USA PATRIOT ACT: Effective. Preventive. Constitutional.
April 26, 2007
The USA PATRIOT Act was the most comprehensive piece of anti- terrorism legislation ever passed. The Patriot Act had been one of the major reasons why another terrorist attack had not occurred in America. While many politicians had a grave concern with the Act, there are many legal scholars who argued that the bill was constitutional because it does not infringe on the rights of American citizens. The Patriot Act has been passed by Congress twice and has continued to protect the United States and the rights of its citizens.
The Patriot Act was greatly misunderstood by most of the American public, and, as a result, has catalysed a great deal of hatred and animosity toward the legislation. Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the Patriot Act’s biggest supporters, had this to say:
The Patriot Act has not eroded any of the rights we hold dear as Americans. I would be the first to call for corrective action, were that the case. Yet not one of the civil liberties groups has cited one instance of abuse of our constitutional rights, one decision by any court that any part of the PATRIOT Act was unconstitutional or one shred of evidence to contradict these tools protect what is perhaps our most important civil liberty: the freedom from future terrorist attacks.
Most American scholars, who have studied this issue, agree that the Patriot Act had protected both American civil liberties and the homeland from further attack. Of course there are others who had a different argument and purported it to be unconstitutional, but, from their arguments, it seems as though they do not truly understand this issue.
While opponents of the Patriot Act had argued that the act violated Fourth Amendment rights, both Senator Hatch and a notable amount of liberal professors at Harvard argued this is not the case, as the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional. In his book, How Patriotic is the Patriot Act? Amitai Etzioni argued that Section 215 is unconstitutional. Etzioni wrote, “This section allows the government—after a court order in cases pertaining to international terrorism—to obtain papers, records, and documents including library records. Ashcroft said the measure has not been used since enacted.” What Mr. Etzioni did not understand was that by obtaining a court order, the government was allowed to seek these records, and the fact that it had never been used showed that the American citizens had nothing to worry about. The federal government did not have the time, energy, or resources to look up what every American had checked out from the library nor did it not care. The government’s intention was to make sure that terrorists are not again plotting to kill innocent Americans. This would be the only time or instance the government would utilize such a provision. As a counter to Mr. Etizoni’s argument, the actual text of the United States Patriot Act might come in handy. The Patriot Act, in section 215 on page 25, stated the following,
The director of the federal bureau of investigation or a designee may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things, (including books, records, papers, documents and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment.
Section 215 clearly stated that the act couldn’t be used unless the Justice Department has reasonable suspicion that a citizen was associating with a terrorist group.
Professor of Law at Georgetown and former assistant Attorney General for legal policy, Viet Dinh agreed with the wording of the section 215, and in a 2005 issue of Human Events magazine proved the point by providing evidence that Attorney General Ashcroft, President Bush, and the Patriot Act had made this act and legislation constitutional. Mr. Dinh wrote, “All requests under section 215 must first be granted judicial approval and fully reported by the Attorney General to Congress semi annually. The provision could not be used to investigate ordinary crimes or domestic terrorism, and expressly protects First Amendment rights. The records of average Americans, and even not so average criminals, are beyond reach.” Section 215 did not infringe on the rights of ordinary American citizens and neither did the Patriot Act. In order for any of these provisions to be enacted, the United States government needed to obtain a court order. Would the court give the government the power if it violated the Constitution? Of course not.
The debate over the USA PATRIOT Act was not a partisan political issue. If that were the issue, it would not have passed 98-1 in 2001 in the senate and 89-10 in 2005. Robert Clarke, a liberal Democrat professor at Harvard, argued that the Patriot Act was the most important piece of national security legislation that America had ever seen. He wrote, “So be very careful about opposing things like the Patriot Act. If you believe in civil liberties, you’ve got to stop that next big attack.” He then went on to note, “If legislation similar to the Patriot Act had been passed before Sept. 11, 2001, it may have helped prevent that day’s terrorist attacks. I can’t find anything wrong with it and if I’d had prior to 9/11 it would have been a hell of a lot easier to stop 9/11.” Mr. Clarke was absolutely correct; the Patriot Act had been instrumental in protecting this nation. America had not seen a terrorist attack in over five years, ergo; the Untied States Government must be doing something right. One of the most distinguished members of Congress agreed with Mr. Clarke that the USA PATRIOT Act was in fact effective at countering terrorism and preventing attacks. Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado had this to say, “The Patriot Act tears down the wall that prevented information sharing from law enforcement and the intelligence community prior to 9/11. It has proven to be an effective tool in learning of and defusing terrorist plots before they are carried out.” Protecting American safety is just as important as protecting our rights.
Americans do not have to worry about their rights being taken away because the Patriot Act had been proven by numerous people thus far to be preserving our First and Fourth Amendment rights. Representative Michael Castle addressed the issue of the Patriot Act and civil liberties in US Fed News service. In that magazine, Castle wrote, “Even though the Justice Department’s independent Inspector General has found no abuses of the Patriot Act authorities, Congress has taken many steps to protect the delicate balance between security and liberty that Americans so greatly value.” Even though the original United States Patriot Act did not have any reported instances of violating American civil liberties, Congress made sure that when they renewed this act they would look at it again to make sure that it did not violate civil liberties and if it did they would change it. Congress changed a few of the provisions even though civil liberties had not been violated. Such actions show how dedicated to this legislation Congress was. Like his counterpart Michael Castle, Conservative Senator Tom Coburn agreed that the original Patriot Act and its new authorizations continue to uphold the law and the Constitution. Senator Coburn wrote, “I’m confident the Patriot Act reauthorisation strikes the necessary balance between protecting our rights guaranteed under the Constitution and giving law enforcement the proper tools to protect the country from the threat of terrorism. In fact, this legislation provides stronger protections for civil liberties than those in current law.” The statements of support provided thus far have been from members of Congress who have more knowledge and information on these subjects than the average citizen. Nonetheless, many Americans still do not trust what the government is telling them. If citizens refuse to trust the government how can the government provide for the their safety?
Those who opposed the Patriot Act agreed that it is had effectively combated terrorism, but they were more focused on its perceived threats to civil liberties. One of those opposed to the civil liberties portions of the USA PATRIOT Act was Donald Kettl, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In his book, System under Stress: Homeland Security and American Politics, Mr. Kettl argued that the Patriot Act was unconstitutional because it harms American civil liberties and that Congress acted too quickly in proposing anti-terrorist legislation. Mr. Kettl wrote,
The government could conduct searches without informing those searched. It could hold prisoners without informing them of the charges or bringing them to trial. And the issue not only was what the government could do. It was also the uncertainty about how the new powers would be used and protections citizens would have to ensure that government officials did not abuse those powers.
Mr. Kettl said the government could conduct searches without informing the citizens. Indeed, it can and it did. The government could do this regardless; all they needed was a search warrant through due process; therefore, Kettl’s argument is invalid. In cases of search warrants issued through due process of law, the government had already proven that the citizens in question had been ruled to be a potential threat and must be searched. If the government were to obtain a search warrant they would not have to inform the citizen, and the Patriot Act follows this procedure. Mr. Kettl simply could not understand that. He also wanted to make sure that the government did not abuse its powers in the Patriot Act. Members of Congress who had more information on this subject had already proved that it has not overstepped it powers so his argument is again invalid. Agreeing with Mr. Kettl is Susan Herman, a legal scholar from Brooklyn University, whose argument, like Mr. Kettl’s, was a bit dicey. In her article she wrote, “It is notable that so few of the PATRIOT Act surveillance provisions have been the subject of litigation. This is because the targets of the information the government seeks to obtain do not know they are targets…” The interesting thing about her argument—even though it made it flawed—was that most of these victims who are being searched are not United States citizens and therefore this is not one of those times where citizens have to be warned ahead of time because they are not given the rights of American citizens. Why should the government protect the rights of citizens who are in this country illegally? The government should not protect their rights this reasoning does not make any sense.
Fellow supporters of the Patriot Act had told opponents of the bill to look at what it had done for national security—the aspect this legislation was designed to protect. Wendy J. Keefer, a senior council from the Justice Department, agreed that Americans should focus on the effects the Patriot Act has had on combating terrorism and preventing further attacks from occurring. Mrs. Keefer wrote, “It works to continue provision of many of the tools necessary for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to protect the country from future attack, while adding more oversight by the judicial branch of our country’s counter terrorism efforts.” The Patriot Act was designed to stop terrorism and that should be the most important concern citizens have about this legislation. The Supreme Court has declared it constitutional and Congress has created provisions ensuring protection of Civil liberties. Therefore the civil liberties argument can finally be put to rest. It is important that Congress continue to pass bills that legally protect citizen’s civil liberties. This bill did that and was in use for that reason today. If it violated civil liberties the Patriot Act would be banned. It was critical to see what other supporters of the Patriot Act, as an anti-terrorism bill, had to say. Senator Jim DeMint from South Carolina summed it up by saying, “The Patriot Act has already led to the arrest and prosecution of terrorists within the United States, and has strengthened our borders.” Most Americans remembered the horror they felt on September 11th and if they wanted to feel such pain and vulnerability again, which most of them did not, then they should have voted against this act.
President George W. Bush had this to say about the PATRIOT Act: “Since its enactment in October 2001, the Patriot Act has been vital to winning the War on Terror and protecting the American People.” Politicians do have an agenda and do what they can to get it enacted, but the Patriot Act was not that kind of legislation; it was supported almost unanimously on both sides of the aisle.
The Department of Homeland Security released this statement on the Patriot Act: “The PATRIOT Act breaks down barriers to information sharing enabling law enforcement and intelligence personnel to share information that is needed to help connect the dots and disrupt potential terror and criminal activity before they can carry out their plots.”
Those who continued to oppose the act never argued whether or not it does what it is supposed to do—and that was fight terrorism; they argue that it hurt both civil liberties and our country’s “checks and balances.” Those have been proven constitutional so there is no point to arguing them. In the book Equal Justice in the Balance: America’s Legal response to the Emerging Terrorist threat, the authors had this to say: “If historical precedent is an important teacher, then unfettered governmental authority to spy on its citizens can be quickly transformed into an absolute license to invade the privacy of innocent individuals especially in the name of national security.” Unfettered government should not have the capability to spy on its citizens unless they pose threats to national security. The wire-tapping has been proven constitutional, but plotting to destroy America is an act of terror and the government should be given wiretapping abilities to combat these threats. Therefore, when a threat to national security arises, the government should have wiretapping abilities.
Gabriel Weimann, in his book Terror on the Internet, argued that wire-tapping violates First and Fourth Amendment rights, but he gave no argument as to why he felt the act itself isn’t protecting America. Weimann wrote, “The act was in fact a legislative step intended to strengthen the nation’s defence against terrorism, including in its provisions the problematic monitoring of private communications and access to personal information.” Mr. Weimann then went on to discuss how legislation very similar to this had been proposed in other nations such as Canada, Britain, France, German, and Italy. The author said that all of those pieces of legislation had been effective in fighting terrorism, but they were giving law enforcement and other agencies more power than they should have. He also argued that, in some cases, he wanted to see greater proof that these measures were preventing terrorists from striking. Weimann felt that in other nations such legislation was strong enough, but in America it is not. As a result, he argued that he wanted to infringe on civil liberties, which is something the Patriot Act currently did not do. Agreeing with Mr. Weimann was Elaine Scarry, whose article appears in the book U.S National Debate topics 2005-2006 Civil Liberties. Mrs. Scarry wrote, “If many members of congress failed to read the Patriot Act during its swift passage, it is in part because it is almost unreadable.” She asserted that due to the fact it was difficult to read and passed so swiftly it must be unconstitutional. The legislation, however, as repeatedly aforementioned, is Constitutional and effective at combating terrorism.
The USA PATRIOT Act had been proven effective by the Justice Department and the Executive Branch, approved twice by Congress, never declared unconstitutional, and most importantly had prevented another terrorist attack from occurring in America. Even with all of these facts Americans were still challenging the act. Representative Patrick McHenry from North Carolina wrote, “The Patriot Act provides law enforcement and National Security professionals with the tools to best protect our homeland.” It was encouraging to know that this bill was combating terrorism effectively and protecting civil liberties. Page one of the Patriot Act stated that it is “an act to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.” If America wants to continue to be safe it needs to continue using and passing the legislation in the Patriot Act to protect it from further attacks.
USA PATRIOT ACT: Effective. Preventive. Constitutional. was written by PAI's Political Analyst © PAI 2007.
The sources used in this article are avaible here