PATRIOT Act turns 10 years old

Oct. 26 marked the 10th anniversary of the passage of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, or U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, a bill passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks that increased the surveillance and investigative powers of U.S. law enforcement agencies.

The act allows information from criminal investigations to be shared with intelligence agencies and other parts of the government; allows one wiretap authorization to cover multiple electronic devices, eliminating the need for separate, individual court authorizations for a suspect's cell phone or computer; and allows "sneak and peak warrants" which let authorities search a home or business without immediately notifying the target of a probe. Ten years later, the question remains about the extent and purpose of the act.

James Richardson, emergency management and homeland security professor, said opponents of the act as well as the news media have blown the implications of the act out of proportion.

Richardson said the act extended laws that were already in place, such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO Act, which prohibits organized criminal organizations from operating legitimate businesses.

He said the PATRIOT Act has stopped many potential attacks, but the media either do not emphasize them properly or the federal government keeps them a secret.

"You don't hear about that," he said.

Richardson cited the conviction of the Buffalo Six, a group of six Yemeni-Americans convicted of providing material support to al-Qaida.

Richardson noted that President Barack Obama signed a four-year extension of the act May 26, 2011. "Even the most liberal officials see the need for it." Richardson quoted Founding Father Benjamin Franklin who said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Richardson said he is not in favor of sacrificing liberty for security, but there needs to be a balance between the two. "There is no such thing as absolutes," he said. "We authorize the government to protect us. Law enforcement can't do that if their hands are tied."

Mekonnen Haile, English professor and vice president of this college's chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said the act was meant to strengthen the executive branch and law enforcement agencies, but it grants too much power to those bodies. He quoted Roman philosopher Cicero, who said, "For among times of war, the laws fall mute."

Haile said he wondered if perpetual war means the law is perpetually silent. He said the act weakens the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which says, "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."

Haile said he lived in Ethiopia, ruled by a communist dictatorship from 1977 to 1991, until he moved to the United States in 1984. He said that experience gives him appreciation for the liberties he enjoys in the United States. "I don't want the prerogatives of security to overwhelm liberty," Haile said.

Political science adjunct Daniel Sanchez said when bad events happen, the federal government is usually more than happy to intervene. Sanchez said he served as a captain in NATO during the 1970s and 1980s and worked against terrorist groups such as The Reds Brigade, an Italian Marxist group, so he understands the need for law enforcement.

However, Sanchez takes issue with people who justify the act by saying, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about."

"Do you want to be investigated even if you're not a criminal?" he asked.

Sanchez said the United States needs to take action against terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida, but people need to understand the goal of terrorism.

"The object of terrorism is to destroy institutions," he said. "Civil liberties are a part of our national fabric, and by limiting those, we hand our enemies a victory."

Sanchez quoted Benjamin Franklin as well. "I stand with Ben on that."

He said the United States needs to be careful about renewing the act in the future.

Philosophy Professor John Visintainer said the ethical consequences of government surveillance are not a problem in countries like China that do not purport to be free societies, but it is a problem in the United States.

Visintainer said President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, the right for prisoners to challenge the terms of their incarceration before a judge, during the Civil War.

Visintainer said in times of emergency, measures that curtail certain liberties are appropriate.

He said he does not know what the future holds for the act, but he said the United States' current level of emergency is not as frantic as it was on Sept. 12, 2001, but is not as calm as before 9/11.

"The problem is knowing when the situation stops being an emergency," he said.