Security Vs. Liberty

Security vs. Liberty:

The Battle for America

In the wake of September 11th, the country was in turmoil. Fear and confusion were rampant; direction was required. President George Bush, in a famous address, acknowledged the severity of the attacks, and called for a newly invigorated sense of nationalism. His plan for preventing future attacks called for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and expanded powers to intelligence agencies (Bush). During this time, one of the most provocative bills was allowed to pass, under the guise of a terrorist seeking bill. The Patriot Act was indeed effective in increasing the power allotted to surveillance agencies, but many feel at too high of a cost. Many have asked the question... "is the cure worse than the disease?" In order to appropriately analyze the Patriot Act, it is important to look at its exact stipulations, and how it has been used (misused) at the time of its passage and now.

On Oct 24th 2001, the Patriot Act made its first appearance in front of the 107th Congress. In a move towards stronger military and better intelligence, the White House introduced "An Act To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled" (Trandahl 1). Notice the now notoriously and ominously vague phrase that states simply "and for other purposes" (Trandahl 1). However, because of the post September 11th hysteria, the US was willing to allow such a bill to pass through. In times of crisis, it is common for countries to enter a mode of blind nationalism, and the Patriot Act fit the bill. It seemed appropriate at a time where every home was decorated in red white and blue to have a bill that promised to find and destroy domestic terrorists that we were readily assured were residing in our midst. It was a declaration of emergency, and became a sort of covert "Marshall Law". America, as it often is, was misled by a provided short sight and undue haste. Threatened with the possibility (or probability) of an imminent attack, the US seemed willing to grant the government un-precedented power and access. The Patriot Act was seen as a "desperate times, desperate measures" bill, and passed the House and Senate almost unanimously. However, as time passed and the true repercussions of the Patriot Act became apparent, critics began to come forward. Librarians were among the most avid and stubborn of the said critics, lambasting the Patriot Act as a violation of civil rights. The ACLU, with its 400,000 thousand members and supporters, also took aim and began filing lawsuits against the federal government, claiming the Patriot Act was a challenge to the 1st Amendment (Kronholz).

Despite said opposition, the powers that be have stood strong by the Patriot Act. In fact, many would claim that it is a necessary tool in protecting the freedoms that many in its opposition say it corrupts. The Patriot Act is essentially, at its core, a bill which allows intelligence agencies to engage in the covert surveillance of ordinary citizens with little or no regulation. Under the Patriot Act they are granted the "authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism (Trandahl 13)." However, agencies that engage in such interceptions do not need to require evidence to do so. The fear of many is that the government might misuse this to begin random inquiries into nominally or un-suspicious persons. This actually grants the CIA and others the right to request information from seemingly innocuous establishments, such as libraries. As a result, the last for years have seen a 100 fold increase in the number of such requests. In addition to requesting information from libraries and employer, the act allows for the seizure of voice mails, e-mails, and other electronic forms of communication, again, without requiring necessary cause. Finally, and this is actually far from all of the Patriot Act's stipulations, the ability to arrest suspects without warrant or charge.

As of now, 2005, the Patriot Act has had its 4th anniversary. According to Sec. 224 of the Patriot Act, many of the surveillance adages are set to expire. In a bi-partisan call for reform, civil rights groups and others had high hopes for significant changes to the Patriot Act's provisions. Indeed, those with their ear to