Humanities 12: U.S. Patriot Act (Response to Quote)

The USA Patriot Act Confines Our Natural Rights as Citizens

Nathan Youssef

“Nothing that we have authorized conflicts with any law regarding privacy or any provision of the Constitution.”

- John Ashcroft, Secretary of State (2003) on the constitutional legality of the Patriot Act

The Patriot Act was an Act of the U.S. Congress as a response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 signed into office by George Bush on October 26, 2001. Two different sets of amendments to the Patriot Act have ensured the Act’s survival in our legal system. Provisions in February 2006 amended the Act as it related to capital punishment for terrorists, seaport security, the financing of terrorism, and the powers of the Secret Service, among others. On February 27, 2010, President Barak Obama signed into law controversial provisions of the Patriot Act that had been set to expire. These provisions included the approval of roving wiretaps; seizure of records and property; and surveillance on terrorist suspects. The Act significantly reduced restrictions on the collection of intelligence by law enforcement agencies when concerning activities within the United States that may threaten national security. The definition of terrorism as defined in the Patriot Act was expanded to include domestic terrorism, which significantly increased activities that could be investigated by law enforcement officials. The Patriot Act has expanded the Secretary of Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions and freed law enforcement and immigration authorities to deport immigrants suspected of terrorist acts. In operation, the Act has implemented laws that limit our natural rights as citizens of the United States.

Proponents of the US Patriot Act like Attorney General Ashcroft argue, as a justification for the law, that there has not been a successful terrorist attack in the United States since the implementation of the laws. Since terrorism presents a clear and present threat to our society today, Americans face a balance between freedom and security. "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is a danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."[i]

John Ashcroft played an instrumental role in the Patriot Act as a response to the September 11 attacks. In the wake of the attacks, the passage of the USA Patriot Act became a speedy success of Congress, but, as the fog of war cleared, proved synonymous with the unconstitutional laws, orders, practices, policies, and regulations that were justified through the Act. Ashcroft misled the American public in thinking that the Patriot Act was immediately successful in moderating terrorist activities. He used the phrase “terrorism related investigations” when speaking to the public about those who were being investigated and detained under the Patriot Act, many of which had no connection to terrorism whatsoever. Those who opposed Ashcroft and the Justice Department were labeled as agents and aids of terrorist activities. In pushing the Patriot Act, John Ashcroft capitalized on the public’s fear of another 9/11. He regarded himself and supporters of the Act as the true patriots who were protecting their country in every way possible. The Patriot Act became a reality in law before organized opposition to the unconstitutional provisions could limit its success. The Patriot Act and the serious questions surrounding it are Ashcroft’s legacy: taking away our natural rights as citizens of the United States.

While the Patriot Act offers many protections that are not granted to the public in traditional criminal investigations (according to Andrew McCarthy in the Patriot Debates), it ultimately breaches rights defined in the Bill of Rights, specifically those in the first and fourth amendments.[ii] The Act violates our Constitutional rights and has a tremendous impact on our social lives.

As defined in the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This statement defines the limits to which our government can control our expression. The Patriot Act violates freedom of speech by taking away the right of people to express their controversial opinions without the threat of consequences. Since the Patriot Act gives our government the ability to prosecute citizens for suspicious behavior and action, people must monitor their expression of ideologies as they face the extreme violation of their democratic rights of the freedom of political expression. While the government still may not deny our rights to hold viewpoints on certain issues, the Patriot Act, in effect, acts to suppress our public vocalization of these matters. The Patriot Act, by denying the people their right to freely act upon governmental and political issues, confines the true freedoms of the First Amendment as it pertains to today’s society.

The Patriot Act is also in obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment in that is gives federal authorities the ability to obtain private information without undergoing traditional warrant procedures.[iii] The Fourth Amendment states that, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Under the laws of the new Patriot Act, our government can seize property of suspected terrorists without authorization of a judge or jury.[iv] As stated earlier, personal records are not protected from the unlawful conduct approved by the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act clearly violates the democratic structure of the state. A democratic government, according to Abraham Lincoln, should be, “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” This description of democracy protects the unalienable rights of citizens of our country. In a democratic setting, there are systems of checks and balances, which ensure the ability of people to live freely under a non-domineering government. The Patriot Act takes away the self-assurance of the people of the States to freely express their interests through speech, press, reading, and action. Basic laws of the Constitution to maintain democratic freedom are violated by the Patriot Act and undermine a citizen’s right to demonstrate freedom.

"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised,"[v] The Patriot Act gives the government an unreasonable amount of unchecked power to search individuals’ financial records, medical histories, ISP usage data, bookstore purchases, public library internet usage, travel patterns, or any traceable activity. Under the laws of this Act, the government is not required to supply evidence that subjects of search warrants are an agent of terrorist activity. The FBI is not confined to searches and seizures with probable cause and do not have to reasonably justify the investigation of activities, but must simply make the broad assertion that a person’s activities may be related to terrorism. The Patriot Act allows for the non-disclosure of searches in some cases, and, in the original pass of the Act, searches could be conducted without the authorization of judicial oversight. Government authorities that wish to search a citizen’s personal records must only label a search under the broad criteria of a suspicious person for terrorist activity as defined in the Patriot Act. A judge, who, in any case, does not have the authority to reject an application of search, acts as an audience to these officials who can unreasonably search without consent of court since such searches, when labeled terrorist activity, do not require the approval of a judicial overseer, the Patriot Act undermines the system of checks and balances of our republic and does not give the opportunity for citizens to challenge or petition illegitimate governmental searches.

This blanket statement by Secretary Ashcroft is demonstrably false, as the courts have since ruled several provisions of the act unconstitutional. In addition, many Senators voiced serious concerns over the constitutionality of the act at the time it was passed and again during the reauthorizations of 2006 and 2011. The opposition in Congress throughout the 2006 reauthorization debate led to compromises on several sections of the Act, all due to constitutional concerns. Even after the 2006 and 2011 reauthorizations, provisions of the act still face challenges in the courts today.

[i] http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/7/26/183338.shtml