<Back

Resolved: The United States Congress should renew the USA PATRIOT Act

PROS

by Jason Rathod '06

An Al-Qaeda terrorist, a Grinnell policeman and an FBI analyst on a surveillance mission walk into the Down Under Pub. After a few too many beers, the terrorist jolts for the bathroom. The FBI intelligence analyst follows him. After taking care of business, the terrorist washes his hands and blurts out "I hate the new Darby, I'm going to blow it up." The analyst, who wants a police force alerted and dispatched immediately, rushes out to tell the policeman. As he's about to speak, he remembers that Congress did not renew the PATRIOT Act, so it is illegal for him to share the information. Darby is blown to smithereens.

While blowing up Darby is a tad far-fetched, Al-Qaeda attacks on American targets from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Lincoln Memorial will become distinctly possible if Congress does not renew the PATRIOT Act. As Democratic ex-CIA directors James Schlesinger and R. James Woolsey have written in an open letter to Congressional leaders, "The government's success to date in preventing another catastrophic attack on the American homeland since the Sept. 11, 2001, would have been much more difficult, if not impossible, without the USA PATRIOT Act." Indeed, according to the National Review, 212 terror-related defendants have already pleaded guilty or been convicted, in part because of its provisions.

The PATRIOT Act has been effective because it 1) breaks down the wall between criminal and intelligence-related investigations and 2) revises antiquated legal requirements, strengthening law enforcement's ability to combat technologically-advanced terrorists.

First, prior to the PATRIOT Act, combating terrorism was a bureaucratic nightmare as barriers impeded intelligence sharing. FBI Director Robert Mueller has said the task was like "attempting to put together a complex jigsaw puzzle at separate tables." In fact, according to Mueller, an FBI investigator who received important intelligence information from a court-ordered wiretap could not inform an intelligence analyst down the hall about what he heard or advise him to seek his own wiretap. Section 203 of the PATRIOT Act broke down this bureaucratic nonsense.

Second, it gives law enforcement the same tools for fighting terrorism that they have long used against mob bosses or drug dealers. For example, pre-PATRIOT Act, law enforcement needed court approval for a wiretap for every phone that a terrorist used. If he changed cell phones every day, that meant going to court for a new wiretap every day. Now, wiretaps are pinned to the person, not the phone. Such provisions that account for modern technology have been invaluable in the War on Terror.

Finally, the PATRIOT Act has made Americans safer without infringing on their civil liberties. Although it may come as a surprise, there are no verified civil liberties violations resulting from the act. When Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein asked the ACLU for cases of abuse, she said even "they had none." The revised version of the PATRIOT Act up for vote now includes 30 additional civil liberty safeguards.

The 9/11 report said, "? [N]othing is more likely to endanger America's civil liberties than the success of a terrorist attack." If radicals block renewal of the PATRIOT Act, a successful attack will probably follow. In the wake of another attack, a frightened public would make more painful sacrifices than now, opening the floodgates for policymakers to restore order at the expense of their rights. Let's choose security and liberty while we still can.

CONS

by Hannah Garden-Monheit '08 and Chase Martyn '07

A democracy constantly weighs individuals' rights claims against appeals to the common good. Sometimes, the rights of individuals should prevail, but sometimes, overwhelming necessity justifies curtailing a few rights. No one disagrees with that. But when it comes to the USA PATRIOT Act, there is too much possibility for rights infringement and too few benefits.

The act gives the government broad authority to violate citizens' civil liberties in ways that were previously prohibited; according to the ACLU, the version of the Patriot Act currently under consideration will only widen the loopholes that enable the administration to spy on citizens.

For example, Section 215 bars doctors, accountants, librarians and others holding private records from notifying clients that their records were subpoenaed until a year after the fact, and the gag order can be extended indefinitely by a "national security certification" from the administration.

And this isn't just for terrorists, either: Section 215 doesn't require the government to show a link between the documents they seek and a terrorist or spy.

Citizens who are under investigation therefore have no right to develop a defense or challenge subpoenas. And that's just one example.

But whether or not suspected terrorists should be afforded legal rights while they are under investigation, the dangerous myth that the USA PATRIOT Act only applies to suspected terrorist activity is false.

For instance, People for the American Way report that they have found evidence that the FBI has used its newfound authority in a Medicare fraud case that had nothing to do with terrorism.

Of course, the definition of terrorism itself is in question: the USA PATRIOT Act broadens the scope of the term considerably. Section 802 defines the crime of "domestic terrorism," which now includes any actions within the United States that are "dangerous to human life" and intend "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population" or "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion" (there are additional characteristics of domestic terrorism listed, but the two preceding characteristics are sufficient on their own).

Whether or not protests should be "dangerous to human life," the USA PATRIOT Act seems to allow officials to identify any act of civil disobedience that escalates (unexpectedly, even) as terrorism. The immediate result may be the chilling of dissent; the long-term results could be far worse.

The question still exists: is giving up such a wide range of civil liberties to the government worth it? The truth is that many of the powers granted to the government by the act were already on the books in slightly more rights-conscious forms before we were attacked (take FISA, for example).

Obviously, in the days following the Sept. 11 attacks, we heard plenty of impassioned arguments from our politicians in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act provisions-at least from those who weren't operating secretly under the cover of night or from bunkers in undisclosed locations-but our democracy is resilient enough to recover from the perilous, undemocratic politics of fear.

Our leaders should recognize and correct their error expediently and we plan to do what we can to make that happen.

<Back