Mueller Defends Need for Expanded Powers

WASHINGTON (AP)-FBI Director Rober Mueller struggled Tuesday to convince skeptical senators that-despite recent abuses-the FBI should retain Patriot Act authority to gather telephone, e-mail and financial records without a judge's approval.

"The statute did not cause the errors. The FBI's implementation did," the FBI chief told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

It is a case of the law of diminishing returns.

It used to be a joke that every police officer complains that he needs only four things: higher pay and better equipment, stiffer laws and sterner judges. And that every cop has said this continually since the time of the Roman centurions.

It cracked me up one time to see an episode of COPS, filmed in of all places, Moscow, Russia. And sure enough, when asked, that is what the Russian cop said, too.

So it should be no surprise that the FBI always wants more of these four things, too.

But that is where the law of diminishing returns enters the picture. Even if most felonies in a society are punishable by death, there will still be felony crimes, and police will want more ability to "fight crime" with "tougher laws".

But how much is enough? The trouble is that there really is no objective party who looks at the pieces of the Patriot Act, and sees how they have worked, or haven't worked, and can cherry pick. These parts are good--these parts are useless, expensive, and do nothing; let's get rid of them.

Back in the 1970s, people could generally ride on any aircraft they wanted, and could even use a false name if they paid in cash. But then there was a spate of "skyjackings". So people generally had to prove who they were when they got their ticket.

Did this stop skyjackings? Not really. For the most part, other factors intervened to stop them. Things that had nothing to do with the passengers themselves. But the ID requirement remained.

Years passed without skyjackings and no enhanced security.

But the government was always frightened that it might. And it was government fear that kept driving stricter and stricter rules. But did it stop anything? Probably not a heck of a lot, though it was terribly expensive and annoying.

But that is what fear does to people. Not the public, but the government. They live in fear, so they always want more security to protect everybody.

But the flip side to this was government's other problem: I guess you could call it political correctness. They just can't bear to focus on the people likely to make trouble, that is, Muslims and people from Muslim countries, and known converts. They have to do it with a wink-wink, nod-nod.

It is just asinine to inspect Irish grandmothers in wheelchairs, but guaranteed, if one wants to fly, she will be inspected, specifically because she does not fit the terrorist profile. Every time she flies, she will be inspected. Just so the government can feel okay about also inspecting a Moroccan man carrying a Koran who is sweating profusely and chanting softly to himself.

Now the typical cop on the street loves the new anti-terrorist laws, not that he has ever seen a terrorist or had anything to do with terrorism. But because he sees a law that he can use against non-terrorists. Something that will give him an edge.

So of course, many of the anti-terrorist laws are used almost exclusively against "normal" crime, even though they are a strong violation of long standing legal principles.

Well, hey, if it "helps take a bite out of crime", it's okay, right? Not really. We spent 200 years making a smoothly functioning legal system that treats the accused fairly, because we wanted to. It was never easy for the police to follow the rules, but it wasn't supposed to be. It was to keep them honest.

Because unless the police have strict rules, pretty soon they arrest people just because they don't like them, not because they have any proof they committed a crime.

So, yeah, if the system is working, I hope we discard a huge amount of the post 9-11 laws that aren't being properly used to effect. We should, of course, keep the ones that are working.

But if the sole reason for having a law is a combination of governmental fear and political correctness, then to hell with it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.