The PATRIOT Act Gets Renewed, No Word On When We’ll Renew Our Constitution

In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the pressure for Washington to take drastic action in protecting Americans was immense. With emotions flying high the Patriot Act, also called Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, was passed nearly unanimously, with only Russ Feingold voting against the measure. On February the 25th, the House voted to renew the Patriot Act with virtually no changes in the measure. Yet, in our desperation to keep ourselves safe from harm, have we been naive to think this would solve more problems than it solved? Has our inability to see past “immediate” threats left us too short-sighted to notice long-term problems?

This WIRED article notes that between December 16, 2002, and June 15, 2003 “Justice Department investigators found that 34 claims were credible of more than 1,000 civil rights and civil liberties complaints stemming from anti-terrorism efforts, including allegations of intimidation and false arrest.”

Of course, it contains over 500 pages of detailed legalese, the full text of which was neither read nor made available to Congress in a reasonable time before it was voted on in 2001 – which by itself should have convinced members to vote against it. Many of the surveillance powers authorized in the Act are still not clearly defined. This leaves a lot of room for broad applications and loose interpretations of what can and cannot be done in the name of our “protection”, which, although this is only my opinion, could be why more complaints about civil liberties violations aren’t found “credible”.

What are some of the things the Patriot Act does establish?

(as compiled by the ACLU):

Search your home and not even tell you… by conducting secret “sneak and peek” searches of your home or office, without informing you that a warrant was issued.  (SECTION 213)

Collect information about what books you read, what you study, your purchases, your medical history and your personal finances … without probable cause.  (SECTION 215)

Label you a “terrorist” if you belong to an activist group … and the USA PATRIOT Act broadly expands the official definition of terrorism, so many domestic groups that engage in certain types of civil disobedience could very well find themselves labeled as terrorists.  (SECTIONS 411, 802)

Monitor your e-mails and watch what internet sites you visit … by monitoring Internet traffic and e-mail communications

on any Internet service provider — *without* probable cause. (SECTION 216)

Take away your property without even a notice or a hearing if the government merely says a person or organization has engaged in or is planning an act of “domestic terrorism.” The government could thus effectively bankrupt an organization with which it disagrees.  (SECTION 806)

Spy on innocent Americans by allowing a vast array of information on U.S. citizens to be collected and shared with the CIA (and other non-law enforcement officials) without proper judicial oversight or other safeguards.   (SECTIONS 203 AND 901)

Put immigrants in jail indefinitely.  The USA PATRIOT Act permits indefinite incarceration of immigrants and other non-citizens without the government having to show that they are, in fact, terrorists.  (SECTION 412)

Wiretap you under a warrant that doesn’t even have your name on it. Judges are required to approve a wiretap without even knowing who is to be wiretapped or where the wiretap is to be placed.  (SECTION 216)

This is the surveillance state the Bush administration created, and the Obama administration is embracing and expanding.

So what are some of the fruits of the authorities granted from the Patriot Act besides ridiculous TSA body scanners that don’t even work? The Executive Summary of the ACLU’s 2009 report on the Patriot Act notes that “More than seven years after its implementation, there is little evidence to demonstrate that the Patriot Act has made America more secure from terrorists. But there are many unfortunate examples that the government abused these authorities in ways that both violated the rights of innocent people and squandered precious security resources.” (The report is a quick read, and contains so much vital information no attempt to paraphrase and no amount of citations could replace the necessity of actually reading the report for yourself… so read it here after you’re done reading this piece)

There have been highly publicized examples of the government attempting to prosecute what juries went on to decide was “free speech”, as in the case of Sami Omar Al-Hussayen. Of course, the Supreme Court is currently weighing another case of free speech versus the provisions of the Patriot Act as well.

So-called sneak-and-peek warrants that were sold as a vital tool for terrorism investigations are now overwhelmingly used in ordinary criminal investigations. In fact, only three of the 763 “sneak-and-peek” requests in fiscal year 2008 involved terrorism cases, according to a July 2009 report from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Sixty-five percent were drug cases. If we look back to those abuses uncovered by the Church Committee, we find some cases in which surveillance of journalists, activists and even Supreme Court justices was initiated for manifestly unlawful political purposes. But just as often, information gathered in the course of an initially legitimate national security investigation was later used for an illegitimate political end. Another thing we should worry about is the centralization of such information and what that could mean for hackers and/or spy agencies infiltrating the US systems.

We have learned that some National Security Agency operators find it hilarious to pass around recordings of U.S. soldiers’ pillow talk, but that’s not might not be something to provide serious trepidation about the Patriot Act. It’s that all the information, even if acquired for legitimate purposes, gives the people who hold it enormous political power. A half century ago, a reporter, activist or senator might have found their career ruined by J. Edgar Hoover, should they cross him, by an embarrassing leak to the press. But we don’t have such pettiness in politics now… Just ask Valerie Plame.

We know two successive inspector general reports found endemic misuse of NSLs (National Security Letters – secret demand letters issued without judicial review to obtain sensitive personal information), including requests for information the FBI wasn’t entitled to obtain and “exigent letters” sent when no real emergency existed. We know that in at least one case, NSLs were used to obtain records after a judge rejected an attempt to obtain them via court order, citing 1st Amendment concerns. We know expanded National Security Agency wiretap powers approved last year have led to substantial “overcollection” of Americans’ purely domestic communications – including Bill Clinton’s e-mails. Maybe this shouldn’t be considered malicious abuse of powers, but these are still violations of the Constitution.

This NPR report outlines several other cases of alleged abuse of civil liberties. It notes the common argument that because of the secrecy which shrouds the uses of the Patriot Act, as well as the abilities and practices of intelligence agencies, Americans can have their rights violated and never have known about it.

We do not need to destroy the very thing which our government was created to protect – individual freedom. In the Federalist Papers, founding father James Madison wrote “But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain.” The government uses fear to justify the implementation of the Patriot Act and the further intrusions into the private lives of our citizens. In moments of crisis, when a country is engaged in acts of aggression or defense, and the very existence of that country and its culture is said to be threatened, the most passionate and uncritical devotion is aroused in a citizen.

The biblical lesson of the speck in your brothers eye while there’s a plank in yours is worth noting. Instead of confronting the ways in which America antagonizes groups of the oppressed in nations overseas, we decided to double down and declare a “war on terror”. Because we are still unwilling to examine terrorism and its causes in a calm and reasoned manner, a reasoned position for the war on terror abroad, in Iraq and Afghanistan (though there are more military actions that go undeclared), and at home, in the form of the Patriot Act, cannot be given. Instead we transmute our fears into a war of universals so that they might more easily be justified – good versus evil; freedom versus terror.

We need to protect ourselves. We need to have the best military in the world to exact justice on those who would do us harm. We don’t need to violate the Constitution to save the Constitution. We don’t need to wave the flag and rattle our sabres at every nation that hates us. As George Washington said in his farewell address we must “guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism”.

See a list of who voted for and against the renewal of the Patriot Act here.