I'm not American, so I'm wondering: was the public really actually behind the PATRIOT Act, or were they merely giving leeway in a time where everyone was supposed to go along? Or were you thinking that's the same thing?
Same with the politicians; were they really for it, or simply incredibly afraid of the political suicide that would be the results of standing up against it? Because this was a time when people did not question Bush. From today's perspective on his administration's actions, that seems odd, but it was the reality at the time.
Many of us were, and still are, against it. Its passage was very questionable and suspicious, particularly regarding the lack of informed and reasonable debate on its requirements and broadly invasive permissions. It was passed overnight. There was word that many (most?) congresspersons did not even read the bill before passing it by a huge majority. It was emotionally charged and rational criticism was nearly non-existent before it was passed.
Only 66 Representatives voted against it--62 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 1 Independent. Only 1 Democratic Senator voted against it, while another Democrat abstained from the vote.
At the time the Act passed, Americans were in the midst of a fear frenzy. It was a pervasive culture of fear and panic, the likes of which I can only compare to anti-Soviet fears of the Cold War. People all over the country actually went to stores to buy all kinds of emergency and survival supplies to build up their own anti-terror kits (I forget the name for this that was popular at the time).
Many of us questioned Bush from the moment he was declared the winner of the 2000 election by the Supreme Court. We took part in protests all over the country after 9/11 to oppose the buildup to war in Iraq. I took part in protests in D.C. It was all ineffectual. Fear gripped the country and few paused to consider the long-term ramifications of the actions taken in September's wake.
The public was behind doing something. Much of Congress didn't want to be seen as impeding something.
It was obvious from the length of the act alone that even Congressional staffers couldn't have read it carefully between the time of submission and the time it passed. Quite a few people that I knew were weakly opposed, but the sunset provisions may have made it more palatable.
It takes character to stand up and defend doing nothing when something "must be done".
>It was obvious from the length of the act alone that even Congressional staffers couldn't have read it carefully between the time of submission and the time it passed.
This is a little off topic, but I always see this trotted out when people talk about big laws (like Obamacare, PATRIOT Act, etc) and it's not really true. Lawmakers usually work with and read a "normal language" version of laws that then gets transformed into a stricter legal version by staffers and experts. They will look at the actual legal version of the law if they care about a specific rule or section, but they usually don't need to.
It is an incorrect characterization when referring to the Affordable Care Act, as that went through so many revisions and debate over such a long period, that anyone who did not read it has zero excuse (including the public who allows itself to be misinformed about its contents). But it's not quite unfair wrt the PATRIOT Act. There was widespread reporting, complaining, and outright indignation that the PATRIOT Act was never read by a majority of congresspersons who voted for it. It was so massive, that there was little time to actually read the legal language overnight.
Of course, I expect my lawmakers to actually read the legal language.
The point is more that for most lawmakers there's not really a need to read all of the nitty gritty legal language. If you're a House Rep from Kansas who's core issue is corn subsidies, reading all of the PATRIOT Act isn't really going to do you much good. Instead, you read the summaries and listen to the opinion of the experts in your party who have read the whole act.
It's important too to note that this isn't a "big law" or even an American thing. Virtually all bills of any substance work this way and it's pretty much standard practice in most countries.
That being said, I'm not defending the PATRIOT Act. I just think the argument that not enough people read it is weak, especially considering all the real arguments you can make that actually attack the substance of the act.
You make some decent points. However, I'm still going to counter that 'the argument that not enough people read it'--i.e., proposed laws--is strong, not weak.
The point is that for all lawmakers, there is both a need and sworn obligation, in addition to national expectation, that they read all the nitty gritty legal language they are voting on, by which all Americans are bound to abide.
That's what lawmakers are there for--to know what in the hell they are passing as laws. If they can't be bothered to do their job--which, at the national level, goes far beyond just securing corn subsidies, because they're voting on legislation that touches on all Americans--then fuck 'em. Throw the bastards out on their asses, and send them back to the cornfields.
For the most part, we as Americans didn't actually ever read the Patriot Act, and we didn't get to vote on it. Our representatives that we elected before we ever knew 9/11 would happen voted for it in a climate that made it politically suicidal to not vote for it.
To be clear, the "hawk" politicians (and let's be honest, -many on the left) believed in the legislation but also exploited the tragedy to ram it through and neutered the ability of the other side to have a reasoned debate.
Our population was attacked, angry, and for the most part followed the lead of politicians who said we needed these laws to fight the people that attacked us.
In the aftermath, the scrutiny on the part of the American people never materialized. You're basically witnessing the moment where the most scrutiny on these types of programs/laws has ever occurred since 9/11. Worth keeping in mind that many components of these surveillance programs also predate 9/11.
How can anyone really be behind something they barely know anything about? When a bill like that comes around, the general reactions usually run from If You Say So to They'd Better Not Screw This Up. Some are completely deferential, some are completely skeptical. Nobody knew the details of what the law entailed for certain, so argument over it is like kickboxing on a waterbed: pointless, but vaguely resembling real fighting/debate. EDIT: to be clear, the general assumption is that Congressman know enough about the law to understand it (some things can be withheld from the public).
> incredibly afraid of the political suicide
Afraid is not the right word. Aware. When all (public) evidence concerning a law says "fight the terror!" and buildings are still blowing up, you'd have to represent a very interesting district to be "soft on terror".
Same with the politicians; were they really for it, or simply incredibly afraid of the political suicide that would be the results of standing up against it? Because this was a time when people did not question Bush. From today's perspective on his administration's actions, that seems odd, but it was the reality at the time.