[Arubis]

It's pretty likely that your and my (dis)taste for particular politicians and parties overlaps, but keep in mind that only one single senator voted against the passage of the Patriot Act as originally presented. My strong suspicion is that the association of W. with the modern surveillance state, while accurate, has far more to do with timing than with party.

[elliekelly]

My Constitutional Law professor was big on not just exploring the legal analysis of cases but on making sure we understood the social/historical context at the time decisions were made. He used to tell us fear is the biggest threat to freedom because nothing erodes the constitution as quickly as a public panic. At the time I honestly thought he was being a little dramatic but seeing all of the things we allow the government to do in the name of "fighting terrorism" I realize he had a pretty good point.

[Silhouette]

He certainly did. Indeed, similar sentiments have been expressed before, and not always by nice people:

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy: all you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger.

(Hermann Goering, commenting on the ease of taking a country to war regardless of its political system, during the Nuremberg trials)

[Dirlewanger]

Of course it was timing. A Democrat in office during 9/11 would have made no difference. Nobody was seeing straight at that time. Everyone wanted the federal government to do something about those darn terrorists. With the PATRIOT Act passed, it was like that quote from the Stars Wars prequels: "So this is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause..."

[edoo]

Biden wrote the patriot act and Clinton couldn't pass it at the time, but Bush was able to.