Much Ado About
Nothing
The “Patriot Act!” Has there ever been a greater threat to liberty??? It’s the new McCarthyism, the first step towards a 1984 Big Brother police state. Our precious freedoms are slowly being chipped away by the horrific Patriot Act! Help, it’s the Thought Police!
Yes, sir, the one undeniable talent of the Left is hysterical ranting.
From a four-page advertisement taken out by “Kucinich for President, Inc.” in the Des Moines Register the Sunday before the Iowa caucuses: “The U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is a violation of the civil rights so many American patriots have fought and died for…the Patriot Act targets civil liberties of Americans and effectively suppresses domestic political dissent, religious freedom and labor union activism. The government must not be allowed to snoop into our internet, telephone, mail, medical, library or student records. Dennis Kucinich believes in the words of Benjamin Franklin: ‘They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.’” Apparently, now that the Patriot Act is here, we are no better off than Communist China.
The USA Patriot Act was passed by Congress on October 25, 2001. Democrats temporarily set aside their political propaganda war to support America, and the bill passed overwhelmingly 98-1 in the Senate, and 357-66 in the House. “But concerns about the bill did not register with many Americans until late 2002, when some librarians began warning that it might jeopardize the privacy of library records. Since then, more than 250 communities have passed resolutions critical of the law.”[1] (Horrors! I wouldn’t want the FBI to know that in the last year I’ve checked out First Meetings by Orson Scott Card, Last Days Madness by Gary DeMar, The Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey, Losing Bin Laden by Richard Miniter, Saddam’s Bombmaker by Khidhir Hamza and – oh, darn! I’ve gone and forfeited my privacy again. I guess I don’t deserve liberty or safety.)
The ACLU has become the chief opponent and myth-spreader about the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism,” or the USA Patriot Act. (It’s an acronym – see the bold letters? Clever.) The ACLU has devoted an entire section of its website (www.aclu.org/safeandfree) to inaccurate doomsday prophecies about the Patriot Act and the infamous John Ashcroft, enemy of all that’s good and true. The ACLU is such a pain in the neck that the Justice Department had to build an entire webpage dedicated to dispelling ACLU myths about the Patriot Act. (www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm) I find it interesting that a group dedicated to defending the civil liberties of Americans not only lies pathologically, but categorically fights against the right to life for unborn children, religious freedom for fundamentalists and supports race-based discrimination (a.k.a. – “Affirmative Action.) But I digress. Onward!
What the Patriot Act
Actually Does
The new powers granted to law enforcement agencies under the Patriot Act are not as extreme as the ACLU and others make them out to be. In fact, most of the powers contained in the Patriot Act have been used for years to investigate illegal drug crimes and organized crime. In a nutshell, the Patriot Act simply extended these powers to terrorism investigations. As Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) noted during a floor debate about the Patriot Act, “the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What’s good for the mob should be good for terrorists.”[2] Here is the gist of what the USA Patriot Act actually does:
1. The Patriot Act allows law enforcement to use surveillance against terror crimes. “Before the Patriot Act, courts could permit law enforcement to conduct electronic surveillance to investigate many ordinary, non-terrorism crimes, such as drug crimes, mail fraud, and passport fraud.”[3] The Patriot Act simply extended these wiretapping capabilities, allowing law enforcement to use wiretapping to investigate all terrorism-related crimes: terrorism financing, the killing of Americans abroad and the use of weapons of mass destruction.
2. The Patriot Act allows law enforcement to get court authorization for “roving wiretaps” when investigating terrorism. Normal wiretap authorizations apply only to a specific electronic device. The problem with this is that terrorists change cell phones and locations often, so that law enforcement would constantly have to go back to the courts to get new authorization. A “roving wiretap” is not restricted a single device, but any device in use by the suspect. Law enforcement agencies have been able to use roving wiretaps for years to investigate drug trafficking and racketeering.
3. The Patriot Act allows prosecutors to ask judges to delay telling people that their property has been searched in a terrorism probe for a “reasonable period” of time. This is kind of an obvious provision – why on earth would we want to force law enforcement to tell suspected terrorists that we’re on to them? “Notice is always provided, but the reasonable delay gives law enforcement time to identify the criminal’s associates, eliminate immediate threats to our communities, and coordinate the arrests of multiple individuals without tipping them off beforehand.”[4] Once again, this power has been granted to law enforcement agencies investigating drugs and organized crime for years.
4. The Patriot Act allows the FBI to ask a court for an order to obtain business records in terrorism cases. This power makes terrorism probes a whole lot easier by letting law enforcement agencies see if a terrorism suspect purchased bomb materials or checked out a book on bomb-making or something of the like. Law enforcement agencies have always been able to do this as long as they had a subpoena from a grand jury. The Patriot Act simply makes this process easier by letting the FBI ask the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court for an order to urn the records over. To obtain such an order, the FBI must demonstrate that
· Such an order is needed as part of an authorized investigation,
· The order is for obtaining foreign intelligence information either not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
· If the investigation is of a U.S. person, it is not being conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment.
Businesses are not allowed to tell anyone about such an order, for the obvious reason that secrecy is of utmost importance in matters of national security.
5. The Patriot Act allows law enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant anywhere a terrorist-related activity has occurred. “Before the Patriot Act, law enforcement personnel were required to obtain a search warrant in the district where they intended to conduct a search. However, modern terrorism investigations often span a number of districts, and officers therefore had to obtain multiple warrants in multiple jurisdictions, creating unnecessary delays. The Act provides that warrants can be obtained in any district in which terrorism-related activities occurred, regardless of where they will be executed. This provision does not change the standards governing the availability of a search warrant, but streamlines the search-warrant process.”[5]
6. The Patriot Act allows victims of computer hacking to request law enforcement assistance in monitoring their computers.
7. The Patriot Act
allows police officers, the FBI, the CIA and federal prosecutors to share
information.
8. The Patriot Act
prohibits the harboring of terrorists, enhances penalties for terrorist crimes,
removes or reduces statutes of limitations on terrorist crimes and punishes
bioterrorists and terrorist attacks on mass transit systems.
Source: www.lifeandliberty.gov
9. Under section 412, the Patriot Act allows the Attorney General to detain aliens for a limited time if he has reasonable grounds to believe that he/she “is engaged in any…activity that endangers the national security of the United States.”[6] The Attorney General will maintain custody of these non-citizens until they are removed from the United States, and until he no longer has reasonable grounds to believe that they are engaged in terrorist activity – at that point, they would be released.
Once again, this is a common sense measure. Obviously, we cannot allow possible terrorists to roam the streets of America while our law enforcement agencies scramble to gather enough evidence to convict.
Yes, this power does have limits – important ones that I believe correctly balance individual freedom with the safety of society.
· After detaining the alien, the Attorney General must either begin proceedings to remove the alien from the United States, or charge the alien with a crime, within 7 days.
· If the suspect does not have a country that will accept him, and releasing him would threaten someone’s safety, he can be detained in six-month increments. Otherwise, he must be released. Every six months, the Attorney General has to review the detention to see if it should be revoked, at which time the detainee can request release and submit evidence in his defense.
· The Supreme Court, a Supreme Court justice, a circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or any district court with jurisdiction, can review detentions in habeas corpus proceedings. The Supreme Court and the District of Columbia Circuit have the rule of decision in detention cases.
· Every six months, the Attorney General has to report to the Committee on the Judiciary of both houses of Congress on the number of aliens being detained, their nationalities, the length of their detention, how many were removed, released or should be released.
In these manners, the judicial and legislative branches can check the power of the Attorney General.
As you can see, these new law enforcement powers hardly spell the death of civil rights. The new powers of surveillance and detention granted to law enforcement agencies are common sense measures with many limits in place to protect our freedoms. The absolute worst thing that can happen to a US citizen because of the Patriot Act is law enforcement tapping into his electronic devices to see if he’s collaborating with terrorists or searching his house without telling him for a while – and that’s only if he starts acting like a terrorist. Contrary to the hysterical wailings from the ACLU, no one can be detained indefinitely – unless the entire federal judicial system and Congress both fall asleep simultaneously, in which case we won’t need the Patriot Act’s help. Contrary to the garbage from Kucinich’s campaign noted above, domestic political dissent, religious freedom and labor union activism can only be “suppressed” if the union, religious organization or protest group in question happens to be working with terrorists.
The Act does not use an overly broad definition of terrorism, as the ACLU claims. In a February 11, 2003 fundraising letter, the ACLU said that the Patriot Act “might allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as ‘domestic terrorism.’” This shameful and false charge was repeated by Stuart Taylor in “UnPATRIOTic” in an August 4, 2003 National Journal article. At www.aclu.org/safeandfree, the ACLU ponders, “How long will it be before an ambitious or politically motivated prosecutor uses the statute to charge members of controversial activist groups like Operation Rescue or Greenpeace with terrorism?”[7] Um, never. Section 802 of the Patriot Act clearly defines “domestic terrorism” as conduct that violates federal or state criminal law, and is dangerous to human life. Greenpeace and Operation Rescue can rest easy.
Not only is the Patriot Act not harmful to our civil liberties, but its provisions are crucial in the fight against terror. How can the government uncover terrorist cells without listening in to somebody? The government gets to listen to my cell phone conversations as long as they have a warrant, and my city doesn’t get dirty-bombed. That’s not a bad trade-off. (Can you hear me now?)
Is the Patriot Act
Unconstitutional?
The ACLU put out a flyer detailing the horrific threats to our liberties from the Patriot Act which is available in PDF at their Patriot-Act-bashing website, www.aclu.org/safeandfree. In the top corner is written, “With great haste and secrecy and in the name of the ‘war on terrorism,’
Congress passed legislation that gives the Executive Branch sweeping new powers that undermine the Bill of Rights and are unnecessary to keep us safe. This 342-page USA PATRIOT Act was passed on October 26, 2001, with little debate by Members of Congress, most of whom did not even read the bill.” I think it’s interesting that they put the phrase “war on terrorism” in quotation marks. That’s so typical of liberals – the country is in a death match with Arab savages, and they act if it’s all a political stunt. That seems to be their mantra lately – Bush wants to defend marriage? Political stunt. Save unborn babies? Political stunt. Whatever.
Anyway, let’s get to their key claim – the Patriot Act undermines the Bill of Rights. Which parts of the Bill of Rights, exactly? The flyer does not leave us in doubt:
“First Amendment - Freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and the press.
Fourth Amendment - Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Fifth Amendment - No person to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
Sixth Amendment - Right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury, right to be informed of the facts of the accusation, right to confront witnesses and have the assistance of counsel.
Eighth Amendment - No excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment shall be imposed.
Fourteenth Amendment - All persons (citizens and noncitizens) within the US are entitled to due process and the equal protection of the laws.”
Since the Patriot Act does not limit freedom of religion, speech, assembly and the press, and specifically prohibits the FBI from investigating persons based solely on those activities, we can pretty much set the 1st amendment aside as a concern about the Patriot Act’s constitutionality. Since the Patriot Act does not concern bail or unusual punishments, we can set aside the 8th also. (Has the ACLU completely lost it? As a matter of fact, yes.) But what about the other amendments they listed?
The Fourth Amendment
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 issue, 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.
Searches and seizures to investigate terrorism are hardly unreasonable, and the warrants permitted by the Patriot Act still have to be specific. Since the warrants can’t be requested unless they are for a terrorism investigation, they pretty much have to have probable cause before requesting a warrant. Therefore, the fourth amendment is not a problem for the Patriot Act.
The Fifth
Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The first clause in this amendment would obviously condemn the detentions of suspected terrorists under section 412, but for the exception that follows: “when in time of public danger.” Terrorists and their allies have absolutely put this nation in public danger; September 11 proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. The only people who don’t get that are liberals. (Remember the quotation marks around war on terrorism?) Under the Constitution, the government has the power – and the responsibility – to get any potential terrorists off the street.
The Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein
the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of
counsel for his defense.
Since few of the detentions permitted under the Patriot Act will involve “criminal prosecutions,” this amendment has little to do with the subject.
The Fourteenth
Amendment
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (This is the pertinent section of the 14th amendment; the other four sections concern voting rights, treason as a disqualifier for military, electoral, congressional or presidential office, and public debts.)
Essentially, the 14th amendment simply extends the limitations on the federal government found elsewhere in the Bill of Rights to the state governments. This amendment would conflict with the detentions of suspected terrorists under the Patriot Act, except for one detail: The 14th amendment concerns only state governments; the Patriot Act gives only the federal government (the Attorney General) the power to detain suspected terrorists.
Conclusion: Beating the terrorists at the protest of liberals
As we’ve seen, most of the opposition to the Patriot Act relies on shameless distortions lies and fearmongering to sell their case. Why? Simple. Aside from the shameless distortions, lies and fearmongering, they have no case. The opposition to the Patriot Act is based in the civil libertarian camp – who don’t want the government to do anything but build roads – and has filtered into the liberal camp via the “Anybody but Bush” sentiment. We saw this condition in Iraq already – almost every Democrat politician against the war used to be for it. As soon as Bush was for it, they were against it. Psychologists haven’t settled on a name for this syndrome yet, but several candidates include “ABB syndrome,” “Al Frankenitis,” and “Deaniac fever.” I personally prefer the term “Vast, left-wing conspiracy.” Once again, politics takes front seat to defending America. In the words of Matt Drudge, “Why do these people have jobs? They’re supposed to be working for us.”[8]
The fruits of the Patriot Act in the fight against terror are already being seen. Since the Patriot Act was passed, the Bush administration has prevented well over a hundred and fifty terrorist attacks. Terrorist cells in Buffalo, Portland, Detroit and Seattle have been removed. Hundreds of terrorism suspects have been identified and are being tracked in the US as we speak, and the number of terrorism investigations has doubled since 9/11.[9]
All this is because the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act is just that – it provides the tools necessary to win the war on terror. The provisions of the Act are obvious and essential. How on earth is the government supposed to prevent terrorist attacks if they can’t spy on and detain terrorists? In the apt words of President Bush, “Since when have terrorists…announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?”[10] The Patriot Act “eliminated barriers in place since 1978 that kept agents involved in criminal probes from benefiting from intelligence investigations, which are subject to lower standards for gathering evidence. To do surveillance, agents in intelligence probes do not have to show that an offense has been committed, as they must do in criminal cases.”[11] Under pre-Patriot regulations, law enforcement couldn’t monitor Mohammed Atta before he actually broke a law – i.e., hijacked a 747. And liberals are mad at Bush for not preventing 9/11??? At its anti-Patriot website, the ACLU’s motto is “It’s possible to keep America safe and free.” If “free” means the government can’t spy on or capture terrorists, then, no, it’s not possible to be safe and free – unless you’re a terrorist.
America is at war. We face a specific enemy that is organized, passionate, determined and deadly. I have news for the ACLU: The phrase war on terrorism requires no quotation marks. The fact that one of its fronts is on our own soil does not change the fact that we are in a war as real as Korea or Vietnam – and the stakes are far higher. What is the last war you recall where 71% of the American population opposed the use of military intelligence?[12] It’s never happened. Modern liberals have a real accomplishment to brag about. In the words of Cal Thomas, “This is a world war, and we had better start behaving like we are in one. Our enemies are.”[13]