Panel wrangles over PATRIOT Act
A debate waged between Utah State University professors and a former Utah attorney general Tuesday explored the benefits and dangers of the USA PATRIOT Act.
More than 100 students and faculty members attended the panel sponsored by USU’s College Democrats, Amnesty International, Black Student Union, Pi Sigma Alpha and Associated Students of USU Public Affairs Board.
The USA PATRIOT Act, (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) was passed 45 days after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. The document, which is more than 300 pages long, gives the federal government greater powers of surveillance and information sharing, as well as greater control of possible criminal activity.
The PATRIOT Act is intended to protect the United States from further attacks, but is criticized by some for infringing on the Fourth Amendment, which establishes the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and states warrants should be issued on probable cause.
At the panel Tuesday, former Attorney General of Utah Paul VanDamm said if Americans believe in the Fourth Amendment, they should view the act with caution.
“This is an act that, when fully implemented and fully used, will allow federal prosecutors to invade, as it were, your records held by third parties,” VanDamm said, citing financial, library, travel, phone, medical and church records. He said federal prosecutors can do this without consulting a judge, without review and without notifying the person investigated.
Peter McNamara, USU political science associate professor, said every major conflict in American history has resulted in civil liberty restrictions, citing the confiscation of private property to support the American Army during the Revolutionary War, subscription during all major conflicts since the Civil War, and the placement of martial law on Hawaii during World War II.
“These restrictions have been a natural and necessary response to the departure from normalcy that war brings,” McNamara said. “Now, sometimes these restrictions have been severe, sometimes they’ve been severely misguided, but to say they are not in some sense or form be necessary is to mistake both the nature of war and the foundation of civil liberties.”
USU history professor Ross Peterson said there is historical precedence for legislation such as the PATRIOT Act. He said when Japanese-Americans were relocated World War II, they were deprived of property and due process, among other things, without being convicted or even charged of any acts of espionage.
“Often this type of legislation has been used domestically after a conflict is over,” Peterson said. “I think this act, probably more than any other in history, has blurred the line and obliterated the line of the separation of powers relative to the executive and the judiciary.”
Anthony Peacock, USU political science associate professor, said the overall intent of the act is to grant the FBI and the Department of Justice the same sort of intelligence-gathering in domestic affairs that the CIA has in foreign affairs. He said it builds on similar legislation that has been in place for decades.
“[The act] also allows prosecutors to share information from grand jury proceedings with intelligence officials, and to delay notification of search warrants, a practice that the U.S. Supreme Court approved back in 1979,” Peacock said.
In another 1974 decision, he said, the Supreme Court also upheld provisions of 1970 Bank Secrecy Act, which he said is very similar to the PATRIOT Act and which allows investigators to obtain bank records without notice to customers, or the usual adherence for probable cause.
“The PATRIOT Act does not involve any new techniques of law enforcement, as I’ve suggested, that have not already been used against organized crime, drug dealers, mail fraud, passport fraud and a host of other felonies,” Peacock said.
McNamara said the loss of civil liberties due to the PATRIOT Act would have less of an impact than historically similar legislation.
“There is something of a silver lining with the present conflict, at least with regard to civil liberties,” McNamara said. “And that is, it’s an extended period of something less than total war … [and] provides the chance for legislative corrections and maintaining the balance between the executive branch and other branches of government, something that’s almost always lost in wartime.”
Peacock said the various means of sharing information in the PATRIOT Act has led to a lot of good results, including the breakup of terror cells in Buffalo, Detroit, Seattle and Portland. He invited those who are critical of the act to provide a better solution, or show a case where there’s been actual proof of wrongdoing or violation of the Constitution.
“The PATRIOT Act provides good balance between the equally legitimate objectives of national security – the protection of American lives – and individual due process which involves the protection of American liberties,” Peacock said. “In fact, I go further to suggest that it will enhance civil liberties through the security it provides.”
Panel members fielded questions from the audience. In response to a question from senior Tracy Kell, majoring in public relations, McNamara said the war on terror is misnamed.
“The best way to deal with the problem, and it’s an imperfect one, is to limit ourselves to eliminating [Osama] bin Laden and his associates,” McNamara said.
Several panelists during the course of the event encouraged students to read the act for themselves and form an opinion.
Medlir Mema, College Democrats president, said, “The purpose [of the panel] is not to persuade one way or the other, but to get students thinking and voicing concerns.”
-heidithue@cc.usu.edu