EDITED PATRIOT ACT ESSAY

Daniel Contreras
English 101A
Professor Robert Vasquez
20 July 2011
The Illusion of Security
It would be difficult to understand the total magnitude of something if one was never affected by it. Army veteran and attorney Brandon Mayfield was an innocent victim of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism [PATRIOT] Act of 2001. At first glance, Mayfield seemed to be a normal American citizen: He joined the Army and received a college degree. He also lived in a modest home with his wife and children. There was nothing out of the ordinary or remotely suspicious about Mayfield, except for one thing: his religion. It is no secret that Mayfield is a Muslim convert who enjoyed eating delicacies at the local Middle Eastern restaurant; however, that would later become a factor in determining his guilt. Few allegations spawned after the Madrid bombings of March 11, 2004 that Mayfield was the responsible man. The major determinant was the fingerprints on a bag similar to that of Mayfield's. Several Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] agents stormed Mayfield's office on May 6, 2004 in search of any evidence, later arresting him with a "material witness" warrant (Epps par.5). After over two weeks of wrongful imprisonment, Mayfield was released due to an error made by a federal agent. Mayfield, held without any rights, responded to the PATRIOT Act by saying that it "waters down the standard of the Fourth Amendment." Furthermore, he adds that "it is not the guilty who suffer, but the innocent" (Eddlem par.5).
Unfortunately, there are other cases similar to Mayfield's that reveal the secret abuses of the PATRIOT Act. According to the Department of Justice, "prosecutors have asked for 155 such [said]...warrants since 2001" (The Patriot Act: Justice Department"). On June 15, 2007, United States District Judge John D. Bates ordered FBI agents to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program, since an internal audit revealed that the USA PATRIOT Act's power was abused more than 1,000 times ("Controversial Invocations"). In a different case, 30 year old Jared Bjarnason was arrested after authorities discovered a suspicious email vaguely "threatening "'death and destruction'" to an El Paso mosque" (Zajac par.2). Believing that an "al-Qaida-trained killer" had been found, agents came to a hasty conclusion and arrested Bjarnason, when in fact he was a nonthreatening and unemployed adult (Zajac par.1). The PATRIOT Act allows this to occur under Section 212, which grants law enforcement the power to act swiftly without a search warrant on cases that may result in "immediate danger of physical injury" ("The Patriot Act: Justice Department"). Bill Maynard, Bjarnason's representative and supervisor of the public defenders office, stated that "authorities could have quickly achieved the same results using traditional search warrants" (Zajac). Maynard is not the only one facing differences with the PATRIOT Act. Libraries across the nation fell into government scrutiny under the act. According to a study conducted by the University of Illinois, authorities have "visited at least 545 libraries" (Finnegan 56). Among those libraries, 209 cooperated without hesitation. (Finnegan 56). Numerous libraries felt that the privacy of its visitors was in jeopardy; consequently, many began to alter their policies to better protect their clients' privacy. Unfortunately, various other amendments are subject to violation, not just the First and Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Indeed, one question remains: should the PATRIOT Act supersede the United States Constitution? Let’s delve deeper to get a better outlook on this issue.
People of the United States debate whether or not the PATRIOT Act is a necessary tool or a dangerous threat. For example, in the article titled "The Patriot Act and You," by investigative reporter Michael Webster, the author asserts the fact that the PATRIOT Act was a large piece of legislation too quickly passed without much discussion. Webster points out that several of the bill's provisions grant dangerous powers to the federal government: the power to view citizens' private information, imprison citizens by labeling them suspected terrorists, and leave the accused with absolutely no rights. He goes into detail about the financial aspect of the law; additionally, Webster explains that international money laundering, by the PATRIOT Act, is considered an act of financing terrorism. Since a person transferring a large amount of money overseas will be flagged as a suspicious terrorist, Webster stresses that the PATRIOT Act is critical of many cash transactions. The author adds that not only will the suspected terrorist be flagged, but he or she may also be denied from flying on board via a special list filled with the names of suspicious persons.
In contrast, the first U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge addresses the importance and need for the PATRIOT Act originally in a speech given at the Allegheny County Emergency Operations Center on July 15, 2004. In his address titled "The Patriot Act Enhances National Security" he explains how terrorism was handled pre-September 11th. Ridge claims that terrorism was often handled ineffectively due to the constrictions within the bureaus which manage and work to correct such cases; in addition, he believes that the PATRIOT Act was a successful remedy to this problem resolving the restrains within the entities. Ridge argues that a new mindset is necessary and that the people must unite and support the nation equally. He believes that every U.S. citizen should support this act since it is helps the great cause: to prevent terrorism.
Unlike Ridge, writer Thomas R. Eddlem argues against the PATRIOT Act's provisions and legislation in his article titled "Anti-Fourth Amendment Patriot Act." While Ridges seems to prefer security over liberty, Eddlem argues that the liberties given to the people by the United States Constitution should be defended and preserved. Eddlem notes several innocent victims, such as Mayfield, that were targeted by the PATRIOT Act for suspicious activity resulting in scrutiny by the government. The author argues particularly on the behalf of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution which has been shunned and perverted by court justices to allow unconstitutional search warrants on citizens. He later mentions that the PATRIOT Act violates various constitutional rights: the right to a speedy trial, the right to free speech, guarantee of probable clause, and of involuntary servitude. Eddlem notes that three of the PATRIOT Act's provisions were recently extended, allowing the government to further search and seize its citizens.
All authors presented strong arguments. For instance, Eddlem and Webster both briefly explain the sections and provisions from the PATRIOT Act that are vastly opposed by conservatives and libertarians alike; in addition, Eddlem uses effective anecdotal stories which lure the reader closer to the issue at hand. Similarly, Ridge tells of cases in which the PATRIOT Act has allowed police to successfully find a foreign terrorist. However, Ridge does not acknowledge that the Patriot Act supersedes the U.S. Constitution in many ways. His arguments are, in a way, very distant. He is talking in the voice of the government for the people instead of the voice of the people for the people. Although, it must have been crucial for him to leave out all the negative aspects out of his speech. While Webster's article is informative, Eddlem's article is the most versatile and compelling article of the three. Nonetheless, the PATRIOT Act still to this day creates complex debates.
The major catalyst of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism [USA PATRIOT] Act were the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center terrorist attacks. Former President of the United States George W. Bush, in the East Room at the White House just prior to signing the USA PATRIOT ACT on October 26,2001, declared, "'These terrorists must be pursued; they must be defeated; and they must be brought to justice. And that is the purpose of this legislation'" (qtd in Bush, "Remarks on Signing the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001"). Approximately 2,740 American lives were lost on that day according to Joe Vajgrt author of the article titled "Column: Weighing in on the value of life" published by The UWIRE Student Media Affiliate Program (Vajgrt par.1). Since this was such a devastating attack to the United States, a call for action was necessary. Amid the aftermath, a shook up Congress joined together to swiftly pass the PATRIOT Act. The overwhelming support for the PATRIOT Act was no secret; however, very few representatives and senators received a copy of the bill, let alone read it, so many had to vote on something they did not have much knowledge on.
Wendy Kaminer feared that giving the “'FBI unchecked domestic spying powers...instead of focusing on preventing terrorism...will revert to doing what it does best-monitoring, harassing, and intimidating political dissidents and thousands of harmless immigrants'" (qtd in Etzioni 9). Shortly after the PATRIOT Act was signed into law, approximately 1,200 people were detained. Most were not given charges and information about them was considered classified. Even though organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union protested, the majority of detainees were not allowed to speak to anybody including their own families ("History of the Patriot Act") This is a blatant violation of the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution which specifically states,
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." ("The Sixth Amendment")
In addition, the PATRIOT Act weakens the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment explicitly requires proof, or a “probable cause,” in order for the government to investigate someone. The fourth amendment reads, “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 shall issue, 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” (Eddlem).
Proponents argue that the Patriot Act does what it was intended to do: catch terrorists. They believe that the government is not misusing its power and, in a rare case that it is, the truly innocent people should have nothing to fear. In an interview, a supporter strongly asserts that the PATRIOT Act "protects the interest of Americans;" additionally, he affirms that "the PATRIOT Act has our best interests in mind because it's not the everyday American that is being traced...even if we were, what do we have to hide?" (Rodriguez). Furthermore, PATRIOT Act advocates assert that this legislation is necessary to catch terrorists in their tracks.
However, evidence reveals that the PATRIOT Act has very little to do with terrorism. Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano exclaims in an interview, "They've gotten no terrorist convictions [or]...evidence...out of the Patriot Act...They've gotten a series of guilty pleas [and] they've gotten convictions on these other crimes...but not on terror" (Kidd par. 17). Journalist Jennifer Abel points out in an article published by The Guardian magazine titled "A patriotic duty: repeal the Patriot Act" that "a department of justice official testifying before Congress in 2009 admitted that Patriot Act provisions were overwhelmingly used to go after drug dealers rather than terrorists" (Abel par.4). In regards to the surveillance of everyday American citizens, Senator Rand Paul warns that citizens should not to give in to fear and to simply not allow this invasion of privacy to proceed much farther. Paul says, "What happens when someone takes over who believes your religion is to be combated? Who believes your political beliefs and your literature should be combated. What happens when that day comes?" (SenatorRandPaul).
In continuation, supporters say that there are instances, such as the arrest of the Portland Seven and Lackawanna Six, which were made possible by the PATRIOT ACT. They acknowledge that the "sharing of information has directly led to...numerous arrests, prosecutions, and convictions in terrorism cases" (Ridge 2). Since the passing of the bill, Advocates argue that there has not been a second September 11 terrorist attack on American soil. Proponents remind one of the restrictions that existed within federal agencies before the 9/11 by saying, "[The] ability to fight terrorism was inhibited by the inability to coordinate within our own government," thus allowing such an event like 9/11 to occur (Ridge 2).
However, if terrorists really wanted to kill a group of citizens, they would not pass through airline security at this point; the United States is too reactive; the U.S. takes preventative measures to things that have already occurred. There are plenty of areas where terrorists could bomb or gun down a bunch of people, if they really wanted to, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The PATRIOT Act tricks people into feeling like they are safe. In regards to the Lackawanna Six case, many critics were skeptical whether or not the members posed as an impending threat. These men were regarded well by members of their community: “They are just like us. We watch them play soccer. We pray with them. We know their parents and their brothers and sisters and wives. If these six are suspects, then so is everyone else” (Temple-Raston). Before the PATRIOT Act, authorities would have had to treat this as two separate cases: a drug related investigation and a terrorist intelligence investigation; however, this act broke down the “’wall’ between these two types of investigations, allowing case-sensitive information to be shared between the two” (“The Patriot Act: Justice Department”). Interestingly, “defense attorneys claim the federal government coerced their clients into pleading guilty by implicitly threatening them with indefinite detention” (“The Patriot Act: Justice Department”). Certainly, the issue at hand is security and the Patriot Act is a part of the current solution; although, it should accompanied by stronger checks and balances to even things out.
Overall, the PATRIOT Act needs to be reevaluated and carefully reformed so that it does not continue abridging the rights granted to citizens by the U.S. Constitution.
Maximum security and personal freedom cannot coexist; therefore, in order to restore civil liberties, the people should take a step back and repeal the PATRIOT Act in its entirety. This legislation not only violates many civil liberties, but it also deforms this country’s constitutional republic. The Founding Fathers of this country would be appalled by this "unpatriotic act" since it opposes everything they fought for. By removing this act, both the scope of executive branch power would be reduced and civil liberties would be restored. "[Over] 200 cities, towns [and states]...[such] as Hawaii and Vermont" have successfully established anti-PATRIOT Act laws; some local governments simply ignore the entire legislation (Vlahos par.15). Representative Ron Paul summed it up well when he said, "[People] must not accept that government authorities should hector us...as we go about our private lives like we are living in Orwell’s 1984" (Paul par.4) In other words, a police state is imminent without our civil liberties intact. Others, like the Constitution Project, suggest that the PATRIOT Act should be at least reformed to an extent so that it secures citizens' protections while at the same time efficiently prosecuting the real criminals. They note that segments of the act, such as the "Lone Wolf" provision, should restore safeguards or be all-together eradicated ("Statement on Reforming").
If one chooses to ignore this issue, dire consequences are bound to arise. A decade has passed since the signing of the PATRIOT Act and the United States government has still not alleviated all of our constitutional rights; in fact, the government has become more secretive with its usage of the PATRIOT Act. Because of this act, the government has the legal right to know what one is doing, but one does not have the right to know what the government is doing. In an episode of Uncommon Sense TV that originally aired on April 25th, 2004, show hosts Andy Valen and Ed Lacy compared the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act to the Enabling Act of 1933. Both acts were legislative responses to national tragedies in a time of fear; hence, the establishment of those laws was much easier (Kennedy1op). Additionally, both acts have caused the trade of people's civil liberties for the illusion of security. Likewise, Naomi Wolf informs, in the Ricki Stern and Anne Sundberg film The End of America, that measures used in pre-Nazi Germany are currently being used today: External/internal threats (e.g. Reichstag Fire & 9/11), secret prisons (e.g. Camp Watten & Guantanamo), and paramilitaries (e.g. Sturmabteilung & Blackwater) just to name a few. The PATRIOT Act is not only a threat to our civil liberties, but it is also a threat to our society. Founding Father Benjamin Franklin summed it perfectly when he stated, “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one" ("Benjamin Franklin").

 
Works Cited
"The 6th Amendment." SCORE History/Social Science. Web. 20 July 2011. .
Abel, Jennifer. "A Patriotic Duty: Repeal the Patriot Act." Guardian.co.uk. Guardian News and Media Limited, 23 May 2011. Web. 11 July 2011. .
"Benjamin Franklin." Wikiquote.org. Wikimedia. Web. 19 July 2011. .
Bush, George W. "Remarks on Signing the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001." Presidency.ucsb.edu. The American Presidency Project, 26 Oct. 2001. Web. 6 July 2011. .
"Controversial Invocations of the USA PATRIOT Act." Wikipedia.org. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Web. 19 July 2011. .
Eddlem, Thomas R. "Anti-Fourth Amendment Patriot Act: Congress Is considering Extending Three Provisions of the USA Patriot Act, but They Would Do Better to Repeal the Whole Unconstitutional Law." The New American. Gale, 18 Apr. 2011. Web. 26 June 2011. .
The End of America. Dir. Ricki Stern, Anne Sundberg. Perf. Naomi Wolf. Indiepix , 2008. DVD.
Epps, Garrett. "Vengeance Is Brandon Mayfield's." Salon.com. Salon Media Group, Inc, 3 Oct. 2007. Web. 18 July 2011. .
Etzioni, Amitai. How Patriotic Is the Patriot Act ?: Freedom versus Security in the Age of Terrorism. New York [etc.: Routledge, 2005. Print.
Finnegan, Lisa. No Questions Asked: News Coverage since 9/11. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2007. Print.
"History of the Patriot Act." Graypantherssf.igc.org. Gray Panthers San Fransisco. Web. 29 June 2011. .
Kennedy1op. "The Patriot Act part 1." Youtube. 10 Nov 2008. Web. 26 June 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td1mOAF1S8Q.
Kidd, Devvy. "Tell Your Sheriff: No Enforcement Of So-called "PATRIOT" Act." NewsWithViews.com. News With Views, 22 Mar. 2006. Web. 11 July 2011. .
"The Patriot Act...Good or Bad?" Askville.amazon.com. Askville. Web. 16 July 2011. .
"The Patriot Act: Justice Department Claims Success." NPR.org. NPR, 20 July 2005. Web. 19 July 2011. .
Paul, Ron. "Stop the Police State, Repeal the PATRIOT Act (Rep. Ron Paul)." TheHill.com. Capitol Hill Publishing Corp, 4 Jan. 2011. Web. 17 July 2011.
Ridge, Tom. "The Patriot Act Enhances National Security." GaleGroup.com. Gale, 2005. Web. 26 June 2011. .
Rodriguez, Samuel. Personal interview. 14 June 2011.
SenatorRandPaul. "Sen. Rand Paul Speaks on PATRIOT ACT." Youtube. 23 May 2011. Web. 16 July 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmjhk2-ynLo.
"Statement On Reforming The PATRIOT Act." ConstitutionProject.org. The Constitution Project, 22 Sept. 2009. Web. 13 July 2011. .
Stout, David. "Bush Urges Congress to Keep Patriot Act Intact." Nytimes.com. The New York Times, 9 June 2005. Web. 11 July 2011. ."
Temple-Raston, Dina. "How Great a Threat Were the Lackawanna Six?" NPR.org. National Public Radio, 10 Sept. 2007. Web. 20 July 2011. .
Vajgrt, Joe. "Column: Weighing in on the Value of Life." UWIRE | Campus Media Network. UWIRE Student Media Affiliate Program, 24 Feb. 2011. Web. 12 July 2011. .
Vlahos, Kelley B. "Critics: Patriot Act Warnings Come to Fruition." FoxNews.com. FOX News Network, LLC, 22 Nov. 2003. Web. 19 July 2011. .
Webster, Michael. "The Patriot Act and You!" ArticlesBase.com. Articles Base, 21 Apr. 2008. Web. 27 June 2011. .
Zajac, Andrew. "Patriot Act up for Renewal, but Law's Effectiveness Unclear." Chicago Tribune (Chicago, IL). 04 Apr 2005: n.p. SIRS Researcher. Web. 19 Jul 2011.