James Newberry

Andrea Janovic

Soc 111

21 April 2013

The Patriot Act Is Unconstitutional

On September, 11, 2001, terrorist attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. They were probably going to attempt to fly a fourth plane into the White House. Most of us remember that day, where we were, and even what we were doing that morning; I know that I do. We all felt helpless and defenseless on that September day, and our overwhelming national response was to apprehend the people who had perpetrated this heinous act upon America. A week after the 9-11 attacks President Bush submitted a legislative proposal to combat terrorism called the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Patriot Act). The Act passed in the Senate without debate. After minor changes were made in the House, the complex, 342-page bill passed 357 to 66 and was signed into law on October 26, 2001. This seemingly innocent law designed to protect Americans has had the opposite effect, eroding the civil liberties of U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens residing in the United States today.

Shortly after 9/11 the government secretly arrested and jailed some 1,200 people in its investigation of September 11; they refused to divulge the number of arrests, the names of their lawyers, 0r even the reason for their arrests. Most of those arrested were Arabs or Muslims who were no danger at all: cab drivers, day laborers, or construction workers who had broken no laws or had minor Visa violations. Many were apprehended after routine traffic stops or other incidental contact with law enforcement, and most were jailed for up to seven months without being charged. Nor were they permitted to see families, friends, or loved ones. Lawyers from several organizations joined to file suit in federal court in Washington D.C. (Center for National Security Studies et al. V.S. Department of Justice). Jim Cornehls , director of the Law and Public Policy Graduate Certificate program in the School of Urban and Public Affairs, University of Texas at Arlington states, “The Government refused to provide the requested information, citing several exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A final order in that case was not entered until August 2, 2002, which required the government to divulge the names of those arrested” (Whitehead 157). By that time most of them had either been released or deported.

Why all the concern about the Patriot Act by millions of Americans? Here are a few, among many, reasons for alarm. Under the Patriot Act, the definition of terrorism is expanded to cover anyone or any group that tries to bring about change for political or ideological reasons and uses any kind of force to bring that about. This could mean nailing a poster to a courthouse door to carrying a picket sign. The government now has the authority to harass a broad range of political dissenters, from Greenpeace to anti-abortion protesters to environmental activist to members of the National Rifle Association. They can also conduct sneak and peak searches and so called black bag, in other words, government agents, much like other authoritarian regimes, can now enter your apartment or home and look through your documents, computer files, and possessions (“sneak and peak”) or take documents, files and possessions (“black bag”) without giving you notice that they`ve ever been on your property (Whitehead 157).

The Patriot Act allows government agents to conduct document searches and seizures of businesses as well. Any company, including employers, libraries, internet providers, banks, bookstores and video stores, must provide all records relating to the subject under investigation, and all these entities cannot inform anyone, including the suspect or the media, that they`ve been through their files. A violation of this provision is a federal offense that can result in imprisonment. Under the Patriot Act, the government is allowed to conduct roving wiretaps. Any judge can issue a wiretap order for a telephone line, internet line or e-mail system anywhere in the U.S. in order to follow a targeted individual anywhere even if the individual is not named by the government. Known as a “Doe” target, it means that if you are labeled a suspected terrorist, any of your electronic communications are continually monitored by the government. There are many other intrusive and violative provisions of the Patriot Act, which clearly and dramatically emasculates key provisions of our Bill of Rights. Not only does it inhibit and chill free expression by American citizens, it is also an intrusive violation of our privacy and undermines the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. There was obviously some concern about this by Congress, which is the reason that the Patriot Act was sunset (to expire) at five years.

There are many examples in American history when the government adopted extraordinary measures to suppress unpopular views or arrest those suspected of being disloyal to the United States. During the Civil war, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus. As a result, tens of thousands of Americans suspected of being disloyal to the Union were arrested and held without charge by the military. During World War 2, President Roosevelt issued an executive order for the forced internment of 110,000 people of Japanese ancestry living in the U.S.; two thirds of those were placed in so-called preventive detention, under harsh conditions, they were U.S. citizens against whom there was no evidence of collaboration with the Japanese. During the Cold War, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, fear of communism was fueled by certain U.S. political leaders. Leaders of the American Communist Party were criminally prosecuted and imprisoned under the Smith Act for their political beliefs. These are but a few examples of a history of suppression by the United States government.

Richard Posner, a conservative federal judge in Chicago, argues that current measures taken under the Patriot Act are not that worrisome. He urges the use of cost/benefit analysis to weigh the relative importance of liberty vs. security at a time of perceived threats to security. He believes that in time, when the threats to security have waned, a balance between liberty and security interests will be restored (Cornehls p.85).

This view overlooks the fact that earlier restrictions on civil rights were one-time phenomena, more specifically targeted, and narrow in scope. In the case of the Patriot Act, the restrictions are broad, indefinite, and far reaching. If another power were to occupy the United States and institute the deportations, then the United States would be considered a police state. As the scope of the Act and the threats it represents to all U.S. residents became more apparent, more than 100 municipalities and Hawaii, passed resolutions in opposition to the Act. Some encouraged public employees not to comply with the Act`s most civil rights threatening features. One, Arcata, California, made compliance with the Act a crime.

The noted statesman Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety “. Accordingly, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D) of Ohio and Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R) introduced the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act (H.R. 3171) to repeal the most controversial sections of the Patriot Act as well as some of the more egregious actions taken by the Department of Justice (Levendosky 160). The new Act would repeal many sections of the old Patriot Act, including section 214 and 216, relating to the use of pen registers for foreign intelligence purposes and criminal cases. Pen registers record all phone numbers dialed from a persons telephone. It would repeal section 215, which authorizes searches of libraries, bookstores and, medical, financial, and travel records without a judicial warrant. There are many other sections that need to be repealed, these are but a few, the American people should not barter away their fundamental liberties and freedoms for so-called safety.

There are a great many people from the President to politicians of all stripes to your next door neighbor, who believe in and stand by the Patriot Act. As then-President George W. Bush stated “The Patriot Act gives intelligence and law enforcement the tools they need to pursue and punish terrorist and prevent future terrorist attacks” (Bush 187). However, the ground swell about and against the Patriot Act cannot be ignored, even though Patriot Act supporters are unconcerned about grassroots reaction, saying that it`s all part of the democratic process.

Nothing that occurred on September 11, 2001 mandates that we give up our rights as citizens of the United States. If anything, the events of September 11 should redouble our resolve to protect the rights we as Americans cherish. As new powers granted under the Patriot Act are exercised we should not only feel more confident that our country has the tools to be safe but we should be ever vigilant that these new tools are not abused.