Monday, April 18, 2005
Kahnstipation
Sunday, April 17, 2005
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
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
