There was a moment last week during the State of the Union address where some members of Congress thought they had embarrassed the president. George W. Bush was speaking about the fight against terrorism and said, “Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year.” There was some unexpected applause and laughter from one side of the aisle. President Bush turned to his right and said to those Democrats, “The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens — you need to renew the Patriot Act.” This was, of course, met by applause from the president’s party and the moment was once again his.
This little exchange is indicative of a battle we will see in the coming year. Whether it will be on the Senate and House floors or just on the campaign trail is yet to be seen. There are some who feel this law goes too far. In fact, just yesterday a federal judge ruled a minor part of the law unconstitutional. But, I received a piece of Howard Dean campaign literature the other day and it said, “Our civil and immigration rights have been attacked.” This statement takes it a little far.
It is this type of inflammatory declaration that leads many to believe this law and others are representative of the evil Big Brother called the government. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for smaller government and I think this administration has disappointed many conservatives by not adhering strictly to that principle, but drastic times call for drastic measures.
The Patriot Act was passed a few weeks after the tragedy of September 11th. It was hurriedly drafted and implemented as soon as possible. We will always be left to wonder if the provisions of the Patriot Act could have given law enforcement the tools to prevent 9/11. Yet, while the law is not perfect, the premise is. We need to examine if and where it needs to be changed and how best to enact any such changes.
Section 2:15 is the section that many people use as justification for calling the Patriot Act an assault on civil liberties. They claim that this allows federal agencies to look at anyone’s records, anytime they want, for any reason. The fact of the matter is that these law enforcement officials must go in front of a judge and receive permission under guidelines which are stricter than the regular criminal justice system.
In cases not dealing with terrorism or drug trafficking, a warrant can be obtained by going in front of a grand jury, which won’t necessarily require probable cause. According to Mark Carallo, the justice department spokesman, as part of an investigation many records are available, but “you have to convince a federal judge, and you’re also subject to congressional oversight.” For some added protection from terrorism, this doesn’t sound as bad as someone like Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., might tell you.
There is a reform bill currently in Congress called the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE), which tweaks the bill, specifically section 2:15. It has received broad support, from groups and leaders on the left to groups and leaders on the right.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal ran an editorial supporting SAFE this past weekend. In it they stated, “The SAFE bill would not repeal Section 2:15, but it would require the government to show ‘specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe’ that the target of the search is a suspected terrorist or a spy. The change would not cripple the fight against terrorism; instead, it would require the FBI to focus its attention on criminal suspects, not law-abiding citizens.”
The justice department has some reservations about this bill. But the groups of legislators proposing this legislation say it is only meant to bring clarity to the Patriot Act. It is supposed to keep federal investigators focused on terrorists instead of law-abiding citizens.
This is all well and good, except when you have someone suspected of terrorism without a record of terrorism. It may be too late if and when such persons attack.
While you hear the Democratic candidates criticizing the administration for attacking your civil liberties, take it with a grain of salt. The Patriot Act is not that bad. While we are in this global fight against terrorism, it is important that we give the men and women who work to protect us every day the tools they need to do it well.
If slight changes, such as those proposed in the SAFE act and those stipulated by some courts are deemed necessary, then after much debate we should implement them. But as long as terrorism is a threat to Americans, we may have to make small sacrifices.
Matt Seaholm ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science.
