Say What?!

Optixa

Kahnstipation

Victoria Carpenter
13 March 2005

The Patriot Act
On October 26th, 2001 American civil liberties received a major blow. Ordinarily when a bill is introduced the House and Senate meet to resolve any conflicts and potential constitutional violations. When the Patriot Act, an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, was introduced this was not the case. In Elaine Cassel’s book “The War on Civil Liberties: How Bush and Ashcroft Have Dismantled the Bill of Rights” she points out that with little or no debate or negotiations the bill passed two weeks after its introduction by 357-6 in the House. The next day the bill was passed in the Senate by 98-1. The only senator to vote against the Patriot act was Senator Feingold (WI) (Cassel 16).
The Patriot Act is not, as some would believe, a stand alone law but rather several amendments to laws already in existence. It is a version of the Terrorist Act of 2001. Approximately six weeks after 9-11, while the county was still reeling from an attack on American soil, this bill was put before legislators and railroaded through. This bill was a creation of John Ashcroft and his assistant Viet Dinh, an immigrant from Viet Nam. Dinh studied John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in order to write this bill (Cassel 11). President Bush has stated in several addresses to the country that this “war on terror” was going to be a long war. Yet when speaking of the Patriot Act both Bush and Ashcroft claim that any freedoms possibly threatened by this law are only temporary, and necessary for national security. Chances are these limitations on our civil liberties are not only long lasting, but permanent. The Patriot Act brings citizens of this country one step closer to living in a police state, yet any public protests seem to have withered and died on the vine. This law clearly threatens, if not outright violates, both the First and Fourth Amendments, and significantly weakens many other “inalienable rights.”
Let us first examine the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the free press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (Bill of Rights).
Loosely translated, the citizens of this country are free to participate in activities, speech, and press as they wish and associate or disassociate with anyone they please. People have the right to challenge the institution of the Government and voice their opinions to create change for the good of all. The First Amendment is as a shared umbrella –as soon as one person decides to take that umbrella for himself he has declared his rights to its protection superior to anyone else’s. According to Section 215 of the Patriot Act, found on the ACLU’s website ACLU.org, the FBI is free to examine documents and place wiretaps on any US citizen “provided they are not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution (ACLU).” The emphasis was added to the word solely, it is evident that first amendments rights are able to be circumvented…it just can’t be the only reason to put someone under surveillance.
Another aspect of the Patriot Act that threatens our freedoms is somewhat indirect. This has to do with the definition of a “terrorist” as put forth in this law. Section 802 defines the term ‘domestic terrorism’ as “activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that area violation of the criminal laws of the United States …appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion(ACLU).” The danger of this definition is that anyone knowingly or unknowingly who is involved with an organization or group that dissents from the current “norms” set by our government is in danger of being labeled a terrorist
The next point to ponder may be the violations of the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights which states:
The right of the people to be secure in there persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but on probable causer, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Bill of Rights).
Although the Patriot Act states that judges’ orders are to be issued in regards to search and seizure, it is clear in Section 205 that searches can be general which is in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment (ACLU).This law also gives that notification of this search and seizure can be significantly, indefinitely delayed. Of course if a life is in danger this is a good law, however the same logic has been used in the “war on drugs” and it hasn’t gotten us anywhere. The benefits simply do not outweigh the risks. The Patriot Act also gives the FBI and other government agencies the ability to monitor internet communications and Web surfing habits, a blatant violation of civil liberties. We as citizens of the United States have the right to feel that our correspondence and activities in private are safe from prying eyes. As it stands the Patriot Act allows the government to obtain e-mails and monitor internet habits with simply a blanket statement that the suspected individual may be suspected of acting in a terrorist fashion. No proof is necessary. Not only does the government have this right, but they are not even required to inform the subject this search that it ever happened! The internet is not the only area of the private lives of citizens that is open for browsing. The list includes records of education, credit card spending, and even library transactions.
Compounding these obvious violations of the Fourth Amendment is the underlying evidence that judges involved in granting the agencies permission to perform searches have little or no ability to disagree with their issuance, “The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application” (ACLU). Since disagreeing could be considered a terrorist act, it is a very dangerous catch 22 if there ever was one.
The treatment of immigrants under the Patriot Act is also suspect leaving many loose ends concerning the rights of individuals attempting to become US citizens. The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law; nor shall private property be taken for public use…”
Currently there are studies under way that would eventually allow for every new immigrant to be put on home arrest type surveillance upon their arrival in this country. In section 202 of the Patriot Act aliens can remain in custody indefinitely without charges. There is no allowance for a court review of their detention and there is no statute of limitations regarding the time an individual allegedly engages in questionable behavior and their incarceration (ACLU), thereby denying due process and equal protection of law. This law creates a very serious risk that individuals could be deported for association with political groups that the government later chooses to regard as terrorist organizations.
Even while problems exist with the Patriot Act, and at least 200 communities in the US have passed decrees that they will not follow the edicts of this law due to its unconstitutional nature, the Patriot II is in review. H.R. 3037, “The Antiterrorism Tools Enhancement Act of 2003,” allows the government to seize records and compel testimony in terrorism cases without prior review by a court or grand jury. Finding this new enhancement to be even more threatening to civil liberties, the Borough of Princeton NJ passed a resolution to ensure that the sunset of the Patriot Act and enactment of the Patriot II be fully reviewed before passing them (ACLU).This resolution along with many others passed around the country should be a red warning light to the House and Senate that these egregious infractions on our rights are not being taken lightly.
In Richard Posner’s essay “Security versus Civil Liberties” he argues that opponents of the Patriot Act and other anti-terrorist actions are “missing something.” He discusses the impairing of civil liberties as they relate to “the war on drugs,” and points out the presence of wire taps, random searches and the like in this war. His entire argument is based on the fact that civil liberties should be taking a back seat to national safety and impairing them would somehow make us safer as a nation. Yet even he admits that “the war on drugs” has been a “big flop (600).” How then can he justify using the same methods to apprehend supposed terrorists? Most people when shown evidence that a particular problem solving method does not work, would try something new. Laws were made to change and the Constitution is no exception, but at what cost to our way of life? What other freedoms will we be asked to forfeit in the name of “national security”? How far is too far? According to John Ashcroft’s website LifeandLiberty.org:
Since its passage following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Patriot Act has played a key part, and often the leading role, in a number of successful operations to protect innocent Americans from the deadly plans of terrorists dedicated to destroying America and our way of life.
Though a powerful statement there is no evidence to be found anywhere on this site to substantiate this claim. The “war on terror” is an important endeavor, and a completely understandable issue in this time, but I fail to see in Posner’s essay or in any other documents supporting the Patriot Act any proof that threatening our personal freedoms as a nation will make us any safer. In closing, we must remember the words of a very enlightened founding father: Ben Franklin once said “They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Let us heed this warning and be diligent in the allowances we give our government, if not we deserve everything we get.
Workks Cited

Cassel, Elaine. The War on Civil Liberties: How Bush and Ashcroft Have Dismantled the Bill of Rights. Chicago: Lawrence3 Hill Books

The media has been prevalent in American society for almost three hundred years. According to the United States Consulate’s Krakow website, the first newspaper, titled Public Occurrences Both Foreign and Domestic, was published in Boston in 1690. This paper was quickly suppressed by British colonial authorities. No other papers surfaced until 1704, with the appearance of The Boston Newsletter.
Newspapers faced suppression and censorship until a reporter by the name of John Peter Zenger was acquitted of libel, thus legitimizing the concept of free press. Early papers in America were partisan and full of political bashing. In the 1890’s New York City news giants Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst started a fierce competition between their respective news venues, spitting out banner headlines and lurid, scandalous topics.
The news media is still on the forefront today as an agent of sensationalism and has come under fire for bias. For many years, the conservative right voiced concerns that the media was a pawn for the liberal agenda. More recently however, it is the left that is claiming foul, pointing to a media with strong ties to the ultraconservative right .The media at present concerns itself with profit more than information and tends to lean toward whichever political party its current owners subscribe .This profit based programming has eliminated any appearance of free press the media may have once held.

Freedom of the press was of utmost importance to the founding fathers of our country, so much so that it was addressed in the first amendment of the Constitution. Thomas Paine was a powerful journalist and was it not for him writing about the need for American independence who knows where this country would be, perhaps still a British colony. How then did “free press” become such a foreign idea? The words “free press” conjure up an image of the news that is based on freedom of expression and complete liberation from corporate influence. Although it was this ideology that fueled newspaper owners and journalists early on, it seems to be an almost antiquated concept in the present day media.

In the video Mobilizing Media Reform produced by Free Press, it is stated that as of 2003, five major corporations owned more than three-fourths of the major television news outlets. In a democratic nation, diversity of viewpoints and access to information regarding social issues and implementation of laws are critical to public involvement.
In a recent interview Maurice Hinchey, US Representative (D-NY), gives his views: “In a democratic society the most important thing is the free flow and exchange of information and ideas” (Mobilizing Media Reform). One would be hard-pressed to call the present profit motivated media diverse, and even harder still to claim that they represent the voice of the people. General Electric owns the television station and the company that makes the planes that drop the bombs during the war. Is the viewer supposed to believe that such a profit motivated company would air anything that could be construed as anti-war? Journalism is a way of selling ideas, not profits, and it is most evident that journalists are feeling a clash of ideals in the current climate of big company ownership.

Many people make the mistake of assuming that the growing push for media reform is actually a push for a more liberal political agenda. One surely need not be a liberal to want access to a media that is free to report information accurately without undue influence from corporate sponsors. The need for reform is, in actuality, seen as an important issue by diverse groups of people from the National Rifle Association to the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s RAINBOW-Push Organization. In her daily life the author has been able to speak to people of diverse backgrounds about the current state of the media. From journalists to computer programmers the message is the same. The American public has voiced its opinion; they want media reform, now.

The desire for profit has turned many serious newscasts into sensationalistic programs. The focus on celebrity and crime diverts attention from more important social issues. News installments focusing on social change and individual successes appear so infrequently in broadcasts that they seem to be almost non-existent. Jeffrey Schueer writes in his book The Sound Bite Society, “Where are the snappy sound bytes for gun control, tolerance of different ideas, collective bargaining...” (167). If we are to believe the information most often put forth in the news media, then this country is all for the war, deeply concerned about Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston’s relationship, and populated by only thieves and rapists.

The lack of complete information and excessive repetition of selected information results in skewed public perception. Examine the current trend to label almost every group that disagrees with “The American Way” as a terrorist group. This is not to say that terrorist activities should be condoned; the destruction of human beings should never be acceptable. To simply disagree with American foreign policy or to say “No, our country does not want to be a democracy” should not be enough to label a group as terrorists. After all, England, one of our closest allies, is not a democracy, but we do not give them the terrorist label. The constant bombardment of the public with such phrases as “terrorism” and “national safety” is resulting in a generalized confusion about the actual definition of these words.

Originally, as Bethami Dobkin observes in her book Tales of Terror, “Terror was defined as premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub national groups or clandestine state agencies.” Simple enough, but under this definition even some institutions in the United States could be referred to as terrorists (34). This meant that the definition had to change, so the media started referring to groups with clearly anti-American sentiment as “terrorist.” Yet another example of the power of the media to affect public perception is the understood importance of the role of the President. In News That Matters: Television and Public Perception, Shanto Iyengan and Donald Kinder observed that “stories implying that the President is responsible for a national problem lead viewers to greater certainty about his performance on that problem…and induce viewers to attach greater importance to that problem in evaluating the President’s over-all performance” (88).These issues, such as pollution or social se3curity, might not have been important to the audience, and they may not have even had any information on the subject. Seeing these issues spoken about on the CBS Evening News, however, pushed them into the forefront, and now the public is sure that if the particular issues in question are not dealt with then the President is not doing his job. Of course, until Mr. Smith heard Tom Brokaw say it was important pollution was not an issue at all. This problem of power is not new; as early as 1964 Marshall McLuhan recognized the power of television in politics. In his book Understanding Media, he noticed that television was “cooling down” America. Even then television was having a numbing effect on the once fervently involved American public.

Armed with the knowledge that television news media is biased, corporate controlled, and calculated to have specific results on viewers, the public can now move forward toward change. Insisting on diversity of viewpoints and stricter ownership standards can bring about fairness and accuracy in the media. Broadening the sources the consumer uses to get their news is vital. Information from television, radio, print, and the internet should be checked against each other. If an article of interest appears in the News & Observer ,then it should be researched, not taken at face value. If the media has a responsibility to report the news fairly and accurately then the public is just as responsible for how they use that information. When listening to a discussion on any particular news show, viewers should pay attention to the panel. Panelists discussing social issues relevant to African-American females should at least include an African-American female; otherwise, information disseminated on the show would hardly be accurate or relevant.
It is time now for the viewing public to demand that airwaves contain diverse views, accurate reporting and less profit motivated programming when it comes to the news. Letters must be written to Senators, the FCC, and CEO’s. It is no longer acceptable to sit by and absorb information from a single source. News and newspapers are participatory in nature, and “free press” is our right as Americans. A democracy is about choices, and the ability to make informed decisions is vital to the fabric of that democracy. Finally, stricter ownership laws must be put in place to make “free press” free again.

21 September 2004

Choosing a Media Source
A democracy is about choices, and the ability to make informed decisions is important to the fabric of that democracy. Unfortunately, when the information a society receives is governed by a select few, this information can become slanted. Cross ownership, relaxation of standards, and an uninvolved public have allowed the media to forget the importance of providing fair and accurate reporting..

The recent ability for cross ownership has resulted in the withering and dilution of competition and diversity of view points. This has resulted in reducing the publics’ richness in news consumption. Part of this dilution may be a result of the speed in which information is gathered and delivered. In one hour of programming on MSNBC, for example, only twenty-two minutes of the program were actually used for dispensing information. The remaining thirty-eight were for advertising and sensational lead-in graphics. Newspapers, although owned by the same companies, at least give the consumer access to a larger cross section of stories and information in greater detail..

Another adverse component in the issue of cross ownership and speed of information is the relaxing of standards. The recent development at CBS, formerly the “gold standard” for the news media, is a most glaring example of this relaxation. Checking and re-checking sources should never be considered less important than sensational reporting no matter what the subject. The media have allowed sensational graphics, obviously biased anchormen, and the desire to get a story out to the public as fast as possible overshadow the importance of thorough and accurate news gathering.

Because of these existing failures it is the consumer’s responsibility to research where their information originates. Questions must now be asked; the consumer must now become more involved in news gathering than ever before. The audience must now become the reporter, asking the important questions. Does the source make opposing view points available? In order to make informed decisions and carry on intelligent debates, both sides of any issue should be known. Absent now, since the days of big company ownership, are the opposing views that our parents and grandparents were privy to. Due to this lack of information the publics’ view on any one issue can become slanted.

In whose point of view is the story being told? Knowing only how a large corporation is affected by an event is only half the story. Unless the views of the laborers and the surrounding community are known, it is virtually impossible to understand the full effect of the event. The ability for cross ownership is partially to blame for this all too common occurrence of stories being told in the view of the large corporations. It is imperative to know the possible links between the company that owns the media source and the corporate interests in the story being reported.

Is there diversity among the available panel of experts? A story focusing on the issues pertaining to Hispanics and their community should not be discussed by an all white, all female panel. If an expert panel is discussing politics, an attempt should be made to include as many different party representatives as possible. It is also important to note whether the expert is actually an authority in the field that is being discussed.

Another question to be asked is whether the news outlet uses stereotypes when discussing an issue, or uses pictures and graphics that misrepresent the story. For example, when discussing welfare the focus should not be on African-American women since the welfare system serves people of all races. Care must be made that these stereotypes don’t become accepted facts. It is fairly common to see pictures that do not match articles or graphics that tell half the story
Yes, questions must be asked. No longer is it acceptable for the public to sit idly by and absorb information from one source. Consumers must learn to be informed participants in the dissemination of news. News and newspapers were intended to be participatory from the outset, and this fact makes it inseparable from the democratic process. The public must get involved, make informed choices, and research as much information as possible. As consumers the demand for diversity, lack of stereotypes, and availability of opposing views must be insisted upon.

Written 30 November 2004

Well....Let me start off by explaining what you can expect to see here.
I am a student at a local community college...I'm in my late 30's and I'm retraining myself due to a disability. I will be using this site to post papers that I write so I can get feedback from you ..the reader....and to watch how my style grows and changes. Feel free to post comments and I will respond.I must warn you, however, I am not all about the punctuation...so if it's mucked up I apologize...I mostly write for content and find someone bored who's willing to proof! And on that note....