The Land of the Not So Free:
Why the Patriot Act Should Not be Renewed Without Amendments
by Paul Pabon
Issue date: 3/1/06 Section: Opinion
In the 1997 film Conspiracy Theory starring Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts, a frightened Gibson tells Roberts about the power that the government has, explaining that "big brother" has watch lists for books that we read and people we know and talk to. The idea seemed far-fetched at the time, but it has become an all-too important element of our present reality under the provisions of the USA Patriot Act.
After the 9/11 terror attacks, the need for a change in government policy towards terrorism became evident. New legislation was drawn up, introduced and approved by congress. However, certain conditions of the act don't make sense, border on fascism, promote racism, and violate the constitutional rights of American citizens. In order to ensure the equality of every American, the Patriot Act should not be renewed without amendments when it expires on March 10th, 2006.
In the USA Patriot Act Overview by the U.S. Department of Justice, the first two provisions "allow investigators to use the tools that were already available," such as wiretaps and checks into confidential personal information for investigative purposes, and permit "information sharing and cooperation among government agencies." Before these tools can be used, a warrant has to be given by a judge only after investigators offer sufficient evidence or probable cause to prove that a person or group has committed or will commit a crime. President Bush recently came under fire for allowing illegal wiretaps without issuance of warrants or court orders. This goes to show that government officials will not hesitate to abuse their powers regarding these tools.
Furthermore, the fact that warrant execution can be "reasonably delayed," as stated in the first provision, seems to contradict the sharing of information among investigators. As long as this government has existed, law enforcement agencies have withheld information for the sole purpose of limiting information leaks. Investigators will continue to be secretive about information they feel is necessary in their respective investigations. In fact, there have been several stories of tragedies that have occurred because of lack of shared information between government agencies. The 9/11 terror attacks themselves have been scrutinized because of allegations that certain agencies did not do enough with information they had to prevent the attacks.
Even though the Patriot Act proposes to end this withholding of pertinent information, there is no way to ensure that it is enforced. Some agencies will not change their policy because "need to know basis" information will continue to exist and warrants, therefore, will fail to be served on a timely basis.
Another condition in the first point of the Patriot Act overview states that federal agents are allowed, "to ask a court for an order to obtain business records in national security terrorism cases." In order to provide sufficient support to get this "order" from a grand jury, people of interest to the government have to be observed and investigated. This procedure is similar to preemptive policing, which often involves racial profiling. Many people become "people of interest" because of their skin color. This has gone on for years in this country, as minority citizens have been falsely detained, persecuted, arrested and worse based on the theory that they are guilty until proven innocent. How does the government decide who is a national threat? Does this policy mean that the government should obtain the business records of all Middle Eastern immigrants turned U.S. citizens who hail from countries that harbor terrorists or are sympathetic to terrorist causes?
In a 2003 article in National Review Online, Barbara Comstock points out that as a result of the new laws in the Patriot Act, notable terrorists Richard Reid (the shoe bomber) and "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh have been detained and convicted. However, she fails to point out other cases of U.S. citizens and nationals that have been detained for unreasonable amounts of time only to be found not guilty of anything. She also fails to note that every American has the constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial, which has not been afforded to those being held at Guantanamo Bay. She says that those being held there are not U.S. citizens and are part of military commissions, which are enacted by the President and are separate from the Patriot Act. On what suspicions and charges are those at Guantanamo Bay being held? According to a March 3 Associated Press article, 490 people are currently being held at Guantanamo and charges have only been filed against 10. Why isn't that information being shared with the public?
Thousands of pages of documents from court proceedings at Guantanamo Bay have just been released. However, the only thing these documents do is offer further speculation about why so many people are being held in jail and not charged with crimes. The simple government answer is that certain people are detained because they have "possible ties to global terrorist networks." These broad and vague responses are the first step towards totalitarianism.
The Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issued, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This amendment secures every U.S. citizen's complete privacy until there's a reason to breach it, in order to protect civil rights.
Conspiracy theory paranoia is no longer a feature film fantasy. Everyday law-abiding citizens are questioning the direction in which our country is headed. Now, more than ever, homeland security is probably at the forefront of all political discussions and decisions. In this post 9/11 world, it is important to have laws in place that protect our country, but these laws should make sense and should neither discriminate against people of color nor violate our constitutional rights.
 |
In the USA Patriot Act Overview by the U.S. Department of Justice, the first two provisions "allow investigators to use the tools that were already available," such as wiretaps and checks into confidential personal information for investigative purposes, and permit "information sharing and cooperation among government agencies." Before these tools can be used, a warrant has to be given by a judge only after investigators offer sufficient evidence or probable cause to prove that a person or group has committed or will commit a crime. President Bush recently came under fire for allowing illegal wiretaps without issuance of warrants or court orders. This goes to show that government officials will not hesitate to abuse their powers regarding these tools.
Furthermore, the fact that warrant execution can be "reasonably delayed," as stated in the first provision, seems to contradict the sharing of information among investigators. As long as this government has existed, law enforcement agencies have withheld information for the sole purpose of limiting information leaks. Investigators will continue to be secretive about information they feel is necessary in their respective investigations. In fact, there have been several stories of tragedies that have occurred because of lack of shared information between government agencies. The 9/11 terror attacks themselves have been scrutinized because of allegations that certain agencies did not do enough with information they had to prevent the attacks.
Even though the Patriot Act proposes to end this withholding of pertinent information, there is no way to ensure that it is enforced. Some agencies will not change their policy because "need to know basis" information will continue to exist and warrants, therefore, will fail to be served on a timely basis.
Another condition in the first point of the Patriot Act overview states that federal agents are allowed, "to ask a court for an order to obtain business records in national security terrorism cases." In order to provide sufficient support to get this "order" from a grand jury, people of interest to the government have to be observed and investigated. This procedure is similar to preemptive policing, which often involves racial profiling. Many people become "people of interest" because of their skin color. This has gone on for years in this country, as minority citizens have been falsely detained, persecuted, arrested and worse based on the theory that they are guilty until proven innocent. How does the government decide who is a national threat? Does this policy mean that the government should obtain the business records of all Middle Eastern immigrants turned U.S. citizens who hail from countries that harbor terrorists or are sympathetic to terrorist causes?
In a 2003 article in National Review Online, Barbara Comstock points out that as a result of the new laws in the Patriot Act, notable terrorists Richard Reid (the shoe bomber) and "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh have been detained and convicted. However, she fails to point out other cases of U.S. citizens and nationals that have been detained for unreasonable amounts of time only to be found not guilty of anything. She also fails to note that every American has the constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial, which has not been afforded to those being held at Guantanamo Bay. She says that those being held there are not U.S. citizens and are part of military commissions, which are enacted by the President and are separate from the Patriot Act. On what suspicions and charges are those at Guantanamo Bay being held? According to a March 3 Associated Press article, 490 people are currently being held at Guantanamo and charges have only been filed against 10. Why isn't that information being shared with the public?
Thousands of pages of documents from court proceedings at Guantanamo Bay have just been released. However, the only thing these documents do is offer further speculation about why so many people are being held in jail and not charged with crimes. The simple government answer is that certain people are detained because they have "possible ties to global terrorist networks." These broad and vague responses are the first step towards totalitarianism.
The Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issued, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This amendment secures every U.S. citizen's complete privacy until there's a reason to breach it, in order to protect civil rights.
Conspiracy theory paranoia is no longer a feature film fantasy. Everyday law-abiding citizens are questioning the direction in which our country is headed. Now, more than ever, homeland security is probably at the forefront of all political discussions and decisions. In this post 9/11 world, it is important to have laws in place that protect our country, but these laws should make sense and should neither discriminate against people of color nor violate our constitutional rights.