Joel Caplan: The end of the Patriot Act

In America's emotional and vengeful wake of the September 11 attacks, the threat of terrorism justified the removal of legal safeguards that protected us from governmental intrusion into our private lives. Being patriotic meant that we had to sacrifice our constitutional rights in order to perpetuate a war against a concept, terrorism. Why do we still allow this? Why haven't we spoken out against this poorly conceived logic which says that we must give up our freedoms in order to be free?

The Patriot Act contains truly radical expansions of criminal intelligence, search, and surveillance authority, some of which expire at the end of this year. After Watergate and the expose of other government misconducts, reformers tried to install some safeguards against abuse in foreign intelligence and counterintelligence investigations. These safeguards were enacted in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. The Act imposed certain evidentiary requirements and created a special, top-secret court for intelligence investigations. The sections of the Patriot Act that are due to expire weaken this oversight, making it more likely that the government, either accidentally or deliberately, will abuse its authority.

Americans tend not to think of themselves as terrorists and therefore, believe that they will not be adversely affected by enhanced law-enforcement powers. We generally imagine terrorists to be only Middle Easterners, South Asians or Muslims who speak different languages, practice different religions, and have different colored skin. These people are the assumed targets of intrusive investigations permitted, for example, by the Patriot Act. As a result many Americans to incorrectly believe that they are beyond the long arm of this law. Therefore, they either do not realize or do not yet care that their rights can be violated.

To borrow from the insight of Pastor Niemoller: First they came for the computer hackers and I said nothing because I was not a hacker. Then they came for the money launderers and I said nothing because I do not launder money. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Most of the provisions in the Patriot Act are not limited to terrorist offenses. They apply to all federal investigations of anyone -- including U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Federal agencies now have an enormous amount of authority to spy on individuals and shield their activities from public view. A greater level of proof is needed for a police officer to stop someone for a traffic violation than is required for that person to be searched, arrested or detained under the provisions of the Patriot Act. While I believe that most law enforcement personnel abide by the rules and use their powers in good faith, mistakes are made.

Although President Bush seems intent on chipping away at the very civil liberties that define us as a nation, a recent vote in the House blocked the Justice Department and the FBI from using the Patriot Act to peek at library records and bookstore sales slips. While bipartisan lawmakers say that the Patriot Act has done little if anything to make the country safer, Bush is presenting Americans with a false choice -- to extend the Patriot Act or leave the country vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Is there no end to what we'll endure if it pretends to enhance our security and is presented in a patriotic, non-threatening package?

Instead of a dichotomous decision to extend the current provisions of the Patriot Act, let's encourage our politicians to put a little more effort into developing alternative ways to achieve the same national security objectives and with less risk to the majority of innocent U.S. citizens and residents. The safety of all Americans must be balanced with the protection of their rights and freedoms.

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