One of the things that I dislike most about his views on the matter — and in this, I also fault Wired for not really challenging him — is his assertion that criticism of the legislation is based predominantly on rumors and misunderstanding, rather than established or demonstrable facts; that the government has, as of yet, not abused its newfound, legally granted powers, and that those powers have been granted purely as a matter of vigilance. It’s actually a pretty disrespectful way to cast aspersions on the groundswell of public protest against the Patriot Act, and it works on the premise that, just because these laws give government the power to abuse civil liberties, it doesn’t mean that they will. This is always the way rights are eroded — at first respectfully, and soon with greater mendacity.
+