One of the wonderful things about America is this thing called democracy. According to this bizarre idea, people should decide how they want their lives to be governed. One of the counterintuitive results of this is that the process of revising law is not done by any one person, but has an entire system of checks and balances, implemented by the Senate, House of Representatives and Supreme Court.
It is generally considered a good idea to have read a law before submitting approval of it, but in the aftermath of Sept. 11, panic sometimes replaces reason. When the U.S. Patriot Act was passed, many of the representatives and senators voted in favor of it with what was most likely at best a cursory reading of the provisions in its 342 pages. Despite the grand name, the Patriot Act had little to do with patriotism and much more to do with reducing, even eliminating in some cases, the checks and balances put on police powers.
Many of the changes were not specific to terrorism. Police and federal agencies were given increased power to authorize wiretaps and similar electronic surveillance, not just on potential terrorists, but also on people suspected of other crimes. The provisions were exceptionally harsh on the civil rights of immigrants, including increased powers to detain immigrants without trial or lawyer.
Most frightening was the revised definition for domestic terrorism, couched in such vague language that just about any political organization or public protest could potentially be labeled as terrorists. It is not entirely fair to blame Congress for the passage of this freedom crushing, liberty smiting bill. In the wake of Sept. 11 and the realization of our vulnerability to attack, any action would have been better than no action. And so far, at least the government can claim that the Patriot Act has served its purpose. But just because there have been no new acts of terrorism does not necessarily mean that the Patriot Act is working as intended. Perhaps the terrorist network has been fatally crippled; (though Bush would have you think otherwise, because why would we give him so much power then?) perhaps all the terrorists have gone to Iraq, to fight on more familiar ground; perhaps they have realized that any attack on American soil signals massive retribution, and no longer dare to do it. Even if the Patriot Act is doing everything it says it does, it is still time to review it.
We are in calmer times now, post-Afghanistan War, post Iraqi War. Now would be a good time for Congress to reexamine the provisions of the Patriot Act, to see if they are sufficient to defend us against terrorism and also to see that they cannot be abused for other ends. Now would be a good time to return to that good olí democracy, and have the peopleís representatives vote in a law after deliberating upon it, instead of having one man decide whatís good for the entire United States.
Instead, the administration is trying to introduce new, harsher laws that further restrict our civil rights. Immigrants arenít the target anymore. If passed, this new Patriot II Act will further loosen restrictions on wiretapping, ease rules on the use of secret evidence (i.e. we-are-right-we-wonít-tell-you-why-just-trust-us evidence) and allow the secret detention of citizens.
Until last week, Justice Department officials denied that they were drafting such a bill, and it was not until the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity published a leaked draft that they acknowledged its existence.
Benjamin Franklin once said that those who give up liberty in exchange for security deserve neither. Indeed security can only come from maintaining and upholding our liberties, because it is only then that we can ensure our leaders do not turn on us. Our politicians are only as honest as we make them. The creation of a police state doesnít happen overnight. We should not let our civil liberties slide even an inch, so that it doesnít happen at all.
