DEFAULT RULES

I probably tend toward the paranoid. Sometimes it's a good default rule[:] in the absence of evidence, it's better to be skeptical of government officials than of the press. It makes sense to be skeptical of both, to be sure. But since we generally do not have the ability to judge the quality of information first-hand, it's necessary to have a few default rules; otherwise the world is too chaotic.

At the esteemed Conspiracy, Orin Kerr's default rule is that "Patriot Act" stories in the press are generally bogus. See, for example, the recent post here on a recent story noted by Eric Muller on the FBI questioning an individual because of his appearance and reading material. See also Kerr's earlier post here. It's not surprising that the nearly automatic response from Kerr -- that the story has been "falsif[ied]" -- differs from the nearly automatic response from someone like Hesiod over at Counterspin Central, or from the nearly automatic response of someone like me. These responses should be viewed as what they are: default rules that are amenable to alteration only after a serious psychological effort.

As it turns out, Eric Muller has since voiced his suspicion that there is actually something to the story. Here's the original article written by Carol Henderson. The basic story is that someone called the FBI after seeing someone in a coffee line reading something suspicious (and perhaps looking suspiciously muslim?). The FBI subsequently showed up at his house for questioning.

Kerr's and Muller's initial response to the story was skepticism as well as the claim that the line of questioning was not authorized by the PATRIOT Act; in fact, that questioning was legal before the Act was passed. Whatever you think about the investigative techniques of the author, it's pretty clear from the article that the claim is not that the Act gave the FBI power to question this individual, but that it lowered the barriers to the secret, indefinite detention of individuals. Whether or not the Act really does that, the point is that it is a symbol of enhanced government powers during the war on terrorism. The fact that in the weeks after 9/11 this individual might have been locked up and then deported for minor visa violations is pretty scary, especially if the FBI are going to go on wild goose chases like these -- or at least that's what my default rule says it was.

MORE: Just to be clear: we don't know anything about the citizenship status of the subject of the FBI questioning, and I'm not making any assumptions. If this guy had been picked up after 9/11 and detained, and if he did have any problems with a hypothetical visa he could have been deported.

Also, I wanted to work in a reference to the "report suspicious terrorist activity" highway signs that I've seen recently, but on my drive last night down to Bethesda (where I'll be spending the summer with my girlfriend, who is very kind to plan to put up with me while I'm writing!!) I didn't notice if the signs are still up. At any rate, should the signs go up again, there should be a footnote added: "reading" does not count as a suspicious terrorist activity, fellow citizens!

MORE (added 1/16/04): Perhaps my choice of the term "default rules" is confusing given the technical legal meaning of the term, but you can see what I'm getting at nonetheless.