PATRIOT ACT

To The Editor:

Normally the legislator is asked by one member of the other to vote on
an issue that is of interest, sometimes parochial, sometimes
universal, but always not within our power to initiate.

Just such an occasion presented itself with regard to the Patriot Act.
The principal concern involving a purported clash between civil
liberties and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

To this moment not a single example of investigational over-reaching
has been cited. There is good reason why. Put plainly and simply
because there has not been any.

I have to much respect for the motives of the local supporters but my
confidence erodes rapidly once the ink is dry on this local action.
The authors of the local pronouncement are unwittingly, though surely
aiding and abetting a national effort to furthering an agenda intended
not to protect innocents but embarrass the President.

In absence of any substantiation of abuse, emotional argumentation
coupled with trite references to the bill of rights in a generalized
way does not mask the paucity of the rationale not given.

One fact not noted is that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
[FISA] was instituted in the 70's. The change made recently was that
the FISA court now recognizes that the pre-9/11 goal of collecting
intelligence for its own sake would be to allow the information
gleaned lead to arrest and prosecute terrorist agents and thereby
restrict their activities. Gee, perhaps prevent another terrorist attack?

Criminal investigation is reactive. The police do their best to
prevent crime but the lions-share of efforts is after the fact.

I cannot help myself but to comment that illicit drug profiteers are
so staunchly opposed to investigation and drug enforcement tactics.
Behind every dooby is a bill of rights hard-liner.

Sadly it will take another 9/11 to convince us that radical Islamic
fundamentalists have as its object the total destruction of
pluralistic society.

Richard Wilson