Andrew Stuttaford, regrettably, makes the ill-infomed argument that has become typical of those who oppose the Patriot Act — namely, without discussing a single Patriot provision, he conclusorily labels the whole act as dangerous legislation that merits special scrutiny, such that, if it is to be extended at all, that should be done only with with new sunsets in place. Given that what the Patriot Act essentially does is vest national security agents conducting intelligence investigations with the very same investigative tools that have been available to criminal investigators for decades — with neither sunsets nor much in the way of abuse — I wonder if he might enlighten us about what specific provisions are so novel and dangerous in the hands of the FBI that new sunsets would have been appropriate?

I had hoped the tactic of smearing the act this way could be left to the ACLU and its ilk, and that thoughtful people like Andrew would have said: “No such criticism should be undertaken without a serious effort to deal with both what the act actually says and how little of a departure it actually marks from the enforcement environment we lave lived in for over a generation.” Once upon a time, serious critics would have understood this. Not these days, it seems.