well, the act is 342 pages so it's going to take me awhile. since you've so obviously read the entire thing perhaps you could direct me to the parts you find objectionable. i want to emphsize, i'm not defending the act, nor joing the chorus against it. i just want to discuss whether the hysteria surrounding it is justified.
thanks for posting this. i looked for it on slate's site, but i thought it was written by willian saletan. i'll read it and re-post. the author's charcterization of "ashcroft and his roadies" makes me fear she's not entirely unbiased, but i could be wrong...
Well, she probably is somewhat biased, but mostly she's just irreverent towards both sides...she is pretty liberal, but her legal analysis is usually excellent, and fair... of course, i might be biased towards her because i love her writing...
Another open question is whether this act has been efficacious. Just how many non-patriots have we weeded out? Similarly if the Patriot Act had been in effect earlier would 9/11 had been prevented?
still wading through the slate articles, but for what it's worth, Ashcroft has said that the act has helped prevent numerous terrorist attacks since its enactment, and that had it been in place, the atrocities of 9/11 wouldn't have happened. i know some will dismiss this as self-serving, but since one of the prime aspects of TPA is that it gets the prosecutorial and investigative arms of the DOJ talking to each other, it at least seems probable that we would have had much better coordination of info.
