Need help with a defense of the Patriot Act

[Mulliga]

Need some help for a debate - does anyone here have any links or pages with defenses of the USA PATRIOT Act?

Thanks in advance.

[natedog]

I'm not sure how you could defend such an act, or why'd you want to.

[Telperion]

Well, the skilled debater should be able to argue both sides of any issue.

In this case, why not start out with the government's evil propaganda site, http://www.lifeandliberty.gov ?

[Mulliga]

Well, the skilled debater should be able to argue both sides of any issue.

Bingo. Being a libertarian, I don't like the idea of it, but there must be some reasons for it passing and continuing to be law.

[telewinz]

"I'm not sure how you could defend such an act, or why'd you want to."

To survive, the Israeli version has worked for them for decades.  The World has changed, to ignore that change might mean extinction.  Thomas Jefferson would support the Patriot Act as a prudent measure IMHO.

[charby]

sorry can't help you here...

[Justin]

In this case, why not start out with the government's evil propaganda site, http://www.lifeandliberty.gov ?

Wow.  That utterly fails the PDR of... test.

[mtnbkr]

The World has changed

What a nifty argument.  We can use that for a lot of things.
[anti] The World has changed, you no longer need that gun for your protection[/anti]

See?  It works quite well.

Chris

[Jamisjockey]

Sorry, but the erosion of personal liberty is indefensiable.  
Also, the fact that the Government refuses to enforce the laws (such as immigration) it already had on the books makes the Patriot act just another piece of lip service.

[telewinz]

The World has changed

What a nifty argument.  We can use that for a lot of things.
[anti] The World has changed, you no longer need that gun for your protection[/anti]

See?  It works quite well.

Chris

But you didn't quote the entire piece, just four words out of 33.  How come?

[K Frame]

"But you didn't quote the entire piece, just four words out of 33.  How come?"

That's one of your friends.

How many words do you think your enemies would quote to justify the actions they take?

To be realistic, those four words are the crux of your entire argument. Everything else is simply justification.

I also have to take umbrage at your claim that to ignore how the world has change means extinction. There's no way to validate that claim other than to accept your enemy's goals as inevitable outcomes.

There are always many possible outcomes no matter what course of action is either adopted, debated, or rejected.

For example, extinction of western culture is still a potential outcome even though the Patriot Act has been adopted.

Another equally valid possbile outcome would be the extinction of Muslim culture.

But to blindly accept inevitability based on the assumption of overwhelming danger is exactly what Benjamin Franklin was warning about when he said that those who trade liberty for security get, and deserve, neither.

[telewinz]

WOW such a big word!

Main Entry: um·brage
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin umbraticum, neuter of umbraticus of shade, from umbratus, past participle of umbrare to shade, from umbra shade, shadow; akin to Lithuanian unksme shadow
1 : SHADE, SHADOW
2 : shady branches : FOLIAGE
3 a : an indistinct indication : vague suggestion : HINT b : a reason for doubt : SUSPICION
4 : a feeling of pique or resentment at some often fancied slight or insult

Can you also read mtnbkr's mind and speak for him?  I feel a sense of umbratus.

[mtnbkr]

Can you also read mtnbkr's mind and speak for him?

Normally it works the other way around.

Anyway, I keyed in on those four words because they are the point of your statement.  The first sentence doesn't matter because Israel is a different situation with it's own issues.  I ignored the second half of the second sentence because it's a opinion only.  The final statement was simply nonsense.  Your point was that SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE.  Well, maybe so, but the USA PATRIOT ACT wasn't what we needed.

Chris

[stevelyn]

Need help with a defense of the PATRIOT Act.

The .gov also needs help defending it too. So far no one has been able to legitimately defend that intrusive piece of unConstitutional totalitarian garbage.

[Mulliga]

Meh. A lot of the provisions don't do much (to be expected in a ~400 page bill).

No need for hyperbole.

[K Frame]

That's the BEST you can do? Daisy pick a single word out of a posting of 158? And you were whining that mtnbkr picked 4 words out of 33 and one acronym?

Did you open the dictionary all by yourself?

What was it, the Heavily Abridged Semi-literate's Guide to Wordification?

Try a REAL dictionary, such as the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. It's even online at dictionary.com, where we find this as the primary definition for umbrage:

1. Offense; resentment: took umbrage at their rudeness.

A scholarly, up-to-date dictionary is a thing of beauty. Avail yourself of one.

I put no words in mtnbkr's mouth, nor did I find the need to read his mind. His intent was clear from the words that he chose to quote, and the reason he chose those words was obvious for anyone, or almost anyone I guess, to see.

[Justin]

In my mind's eye, Mike Irwin sits at a computer in a dark room, chain-smoking unfiltered camels and drinking a neat bourbon while bashing the ever-loving tar out of a plastic hunk that was, at one time, recognizable as a Microsoft Ergonomic Keyboard.  All the while alternately muttering under his breath about the eTards he puts up with, and chortling out loud at some particularly inventive bit of vitriol.

[Guest]

The patriot act is a pretty huge document that changed a lot of things. You should really focus onto a specific aspect of it and argue that alone.

A sort of all-encompassing argument would be that the act itself really only victimizes people who have something to hide. Sure, an innocent person might get their phone tapped or their hosue searched, but they will really suffer no actual consequences. Your really only going to get hurt if you have something to hide, and as a society we dont really benefit from people keeping secrets anyways. Most of the arguments against the Act are based on idiology rather than practicality.

You could also note that most of the abuses of the act have been carried out by local authorites rather than federal ones, and that an easy solution would be the inclusion of more oversight rather than altering the act itself. Also point out that the fast majority of the act does NOT relate to restrictions on civil liberties and that most of it simply appropriates funds in acceptable (and perhaps beneficial) ways.

Its really a hard thing to argue in favor of The Patriot Act without sounding like a total prat, but it can be done. The trick is to be willing to sound like a total prat with out letting on that you hate yourself for doing so, the audience will pick up on that, and they will hate you too. It helps if you approach the whole thing like your a socialist. Always weigh the value of "the society" above all else, and the value of the individual as, not only expendable, but nearly contemptable. As an added benefit, if your arguing in an academic setting its likely that your audience is already coming from this direction anyways.

[K Frame]

"In my mind's eye, Mike Irwin sits at a computer in a dark room, chain-smoking unfiltered camels and drinking a neat bourbon while bashing the ever-loving tar out of a plastic hunk that was, at one time, recognizable as a Microsoft Ergonomic Keyboard.  All the while alternately muttering under his breath about the eTards he puts up with, and chortling out loud at some particularly inventive bit of vitriol."

Wow.

OK, I smoke, but I smoke Salem Ultra Lights. Camels make me dizzy. I definitely do NOT smoke in my house, though. I smoke on the front porch.

Bourbon? Sorry, I'm not at all a fan of whiskey. It would have to be a gin & tonic, and I drink so rarely that it's not even funny. My last G&T was sometime in June, and my last beer was on Labor Day.

As for bashing the keyboard, I actually have a rather light touch on the keys. When you type as much as I do (I'm a writer/editor by profession) you need a light touch or you kill your keyboards and develop nasty carpal tunnel. Since 1981 I've been on the computer almost every day, and as best as I can tell I don't have carpal tunnel syndrom. I don't have an ergonomic keyboard, either.

"All the while alternately muttering under his breath about the eTards he puts up with, and chortling out loud at some particularly inventive bit of vitriol." You got me there...


Oh yeah, I HATE working on a computer in a dark room. Hurts my eyes. I use a swingarm desk lamp for task lighting and a lamp behind me for general lighting.

[K Frame]

"The trick is to be willing to sound like a total prat with out letting on that you hate yourself for doing so,"

Oh my god is that funny but true!

[charby]

while bashing the ever-loving tar out of a plastic hunk that was, at one time, recognizable as a Microsoft Ergonomic Keyboard.  All the while alternately muttering under his breath about the eTards he puts up with, and chortling out loud at some particularly inventive bit of vitriol.

I was thinking the same thing myself too. I think I need a Mike Irwin voodoo doll.

Charby

[K Frame]

"I was thinking the same thing myself too. I think I need a Mike Irwin voodoo doll."

Oh yeah, that's a great replacement for well constructed and presented arguments.

mutter mutter mutter mutter...

[natedog]

So, how bout them Patriot Acts?

[charby]

*********Thread Hijack************

"I was thinking the same thing myself too. I think I need a Mike Irwin voodoo doll."

Oh yeah, that's a great replacement for well constructed and presented arguments.

But what about the enjoyment I would get from sticking pins in it when you go on the offensive.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The Patriot Act isn't nearly as bad as most people believe.  For most people, opposition to the P.A. is simply a knee-jerk reaction, with little understanding of what the P.A. actually says.

Much of the P.A. involves removing the barriers that prevent the various investigative/intelligence/military/law enforcement agencies from sharing information.  Various federal agencies had the Sept 11 plot figured out almost in its entirety.  The problem was that all of the "pieces of the puzzle" were distributed amongnst different agencies.  No one organization had enough pieces to see the big picture.  Before the P.A. they weren't allowed to share their various puzzle pieces, and we were rewarded with 3,000 dead Americans.  After the P.A. the government is allowed to cooperate with itself when it comes to preventing attacks.  Hopefully the P.A. will make it possible for us to identify and prevent the next big attack before it kills thousands of innocent people.

Much of the P.A. makes it illegal to do things that are obviously wrong, but never before needed to be codified into law.  The instance a few months (years?) ago where a guy shined a laser into th cockpit of a passenger jet comes to mind.  Without the P.A. there was no law making this a prosecutable crime.  After the P.A. this guy can be charged with the crime of endangering public transportation (or something along those lines).  It's just an effort for the law to keep pace with the new types of crime that are now possible to commit.

Much of the P.A. codifies what was already common practice or common sense.  For instance, nobody in his right mind would expect his library records to be considered confidential.  They never have been (legally), and even without the P.A. they ever would have been.  Yet people blather about how evil it is for the government to now be able to review your library history without a warrant.

The only truly offensive parts of the P.A. deal with new/stringent powers granted to investogators trying to penetrate terrorist plots.  If an individual (or group of individuals) is identified as a "terrorist", the investigators now have much greater leeway than if they were investigating mere criminals.  Most of these new poweres are borderline reasonable, when applied against legitimate terrorists.  The problem is that there aren't any safeguards to make sure that these powers aren't applied against non-terorists.  What may reasonable be to do to a terrorist is obsene when done to an honest citizen.  

This is the crux of the matter.  It's the prime source of rational objection to the P.A.   (There are all sorts of irrational/knee-jerk objections, but I won't get into that).  The P.A. could easily be modified to include sensible. constitutional checks on the investigative powers meant only for terrorists.  Until those checks are added, the Patriot Act is morally/constitutionally wrong.  But if they were fixed, the P.A. would be entirely appropriate and acceptable.