Justifying an Attack on Civil Liberties: The 2006 USA Patriot Act Reauthorization Senate Debates

The current research examines the U.S. Senate transcripts of the 2006 USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization debates. In particular, the study identifies how objections to reauthorization were raised and advance by opponents as well as the subsequent responses by advocates of the legislation. The arguments were analyzed from a pragmatic justificatory perspective which was augmented with three additional theories---collective imagining, strategic maneuvering and political reasonableness. Three primary arguments emerged within the discourse of the opposition. The first concerned particular legal flaws within the Act and proposed amendments, the second involved the ideal of liberty, and the third dealt with the manipulation of Senate processes and procedures. It was discovered that both opponents and advocates drew upon notions of the reasonable when arguing their positions and maneuvered strategically to in order advance their agendas. The arguments which were deemed strongest, most closely adhered to the six principles of pragmatic justification.