A close examination of the Patriot Act confirms that those that champion civil liberties as such are justifiably alarmed. The name itself, the PATRIOT Act is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. The label for this law was cleverly designed and packaged to enlist broad support from a nation that is generally vulnerable to patriotic propaganda but even more so at the time that it was so swiftly enacted. Provisions of the Act violate the Constitution and tear down the freedoms for which true patriots have fought and died. Most Congressmen admit to not have read the Act before voting to pass it but those voting in favor were overwhelming. Citizens and legislators were all too eager to submit to the rhetoric that suggested that sacrificing a certain amount of freedom was a small price to pay for security.
The term ‘War on Terror’ has been continually used to justify breaches of the Constitution as well as the basic civil liberties of citizens and foreigners alike. One of the most obvious tactics in the ‘War on Terror and the PATRIOT Act is the widespread use of racial profiling, described as when law enforcement officials use race, ethnicity, religion, and even color of skin to determine which persons are more probable to commit a crime such as terrorism. The invocation of this phrase has repeatedly prohibited rational discussions regarding civil injustices such as profiling individuals based on their race. The not-so-subtle insinuation is that “one cannot condemn racial profiling because to do so will hinder the war on terrorism and undermine national security” (McDonald, 2001).
The popularly stated position is that racial profiling is necessary because not using this tool of law enforcement would compromise the effort against terrorism thus sacrificing national security. This argument is fundamentally flawed because it erroneously presupposes that racial profiling is an essential element of this emotion-evoking endeavor. However, the reverse is accurate. Profiling, as a tactic employed by law enforcement, redirects important assets, estranges and enrages prospective allies, and, most importantly, is contradictory with the uniquely American concept of equality and freedom. Undoubtedly, if profiling in the name of terrorism has not been proved effective, the profiling of black citizens in the name of ‘getting tough on crime’ is not effective as well and causes more harm, ultimately, than whatever good may come of it. (McDonald, 2001).
Libertarian organizations such as the Civil Liberties Union claimed that the Bush administration had a proclivity for secrecy and rejects the concept of transparency. The PATRIOT Act has reproved its agenda for the “outright removal of checks and balances” Conservatives were alarmed as well including former Republican Representative Bob Barr, who is best known for leading the attempt to impeach President Clinton. Barr had led a group named “Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances” which focused solely on challenging the renewal of the Patriot Act in 2004 (Lakely, 2005).
According to the Justice Department, the PATRIOT Act gives support to and encourages enhanced sharing of information among various law enforcement agencies at all levels. The Act gives law enforcement more latitude when attempting to intercept transmissions of ‘suspected terrorist’s discussions via electronic surveillance. Agents of the government can now secretly tap into any citizen’s phone calls or internet communications including all visited websites. Additionally, the Act increased border security funding and allows the Attorney General to disburse monetary rewards to those individuals and entities such as municipalities that have enjoined the fight against terrorism. Finally, the PATRIOT Act permits government agencies’ power to delay notification of search warrants, “which (is) a long-existing crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades in organized crime, drug cases, and child pornography” (US Department of Justice, 2005).
Critics of the Act suggest that is in contradiction to the tenants of the First Amendment. As an example, a citizen can be identified and treated as a terrorist if they are breaking federal law such as trespassing on public property during a protest when a federal official is injured, not by that person but simply injured during the protest. This allows any person who was exercising their constitutional right of free speech to be arrested and detained indefinitely without the benefit of legal counsel, a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Though the Justice Department disagrees with this assessment of the Act, it is conceivable that a person could be prosecuted as a terrorist if that person played a part, however unintentionally, or is present while another person is injured while making a political statement. The Department claims that domestic terrorism regulations instituted by the PATRIOT Act “is limited to conduct that breaks criminal laws (which results) in death and was committed with the intent to commit terrorism” (Ward, 2002). The ‘intent to commit terrorism’ is an ambiguous phrase open to wide interpretation as are many aspects of the Act which causes many to question to what extent civil liberties are affected by it. The dispatching of the due process of law has been the most visible of the civil liberties that have been curtailed by the Act.
While that Act was being formulated, The Justice Department requested that it contain provisions that allowed the Department to detain suspects indefinitely without having been charged with a crime. The Act, in its final version, allows for an individual to be detained for an indefinite time for violating a slight technicality of immigration law. If the suspect for whatever reason cannot be immediately deported because, for example, they are legally in the country but had an insignificant flaw in their documentation, that individual can be lawfully detained for life. The attorney general simply must certify once every six months that this person is a ‘threat’ to national security (“U.S. Detention”, 2002: 472).
The words of Benjamin Franklin, described in the following paraphrased quote, ‘those that give up liberties for safety deserve neither,’ were disregarded by the proponents of the Act. As an illustration of the scope and magnitude of this problem, a Wall Street Journal story reported that seven congressional Democrats filed a request from the U.S. Attorney General to ascertain the status of more than a thousand detainees in federal facilities. The request was granted after the congressmen cited the Freedom of Information Act. According to the report obtained by the lawmakers, “some detainees have been denied access to their attorneys, proper food, or protection from physical assault” (Levy, 2001). Some had been kept confined to solitary confinement though they had not been formally charged with a crime. Numerous detainees of Arab descent were allowed one phone call attempt to an attorney per week. However, if they could not reach their counsel, they could not call back until another week had passed. In addition, citizens are denied their right to due process by the Act. They can be forcibly detained and refused access to an attorney with no evidence being supplied by which to justify this previously illegal action. This treatment is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment right to due process of law. Though the Guantanamo detainees were not U.S. citizens and not entitled to such constitutional protections, many wonder how the country will be perceived by those it hopes to convert to American-style democracy if it doesn’t apply its own rules to all persons. The arguments given by those in favor of the Act are easily reasoned and justified but it is clear that the war on terror the U.S. is waging has caused irreparable damage to the civil liberties formerly guaranteed by the Constitution.
Wadsworth Publishing surveyed experts in the field of criminal justice. According to its findings, 95 percent believed the PATRIOT Act was passed without thoughtful consideration of the impact this legislation had on public policy. Most, 74 percent, responded that the PATRIOT Act violated the rights of individuals and a large percentage of these felt that laws already on the books, if implemented, could adequately and equally protect the country from terrorism (Thompson Wadsworth, 2003). One can surmise from these findings that those experts surveyed supported the government’s endeavor to protect the nation from future terrorist attacks but also felt that the Act is a threat to the nation’s freedoms. Many of the provisions it contains are inconsistent with the Constitution specifically the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Eighth, and 13th Amendments, the violation of the First Amendment arguably the most egregious.
Though congressmen did not fully realize what they were passing in the rush to give the appearance of action in the wake of 9/11, they have had ample opportunity to examine it since that time. These legislators and those in the Bush Administration which initially proposed the Act certainly must realize that, though they justify it in the name of national security, the Act impedes the freedoms that many have sacrificed their lives to protect. Ironically, the Congress and President, rather than tempering the deviating portions of the Act, promoted the legislation as a united declaration of PATRIOTism. It was a deplorable sales technique that is rightly vilified by conservative and liberal Americans alike. However, many citizens have been scared by the threat of terrorism to the point that they are willing to give up liberty for security, a sad testament to the legacy of the founding fathers.
Works Cited
Lakely, James G. “Conservatives, Liberals Align Against Patriot Act.” The Washington Times. (2005).
Levy, Robert A. “The USA Patriot Act: We Deserve Better.” The Cato Institute. (2001).
MacDonald, Heather. “The War on the Police … and How it Harms the War on Terrorism.” Supra. Vol. 7, I. 16. (2001).
Thompson Wadsworth. “Thompson Wadsworth Criminal Justice Survey.” Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. (2003).
US Department of Justice. “Waging the war on terror.” (2005).
“U.S. Detention of Aliens in Aftermath of September 11 Attacks.” The American Journal of International Law. Vol. 96, No. 2, pp. 470-475. (2002).
Ward, Elaine N. “USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.” The University of Texas at Austin. (2002).