In an attempt to counteract the negative criticism of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Department of Justice has produced a web page decrying the "myths" of the PATRIOT Act perpetuated by the evil-doers down at the ACLU.

Most of the explanations for the PATRIOT Act center around the fact that the federal government already had tools like wiretaps and warrants to fight crime; but it didn't have these tools to fight terrorism! This begs the question, "Why not?" The answer (not given on this web page) is that the PATRIOT Act lowers the evidence requirement on the part of the state from "probable cause" (defined as "sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime") to showing that evidence is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." What does this mean? It means that the police or the FBI no longer have to demonstrate that they believe you are committing a crime; it's enough to suggest that you're committing a crime or might commit a crime. It also allows the government to conduct so-called sneak-and-peek searches, in which police or federal officials search a person's home without his knowledge or consent and then leave, having never notified him that such a search had been conducted.

It would be great if the PATRIOT Act were used just for terrorism. But it isn't. The PATRIOT Act extends the government's surveillance powers for all crimes and it redefines other crimes so that those crimes can also be considered "terrorism." The Electronic Frontier Foundation reports, "Government spying on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) requires no court order. Wiretaps are now allowed for any suspected violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, offering possibilities for Government spying on any computer user."

The Domestic Security Enhancement Act, often called "PATRIOT 2," increases the government's surveillance capabilities. DOJ has kept the bill under wraps, giving the American people all the more reason to question its content. "The drafting process was kept secret and rumors about the bill’s existence were denied," says People for the American Way; "equally alarming is the draft bill’s impact on First Amendment rights of association and expression by expanding an already-overbroad definition of terrorism to potentially include disfavored political groups engaging in civil disobedience."

Though DOJ's website claims that the PATRIOT Act was passed "by overwhelming bipartisan margins," many congressmen say that the bill was rammed through both houses of Congress so fast that some of them didn't even get a chance to read it. The ACLU reports:

The Senate version of the Patriot Act, which closely resembled the legislation requested by Attorney General John Ashcroft, was sent straight to the floor with no discussion, debate, or hearings. Many Senators complained that they had little chance to read it, much less analyze it, before having to vote. In the House, hearings were held, and a carefully constructed compromise bill emerged from the Judiciary Committee. But then, with no debate or consultation with rank-and-file members, the House leadership threw out the compromise bill and replaced it with legislation that mirrored the Senate version. Neither discussion nor amendments were permitted, and once again members barely had time to read the thick bill before they were forced to cast an up-or-down vote on it. The Bush Administration implied that members who voted against it would be blamed for any further attacks -- a powerful threat at a time when the nation was expecting a second attack to come any moment and when reports of new anthrax letters were appearing daily.

The bill that would become the PATRIOT Act, H.R. 3162, was introduced in the House on October 23. It was a combination of two previous bills, H.R. 2975 (introduced on Oct. 2) and S. 1510 (introduced in the Senate on Oct. 4). It was signed by the President on October 26. The legislation was proposed and signed in three weeks -- extremely quickly in Congressional time.

The provisions of the PATRIOT Act could be used against those whose opinions are unpopular (opinions of anti-war groups could be regarded as "aiding terrorism"). Given that the Bush Administration is not above calling people's private lives into question in the midst of a debate about public policy, it is certainly not above using the mechanisms of the law to silence those who criticize it.