisan - opinions.

Please check out our page on wiretapping (which shouldn't have a bias) and let us know if you find one. And if you do, please go ahead and edit it out for us. It's hard, even for the most open minded and well intentioned of us to be aware of all our biases.

Thanks!

talker | August 10, 2008 - 10:38am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.