I don’t expect I’ll persuade Carpundit to change his general disposition toward issues of national security or foreign policy - nor would he get me to change mine - but it’s worth pointing out that when he says,
I’m all for the Patriot Act renewal, because I see through the ACLU hype about its impact on our civil liberties (practicaly nil, in truth)…
… that one could just as easily look at the issue from the other side and see through the GOP hype about the Patriot Act’s impact on our domestic safety (practically nil, in truth). I’m willing to believe, in fairness, that the ACLU trumps up its case, but what about the administration? I’m not a civil libertarian absolutist, but I’d be more inclined for compromise from parties who weren’t gung ho on curbing civil liberties years before 9/11. They’ve never effectively argued that the kinds of powers the Patriot Act gives gives a practical advantage in stopping terrorism or substate-level attacks; they just assumed it with a series of hypotheticals. What has been demonstrated in the meantime are a) a few major oversteps and mess-ups, including with innocent foreign nationals from allies, some of which could have been avoided with less heavy-handed enforcement mentality; and b) lots of surveillance of domestic political opposition, anti-war protests and the like. On one hand, claims that we’ve tipped into fascism ignore the fact that, despite government surveillance, opposition politics has gone on unhindered. On the other hand, I don’t think we should take consolation in that distinction.
I will second Carpundit’s point about the drug war, however, and add that even our legislature does see the drug war as a priority, they should at least have the integrity to address legislation directly to the matter and not feel they have to tack on everything as a rider to domestic security legislation.
Then again, what better emblem for the GOP’s domestic agenda than a rider on the Patriot Act?
No comments have been added to this post yet.