WhatFinger


Trading liberty for a false sense of security? No thanks.

Well done, Rand Paul. The faster we rid ourselves of the Patriot Act, the better.



Well done, Rand Paul. The faster we rid ourselves of the Patriot Act, the betterThe Constitution matters. It's a simple as that. If you want to live in a free and open society, you don't spend your time and effort chipping away at the bill of rights. Usually, that's the battle-cry of small government conservatives. Today, for some reason, that's changed. Today, Republicans are admonishing constitutionalists for their stubborn refusal to "sacrifice liberty" for a false sense of security.
Among them is my colleague, Dan Calabrese, whose column you may have read a few hours ago. Dan knows I don't agree with him on this, so I'm just going to call it like I see it. His piece features the boilerplate big government, GOP-elite response to Rand Paul's efforts regarding the Patriot Act. By arguing that "Paul may have given ISIS, Al Qaeda and others a short window to run wild" he's not just engaging in hyperbole. He's essentially arguing that without the Patriot Act we're all doomed. Fortunately, the last fifteen years have offered nothing to back up that claim. In fact, just ten days ago, the FBI admitted that the law hadn't helped them crack even one terrorism case.
FBI agents can’t point to any major terrorism cases they’ve cracked thanks to the key snooping powers in the Patriot Act, the Justice Department’s inspector general said in a report Thursday that could complicate efforts to keep key parts of the law operating.

Support Canada Free Press


Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said that between 2004 and 2009, the FBI tripled its use of bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows government agents to compel businesses to turn over records and documents, and increasingly scooped up records of Americans who had no ties to official terrorism investigations. Therein lies the problem. The Patriot Act tramples the 4th Amendment and grants expansive powers to some of the nation's least transparent federal agencies. The fact that James Clapper went before a Senate hearing and blatantly lied about the extent of the NSA's overreach tells you everything you need to know about whether or not these people can be trusted with such power. If the law had worked, supporters might even be able to make a compelling argument that it was worth the sacrifices. However, the Patriot Act committed all of its sins while giving us virtually nothing in return. The worst terrorist attack on domestic soil since 9/11 occurred at the Boston Marathon, and all the data collection on Earth did nothing to prevent it. In fact, the Russian government even warned the feds that the Tsarnaev family was trouble. We failed to act and the results were catastrophic. While they were busy ignoring the Tsarnaev alerts, The Patriot Act was in full effect, treating every single law-abiding American as if they were a dormant one-man terrorist cell that might go "live" at any moment. Dan writes...
But for those of us who still think the federal government has to play an important role in preventing terrorist attacks before they happen, Rand Paul's actions here are little more than the grandstanding performance of a guy who's finally arrived at his big moment in the spotlight and is going to milk it for all he can. Here's how it is: The terrorists' job is to kill us. The government's job is to protect us.
First of all, calling terrorism a "job" is a little weird. Second, if Rand Paul's "big moment" is successfully fighting an unconstitutional law and limiting the scope of federal abuse? More power to him. We should all have his back. It makes absolutely no sense for conservatives to attack him for doing precisely what we all advocate on a daily basis. Finally, Dan's correct about one thing. The government's most important function is to protect the lives and property of its citizens. And, yes, it has a vital role to play in stopping attacks before they happen. But that's not a justification for large-scale, ongoing, civil rights abuses. If the law in question is an obvious rights violation that has failed to protect us, how is Rand Paul's stance wrong? Is it not also the government's "job" to limit its activities in accordance with the Constitution? Why are the very same people who constantly make salient arguments about the government's propensity for "corruption, ineptitude, and the destruction of liberty" not doing so here? Why is this big-government boondoggle the one we can't live without? Are Republicans really ready to make the argument that there is no other way? Conservatives have levied brutal attacks against the left for the Democrats' ongoing transgressions in terms of the 1st, 2nd, and 10th Amendments. They're right to do so. But why are so many unwilling to apply the same standard to themselves when it comes to the 4th? Sorry, but you don't get to pick and choose which pieces of the Bill of Rights you'll defend. The Patriot Act was a poorly-conceived and reactionary law. It carried a potential for abuse that, as I've written before, even a child should have been able to foresee. The faster we get rid of it, the better off we'll be. Yes, we want our government to fight terrorism - but we shouldn't destroy our own freedom to facilitate the effort.


View Comments

Robert Laurie -- Bio and Archives

Robert Laurie’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain.com

Be sure to “like” Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You’ll be glad you did.


Sponsored