Even Patriot Act Politics is Local
The ACLU says that the Patriot Act violates the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The new terrorism laws as part of this act include the ability for political organizations to surveillance, wiretap, harass, and impose criminal action on people who are suspected to be terrorists. It allows FBI agents to investigate citizens without probable cause if it is for “intelligence purposes” (ACLU1, Release, 2004) and allows suspects to be detained for periods of six months without being charged and without access to lawyers. The Federal Executive Branch can monitor communication between federal detainees and their attorneys that destroys the attorney-client privilege. Immigration court hearings of those detained after 9/11 are now secret and courts cannot even release information that hearings have taken place (ACLU1, 2004).
The main concern illustrated in the article is how to balance the ability for the government to catch terrorists and the ability to prevent people’s civil liberties from being violated against. Communities do not want the government snooping into library records, telephone conversations, Internet communications, and information on what political or religious organizations citizens belong to. People are afraid of being able to go to a rallies against Iraq for fear that merely participating in such an event will result in an ongoing investigation into the individual. The freedom of speech, privacy of medical records, protection against unreasonable search and seizure are issues people in the Town of Greensburgh are concerned about (Whitaker, 2004).
The Patriot Act was able to quickly pass through Congress shortly after 9/11 when members knew that their constituents demanded legislation to help protect them from future terrorist attacks. The provisions of the act are meant to help strengthen the FBI and CIA to combat terrorism (Whitaker, 2004).
Dunn and Lieberman argue that long-term security concerns do not justify civil liberties violations and that our country’s strength is based on its commitment to fairness and respect for the rights of the accused. They explain that major intrusions of civil liberties have long-lasting consequences and those exceptions to fundamental rights become precedents that are used to justify future abuse (Dunn and Lieberman, 2004).
The House Judiciary Committee has already demanded that the Department of Justice answer questions about how it is using this new authority. The department left many questions unanswered and refused how it would implement the law (ACLU2, 2004). This should not be acceptable because the government needs to be accountable to its citizens.
