Much of the support for the Patriot Act is based on the fallacy that this legislation will be used only on its "intended" target - i.e. the terrorists.
As an example, I saw a PSA on TV about an event on child safety sponsored by the Dept. of Homeland Security.
Is child safety a worthy cause? Of course.
Is it worthy of government funding? Sure.
Are events on child safety part of the role of the Dept. of Homeland Security as presented to the American people? Excuse me while I double over with laughter.
Pretty clearly, and however innocuous, it didn't take long for expansion of the law establishing this department. There's no reason to believe that such expansion would not occur in a non-innocuous way as well.
Mr. Gelertner raises the interesting example if the IRS. Well, the Internal Revenue Code was established in 1913 as a law that would not significantly affect the vast majority of Americans. Its a bad example to use if you're stating that their won't be a de facto expansion in the scope (relative to its "intent") of the Patriot Act.
Commenting by HaloScan
