Washington Post editorial: Stampeded in the House. There followed a charade in which all manner of members of both parties complained they had no idea what they were voting on, were fearful that aspects of the substitute bill went too far — yet voted for it anyway, lest there be a further terrorist attack and they be accused of not having provided the government sufficient means to defend against it.
In a conversation about encryption several years ago, a prominent technologist with ties to the policy arena told me there was one reason that the federal government was doing its best to hold back ubiquitous use of encryption. No one in government wanted to be seen as having been “on watch” when the inevitable terrorist horror occurred, and it was determined that the terrorists had used crypto to disguise their communications.
Congress adopted the same logic this month when it passed the horrible “anti-terrorism” legislation that will someday be seen as the worst attack on fundamental American freedoms to have emerged from Washington in many decades. It’s easy to understand why the lawmakers did this, under so much pressure from the Bush administration and a frightened public. But their action may well be seen by historians abrogation of duty, a slap at the Constitution they were sworn to protect.
The nation’s founders had more courage.