quasi in rem

Thursday, July 08, 2004

Ed Meese, my frequent lunch buddy, has an excellent comment on the Patriot Act..

Seriously though, I did have lunch witht he man last week and will agian on Monday. Tomorrow, I dine with Ted Olson.

If you haven't been invited to the vast right conspiracy, I highly recommend it.

We don't get all the chicks like the Democrats do, but we do know how to throw one heck of a lunch.

Anyway, here's Ed says:


Critics argue the various provisions of the Patriot Act greatly infringe upon American liberties while failing to deal effectively with terrorism. Its very name now serves as a symbol for all domestic antiterrorist law enforcement actions. It has become convenient shorthand for any questions that have arisen since September 11 about the conflict between civil liberty and national security.
Too much of the debate, though, 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.



Ahh but as Richard Clarke confirmed many times politics trumps the truth when you are trying to achieve or maintain power in Washington.

What the liberal establishment needs is a clearcut example of a Patriot Act abuse that specifically infringed on the rights of an individual in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution.

Unfortuantely based on the many checks included in the Act, requiring court orders for sneak and peak, Congressional oversight, etc... this eample might be hard to find.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home