To study the benefits of the Patriot Act, we shall see how terrorism, and the threat of it, develops through the use of cults, libraries, and the fight for civil liberties among our own people. There are note worthy people on both sides of the debate. The American Library Association (ALA) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) believe the Patriot Act is an example of governmental power overstepping its authority. Attorney Generals past and present as well as William Rehnquist support it as a necessary and common sense mean to protect our system of democracy and organized government. Terrorists engrain themselves easily into American and foreign societies, by using the very liberties meant to keep people safe from governmental abuse. The Patriot Act is essential to maintaining law and order in our nation without which global terrorism will thrive and prosper in our lifetime.
In 1995, on March 20th, the cult Aum Shinrikyo killed 12 people and injured 5,500 during an attack on Tokyo’s subway system, opening the world’s eyes to the dangerous possibilities of terrorist attacks involving chemical weapons. Fortunately, other attempts only harmed wildlife, though their intention was to spread Anthrax throughout the city, to infect and kill as many innocent citizens and Japanese leaders as possible. Aum initiated its campaign to create chemical weapons around 1993. The group produced 70-plus tons of Sarin at one of its facilities in Kamikuisiki, the deadly gas used in the Tokyo attack. Their ultimate goal in destroying the authorities was to place, Asahara the founder of Aum, as ruler of Japan. Through a series of lawsuits and public demonstrations, Aum attained legal status as a religious organization, in 1989. The Religious Corporations Law provided the group with, “…special shelters and privileges including tax benefits, the right to own property as an organization, and most importantly, protection from all state and other external interference (Simons).” This is just a foretaste of what’s to come in the world of terrorist-cult activity, and governments are giving them the protection they need, but not our American President George Bush.
Political freedom for citizens to make their own choices, select their own goals and means to achieve them, is not unlimited. Otherwise the majority would step all over the rights of the minority, or the few elite would crush the poor masses. Rights are essential to life; while liberty is preferred, it is not essential.
The Delray Beach Public Library in Florida was just one recorded place in which 9-11 hijackers had visited to order airline tickets for September 11th using the public access computers in the library (Oder 130.10). America is one of, if not thee most free nation on earth, therefore it is very vulnerable, and easy to be abused. These services we hold so dear, give terrorists great mobility and communicative ability; so to act and move quickly and effectively. We should greatly consider how to restrict this mobility, not just by monitoring conversations, but by limiting public access to the Internet, to approved registered users only. Phones could be restricted by the use of passwords. The Delray account gives great reassurance to supporters of the Patriot Act.
“In 2004, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch praised the ability of the Patriot Act to effectuate justice without eroding civil liberties.” Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales believes the provisions of the Patriot Act are, “indispensable tools for fighting terrorism and serious crime”. Though he is for the Patriot Act he is also for any and all improvements to it, since it expired at the end of 2005 (Thornburgh 47). Former Attorney General John Ashcroft also recently testified before the Senate of the significance of the provisions the Patriot Act provides. Ashcroft said, “al Qaeda has a fanatical desire to wage war on Americans in America. Al Qaeda will send terrorist soldier after terrorist soldier to infiltrate our borders and to melt into our communities. And they do not wear uniforms. They do not respect human rights. They target civilians” (48). Former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist says, “A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few…” (49). The late Justice Jackson’s common sense perspective and suicide pact theory are quite relevant today, he says, “While our civil liberties may not be absolute under the Patriot Act, our liberties could become non-existent without it” (57). He also believed that the Bill of Rights should not become a ‘suicide pact’, meaning we allow our selves to be so free as individuals that it leads to our own demise.
“We want to know about any terrorist activity in our country (Bush State of the Union 2006).” George W. Bush believes terrorism is being propagated by a perversion of an honest faith called Islam. He says, “Terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear to break our will, wanting violence to overtake our world, we will keep and fight for our freedom.” Privacy is the issue at hand, not liberty, which is the freedom to act and speak and live without government restraint or intervention. The restraint of or allowance of speech does not presuppose the means for communicating it, just because we have the right to say whatever dims our dull brains, doesn’t mean we have the right to whatever external means may exist to transport it. Privacy is the belief that each individual has a ‘zone of privacy’ in which they exist. Individual privacy should always be subordinate to the public good. The Patriot Act gives government the power to access telephone calls without a warrant and library Internet searches concerning terrorist-cult activity, especially among international communications. The purpose is to be aware and have the upper hand on ‘terrorist’ activities within our own country. I believe President George Bush has the right to know about any terrorist activity in our country. It’s his job to know. “We cannot leave these vicious attackers alone, or they would not leave us alone (Bush).”
The civil liberties definition given in class was, “Choices individuals are allowed to make without government intervention.” Is government intervening in the choices of citizens when it wiretaps international phone calls? Matters of choice traditionally preclude government intervention dealing with a woman’s right to have an abortion, or someone’s right to a gun. To have a right to talk on the phone or Internet has never been recognized by law, and probably never will, though a persons right to talk is protected under most circumstances. The argument could be made that Internet search surveillance could be used to abuse governmental power. Using the mosaic theory political scientists believe the strands of unrelated information collected, when made into a whole group of strands, gives a useful picture for someone to use against society (Pozen). This may be a valid argument, if used when we are not presently at war with the terrorists, but to handicap the government from exercising it’s power to protect the people it governs is like de-clawing a wild cat. You make the cat helpless against predators, in it’s natural environment.
The ACLU promotes, “…the bipartisan SAFE Act, limiting the governments power to just monitoring terrorists, and not innocent Americans (Oder 130.20).” However, who are the terrorists? Are they Arab, are they Japanese, or are they American, just who is these deviant fellows? The American Library Association in 1953 scripted the document, “Freedom to read”. This stated that to restrict access to particular books is a denial of the fundamental premise of democracy (Gilbert 2). As long as there have been libraries there have been ‘private individuals’ and groups that have opposed certain books in library collections (3).
Sections 215 and 216 are both greatly contested parts of the Patriot Act and unless renewed would have expired at sunset (the end of 2005). Section 215, gives government the power to seek a court order to obtain personal records such as library, financial, phone, travel, and medical records. Section 216, applies to telephone monitoring, Internet traffic, e-mails, and web pages (Martins).
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas believes oppression comes not at once, but like the darkness, and that is how he views the Patriot Act. Some librarians have been utilizing their paper shredders to ‘show opposition to new F.B.I. powers.’ They have been shredding patron’s reference questions and requests for books (1). The Patriot Act is not the first threat to American’s liberties and intellectual freedom. At the pinnacle of the “McCarthy Era” in America, Congress attempted to restrict what American’s could read to protect us against the infiltration of Communism (2). The reason Democrats are leery of Republican’s having too much authority dates back to the Watergate scandal when Richard Nixon placed wiretaps in the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters. It may not be fair to think President Bush would do the same, just because he’s a Republican.
The terrorist organization’s menacing nature, its subtlety, and its cleverness, must be combated with creative legislation. We, who have liberty, are responsible to make our nation safer for others who do not have that liberty, so they can some day participate in the great measure that we Americans celebrate. Terrorism is greater than fundamentalist religions, or a dictatorial country. It is a spirit of violence that seeks to over take our world, and we must continue to fight it, hence the Patriot Act.