Revoke the Patriot Act
When given the power to bend the law to will, there are almost infinite changes and potential repurcussions one could put into motion, so instead, consider the removal of a law that many Americans disagree with anyway. Why not remove a law that many people and organizations feel is violating many basic rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution?
The USA Patriot Act was signed into law on October 26, 2001 in response to the previous month's terrorist attacks on New York. Congress passed this bill that empowers the FBI and other government organizations to make sweeping changes in other laws, mostly pertaining to the new allowances of the government to access what used to be considered private information, such as school records (see Sec. 507. Disclosure of educational records) or personal phone messages (see Sec. 209. Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants). They now have the power to intercept email and any form of electronic communication through the internet, as well as being able to utilize wire taps in order to create convictions for any suspicious activity (terrorist or otherwise). Modifications were made to pre-existing laws regarding pen registers and trap and trace devices. This means that the government is allowed to track all outgoing numbers dialed from any given phone, and they can also ascertain information from sources such as a caller ID box (3). Furthermore, if any of this information is used, there is no way the individual being researched would ever find out. According to the ACLU, Congress passed the bill "with virtually no debate (1)," and that it was opposed by only one senator (3).
Ever since September 11, 2001, the government has taken on an extremely and increasingly conservative stance for a number of reasons (including the fact that all three branches of government are essentially held by Republicans.) At the time, the country was looking for some sort of guidance. In the haste of taking some sort of action against terrorism, congressional members didn't seem to know where to start, so it seems as if they covered all their bases domestically with this one bill. However, this bill was created during a time when many Americans were scared, and weren't sure as to how to react to the scenes they were seeing on television, and furthermore, weren't sure exactly as to whom was responsible. The Patriot Act was written under the pretense that it was protecting America from terrorism, when in actuality, it invades every American's rights to privacy, and opens the door for investigators and federal agents to find out anything they want about anyone, right down to the books that they're reading in their local libraries. This makes it even easier to put out a warrant on anyone suspected of terrorism for any reason, even if they are not at all associated with any such organization. This closely mirrors the McCarthyist movement of the 1950's in which many people's personal lives were investigated for the threat of Communism.
Thus, a proposal should be put in motion that would simply revoke the Patriot Act, and restore the previous balances to the laws affected, such as the Wiretap Statute, Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, Right to Financial Privacy Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as well as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, among others (3). There are different ways in which this law can be revoked. When it came up to be reviewed, Congress could vote to get rid of the Patriot Act if they wanted to of their own free will. Since the bill doesn't directly affect any congressional members, this possibility would never in all liklihood happen. If the sky began to fall, Bush could veto the bill. Instead, the law could be directly challenged in court, and it would probably have to be settled in the Supreme Court if it were to be found unconstitutional. If one of those two things were to come about, the bill would be defunct, and the laws would simply revert back to what they were before the Patriot Act's sweeping alterations to them. Thus, all law would be carried out exactly as before, except for the fact that federal agents would simply have to work harder in order to get their information or their warrants.
As mentioned above, one possibility of the revocation of the Patriot Act coming about could be if it were to be officially declared unconstitutional. The most glaring point in this defense is that the Patriot Act is in gross violation with the 4th Amendment, which guarantees "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." The Patriot Act bypasses probable cause in sections 219 with "single jurisdiction search warrants" and 213 which gives "authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant." (2). In fact, a large number of the proposals within the bill are in direct conflict with the 4th Amendment, and the "security" protected by the Bill of Rights is violated when the government has the power to read what someone is writing at their home computer, to know what people buy and what they read, to know who they talk to, and within reason, could even see me writing this paper as I'm writing it.
This bill also makes it easier for racial profiling and stereotyping, as particular minorities will be easily subjected to harrassment or put under unnecessary or wrongful suspicion. A good example would be some of the men held overseas and at Guantanemo Bay, who are now pleading that they were innocent, and that they were imprisoned without a trial. Additionally, it has been reported that the government can take information from places like airports, and scan faces for terrorists, even though it has a high margin of error, as all machines invariably do.
It wouldn't be stretching it to say that the Patriot Act even desecrates the 1st Amendment in which it states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The USA Patriot Act allows the government to disregard this Amendment in certain cases in that people can and will get in trouble for things that they say if the government doesn't like what they're saying. Mostly, this bill is intended to pertain to terrorist activity in this respect, but the power it endows investigators and other parties to attain information puts people at risk for as much as speaking their opinion. An example comes to mind in which an episode of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" featured an old, law-abiding man who was interrogated at his home by the FBI for simply saying he disagreed with President Bush's policies and the war in Iraq. The strange part about the case was, that he was in a gym when he had only quickly mentioned it discreetly to a friend, only to be overheard by FBI, who apparently decided this was worth investigating, and knew they were now well within their rights to do so thanks to the Patriot Act. The agents knew they could interrogate this man thanks to the fact that they can bypass the probable cause factor that usually governed by ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act) or FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act). In fact, the government can conduct secret searches (aka: Sneak and Peeks) and easily apprehend anyone for any activity they deem to be suspicious in any way, or in other words, anything (3). Therefore, every American is affected by Patriot Act, and Constitutional Amendments are being flagrantly overlooked.
Many Americans including myself feel that the government shouldn't even have the right to be able to rifle around through people's personal documents, messages and phones in order to access information that most likely has nothing to do with them. Some would also agree that it is wrong to infer that someone is a terrorist simply based on how they look or what they read. Worst of all, the information is confidential, and no longer is allowed to be released to the public, as one used to be able to find government records about oneself. Additionally, some find it frustrating that the government even has so much power that it can collectively decide to overlook the 1st and especially 4th Amendments and get away with it. This bill single-handedly destroyed crucial checks and balances within the government that were not meant to be tampered with.
However, some people still concerned with terrorism at this point might argue that America isn't safe, and that this bill helps preserve safety domestically. This is not true because it doesn't make America any safer at all, and this bill alone is not enough scare terrorists into not performing acts of violence if that is what they are inclined to do. The Patriot Act isn't going to alleviate the tensions that have been building up between America and the Middle East for years. All the bill truly does is exploit the rights of people who already live here and who the majority of which affected are indeed not terrorists. Unfortunately, this can't be proved for sure due to the secret nature of each and every operation carried out under the Patriot Act. Besides, does it really make someone feel safer to know that they're being by protected from terrorists by knowing they're being watched every minute? This law is almost Orwellian in nature, and disturbing in the fact that America feels it has to sacrifice human rights and privacy for security.
Others might argue that it is alright for the government to record people and dig through personal databases for information. However, on a moral basis, that is the type of persecution that people left Europe for in search of a better place. What business does the government have knowing who you're talking to or your ideas on the government? After all, they are your ideas. Besides, the constitution bars soldiers from taking quarter, or living with you, so why have one secretly watching what you're doing at home on your computer from the other side of the computer screen?
Still, some might demand that counter-terrorism measures or the funds allocated to anti-terrorist groups within the Patriot Act should still be used in order to quickly apprehend terrorists. My answer to this would be for Congress to review each and every section within the Patriot Act, and if an idea truly holds merit, then it should individually be held for review as a standalone bill to see if it could truly prove useful without violating anyone's right to privacy.
There is currently no opposition in Congress over the Patriot Act, and in fact, they are delegating over whether to institute the stiffer Patriot II Act. There is no law keeping the Patriot Act from being carried out, except for that one part in the Constitution that says "Congress shall make no law," that Congress seemed to overlook on October 26th, 2001. In fact, in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11, a senator admits to the fact that he never read the Patriot Act before passing it, and in all liklihood, neither did anyone else who signed it into law. Since it violates rights guaranteed by the American Constitiution, there is nothing patriotic about the Patriot Act, and it should therefore be abolished.
1. http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207
2. The USA Patriot Act: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
3. http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/
4. Bill of RIghts: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentix