Here is the test which logic requires one to apply in using something as an example of the disadvantages of the Patriot Act: Was the bad action legal after the Patriot Act, but illegal before the Patriot Act?

If an action is still illegal under the Patriot Act, you can't blame the Patriot Act. If an action was legal even before the Patriot Act, you can't blame the Patriot Act.

Moslem lawyer Mayfield had contacts with a confessed terrorist and other Muslim extremists, and his fingerprints were found to match prints found at the Madrid bombing. His house was searched without his being informed, and he was held for weeks as a material witness before being released without being charged.

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I don't see the Patriot Act connection-- except that his house was searched without his being informed, which is a minor part of the story. Nor do I see clear government misbehavior. The evidence seems enough to justify an arrest even as a suspect, not just a witness, and the possibility of flight would be high enough to justify holding him without bail.

In the second example, leftwing professor Kurtz's wife died, and when the police came they found DNA analysis equipment and called in the FBI, even though the equipment couldn't be used for terrorism.

I don't see how the Patriot Act is involved. The investigation would have been legal, even if stupid, even before the Patriot Act.

The examples people give for why the Patriot Act is bad fail one test or the other. I don't doubt that the FBI does stupid and bad things. It is not an agency known for its competence. But too many people say, "This shows why the Patriot Act is bad," when they really mean "This shows why the FBI is bad." The solution they implicitly suggest-- repeal of the Patriot Act-- would do nothing to prevent the kind of examples they cite. But they don't want to say, "Get rid of the FBI."

In fact, to the extent that the Patriot Act makes it easier for the government to collect information, it would probably reduce the probability of false arrests more than increase them. If the government had information on Mr. Mayfield's travel every day of his life, for example, they would have known that he was not in Spain at the time of the bombing, and they would not have bothered to waste FBI agent time arresting him. It is important to remember that better information generally helps the innocent, rather than hurting them, in criminal cases. The FBI doesn't like being embarassed, or pursuing cases that don't get convictions, even aside from the question of justice.

[This page is http://www.rasmusen.org/w/04.06.08a.htm]

To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://www.rasmusen.org/w/0.htm.