Michael Vondriska: The fight for our rights

On Monday, the Patriot Act passed through the U.S. House of Representatives. And last Thursday, the Senate passed a similar version of the same bill, deemed the U.S.A. Act of 2001.

Based on their named, you'd likely expect these bills to concern the creation of a new national holiday or federal landmark. But you'd be wrong.

Our elected officials missed the mark on the name of this "important" legislation. It should have beem called the Anti-Constitution Act.

In an environment where partisan rancor is usually the name of the game, both Democrats and Republicans alike -- the same legislators who ordinarily fight so bitterly over matters of civil liberties -- came out in unusual joint support for a measure that so clearly undermines those core American values.

Considering their past conservative lineage, it was not surprising when Attorney General John Ashcroft, a staunch Republican -- with the support of President Bush -- urged the Congress last week to push through legislation that would give the F.B.I. and other federal law enforcement agencies a greater range of freedom to conduct its intelligence-gathering activities within the United States.

It was surprising, though, when the measure met with such full acceptance through the entire legislature.

The measures proposed -- and later passed by the House and Senate -- include provisions allowing law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share information more easily, including evidence discussed in grand jury hearings. Intelligence wiretaps can now be obtained without specifying the phone to be tapped. And the legislation gives the government the ability to search thehome of a suspected terrorist without delivering a search warrant until after the fact.

The administration even attempted to counteract one of the Constitution's core principles, when it proposed the indefinite detention of foreigners suspected of involvement in terrorism without the filing of charges.

Did Bush not receive his civics lesson on habeas corpus -- the constitutional safeguard against illegal imprisonment?

Thankfully, this measure did not pass Congress. Instead, our all-knowing representatives have allowed the government to detain any suspected foreigner for up to seven days, no questions asked. It seems that our elected officials have reinterpreted the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution -- the right of the people to be secure in their persons.

While it's clear how some conservatives are able to rationalize the relaxation of some civil liberties -- the U.S. military is in the midst of a war against those seeking the destruction of this nation -- it is shocking that both legislative branches pushed such scathing measures through our sacred bodies of deliberation, especially under the guise of patriotism.

Do it under the name of homeland security. Use the terms national safety or military importance.

But don't subject the politically fused and enthemematic terms of patriotism and the country's own name to such defamation.

To me, and to many members of my generation, liberty, freedom and patriotism have very different meanings than those held by our parents or grandparents.

Instead of rushing to the enlistment office during time of war, I make a donation to the Red Cross relief fund. Instead of tying ribbons around every tree in sight, I give blood.

I respect the symbol that is the American flag, but I also recognize that the values it represents also allows me the right to burn it.

On Sept. 11, my mother called and told me that she hoped that the war against terrorism wouldn't turn into another Vietnam. She remembers the draft, and the thought that her high school sweetheart, now my father, would be sent away to the jungle. Her idea of national pride is closely tied to those ideals, and when she sees an American flag, that sense of pride and remembrance is evoked.

But despite a love of this country, I don't rush to immediately associate my own patriotism with every representation of the American flag. Instead, I value the abstract and intangible values that make this nation great.

On Monday, those intangible national symbols so important to me were desecrated by our national legislature.

Gone is my reassurance that the government cannot tap my cell phone, my house phone and my work phone without specifically obtaining a warrant for each.

Vanished is my trust that my student records will be off-limits to government officials, except in cases of extreme "health or safety emergency."

And eliminated is the comfort that I used to have that my civil rights -- my American flag, my yellow ribbon -- can endure both times of peace and times of war.

Michael Vondriska is a senior Accounting concentrator from St. Louis, Mo., and executive editor of The Daily Pennsylvanian.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.