COLUMN: Fallacies found in PATRIOT Act
The horrifying events of Sept. 11 caused many Americans to feel vulnerable to outside aggression for the first time in decades. There was overwhelming consensus that something had to be done to ensure that a similar act would not be repeated on American soil. Hence the creation of the USA PATRIOT Act. The 300-plus page bill that amends several very complex and confusing existing laws was passed in a state of fear, confusion and intense political pressure just 45 days after the attacks and with very little meaningful debate.
Since then, the Act has been the center of nationwide controversy. One hundred sixty communities and three states have passed resolutions condemning the PATRIOT Act. Three conservative Idaho republicans have proposed legislation intended to rescind some of the powers granted in the PATRIOT Act. It is worth mentioning that Rep. Otter’s Amendment to the PATRIOT Act, which would take away funding for some of its key powers, passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 309-118. This shows that many legislators have now examined the act more closely and have realized their mistake.
Because of the very objective of the act, it seems appropriate that it would grant greater powers to law enforcement agencies. But the core of the debate is whether the act goes too far in trampling constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties. The desired end – national security – is undeniably justifiable, but are the means also?
Some of the most controversial sections of the act include Sections 215, 214 and 505. Sections 215 and 214 lower the burden of proof that must be shown to a judge in order to obtain private records – probable cause is no longer the standard, as it has always been in criminal cases.
Section 505 might be the most interesting of all, and, oddly, maybe the least discussed. This section allows law enforcement agencies to write “national security letters” requesting personal information without judicial oversight or demonstration of probable cause. These letters were used before the act, but the PATRIOT Act made it possible for field agents to write them; before, no one lower than the deputy assistant director could write such letters.
The expansions of the government’s power in order to fight terror are terrifying themselves. The idea that guaranteed constitutional rights of liberty can be taken away from the public so quickly and with such little debate is terrifying.
We need to remember what Supreme Court Justice David Davis wrote: “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace … No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence.” Ex Parte Milligan.
Fear is no longer the only force driving policy and public opinion. Reason has triumphantly reentered the arena. The question of whether we should surrender civil liberties in favor of national security is gaining public attention – as well it should. National security is imperative, but there must be ways of reaching it without stepping on the American people. And maybe, just maybe, if we spent more than 45 days thinking about it we could come up with a better solution.
Evan Fetters is a junior studying law and constitutional studies. comments can be sent to evanfetters@cc.usu.edu