The Patriot Act Redux

The Patriot act was put before the United States Senate today, and failed to pass; both Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales having lobbied hard to move it through successfully. This spells a major defeat for this administration, and I feel, begs a closer look at the meat of this legislation.

This Act was passed during the weeks after the tragic 9/11 terror attacks in New York City, and was rushed through congress with virtually no dissent- hardly surprising given that the United States had just two weeks before suffered the most devastating terrorist attack to date, the citizen populace was in a state of hysteria and anger, and that few in congress had actually read the 300 plus page Act.

There has more recently been an outcry denouncing the Act as an assault on civil liberties; resolutions having been passed in 152 communities across America, including several major cities, and three states, which condemn the Act as such. As well, several lawsuits, including one filed recently by the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), urged the courts to remove or invalidate provisions of the act which threaten privacy or the right to due process.

Conversely, John Ashcroft has launched his "Patriot Rocks" concert tour, visiting 18 cities and meeting with local law enforcement officials in order to re-enforce what he sees as the act's virtues. Ashcroft states that had the Patriot act been in place earlier, 9/11 would never have happened, and that since the patriot act has been introduced, it has staved of more potential major terroriost attacks within the United States- a double negative that simply cannot be proved.

The question duly arises; how threatening is this Act, and what is truly within it? The answer is this; that parts of the Act formalize and regulate government conduct that was formerly unregulated- and potentially much more frightening before this act was passed. Other parts clearly do expand governmental powers and allow it to peer more closely into the lives of it's citizens.
Perhaps the most frightening aspect of the Act is the lack of government candor in describing it's use. Inquiries from the Judiciary committee are classified, and FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) requests have been half-answered, or blown off. In the absence of any real knowledge about how this Act has been used, one may justifiably fear it abstractly. To fear it's potential, since that is the only real knowledge we possess.

One of the most hotly contested parts of the Act has been Section 215 of the Patriot Act; which allows Federal law enforcement officials to conduct searches of your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue, and mosque records without your knowledge or consent, and essentially warrantless. The FBI needs now only to certify to a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Security Act) Judge- without need for evidence or probably cause, that the search protects against terrorism. As well, the Judge has no authority to reject this application. Section 215 does extend FBI power to conduct essentially warrantless records searches, even on people who are not themselves terror suspects, with little or no judicial oversight. The government sees this as an incremental change in the law, but the lack of meaningful judicial oversight and the expanded scope of possible suspects makes this a fairly dramatic shift in my eyes.

This controvercial Act contains articles which I find to be obstrusive and potentially unconstitutional, however also it serves to illustrate a fundamental problem with the post 9/11 governmental system. Amid accusations of wasteful spending, and outright fraud aimed towards the Department of Homeland Security, there are found to be legal loopholes which allow the purchase of firearms by individuals currently on government terrorist watch lists, at gun shows. While this loophole is defended by the NRA, the Patriot Act intrudes on the rights of American citizens who are not on watchlists, or suspected of any terrorist activities. The gross missapropriation of government sanctions and restrictions (on the law abiding, rather than those legitemately suspected of crime) is ridiculous.

When taken to it's logical conclusion, yes, I will concede that passing laws which allow the government to watch the goings on of it's citizens will lower the chance of further terrorist activities; but is living in a repressive, closed society in which the populace is in constant fear and surveillance by it's government, truly worth the protection from possible attacks? If we live in fear of terrorism, we have made ourselves victims of it, even if we never fall prey to terrorosm. The right to live in a free and open society comes with risks, it's difficult and dangerous, it leaves us open to crime and terrorism, but it is worth it. If we allow ourselves to surrender to peace of mind at the expense of freedom, then the dream of the United States of America is dead.

The Iraqi elections completed just yesterday, are a momentous and heartening sign of the advancement of peace in the area, but begs the question, when the United States, the foremost republic in the world is rapidly degenerating it's democracy, can we trust the direction that Iraq's burgeoning democracy is following, being instituted by this same United States?

“If we surrender our liberty in the name of security, we shall have neither”
-Benjamin Franklin

Chimerical...I'll write a better one with this title later, more posh

I am not dead. Anyone who cares may have supposed this. I have merely been out and about and I forgot to come back home for a few months. I would regall you with my tales and tails, but they are tedious and involve too many frenchmen with blunderbusts and rapiers. Speaking of, my rapist whit shall return to this blog when I do not have school writing to do. Huzzah for university the cause of and solution to all of my prrblems. Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for...oh shut the bloody buggering hell up I'm trying to write here, now look what you've made me do...ahhh! Codfish and Alabaster.