Patriot Act Is Probably One

Patriot Act is probably one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in American history. Many see it as a somewhat hysterical reaction to the 9/11 attacks. They see it as a response to a terrorist threat of which the phantoms haunt minds rather than actual American safety and security. Indeed, some citizens have accused the government of particularly seeking out a specific sector of society for their discriminatory detention and surveillance practices. As emotions and shock began to settle down and diminish after 9/11/2001, both national and international outcry against the Patriot Act and its concomitant lack of Constitutional liberties have been increasingly intense. It is however interesting that George Bush, the instigator and President residing over all these practices, remains to be removed from power. It is equally interesting that, despite all the outcries, the Patriot Act II, guaranteeing an even greater infringement upon the Constitution, has been approved. Specifically, many criticisms are based upon the fact that the Patriot Act is against the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As such, a large amount has been written on exactly what these pieces of legislation mean to the American people today, after the devastating attacks of 9/11.

The Government and the Public after 9/11

In response to what was seen as the atrocities relating to the legal aftermath of 9/11, civil libertarian organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) were formed to advocate the rights of the people against a government that was seen as abusing its power. These organizations have created both online and offline reading material advocating the rights of the people. According to this, not only the United States, but other Western nations were also sacrificing their freedom in favor of the illusion of safety (Etzioni, 2004).

Another group of citizens, and apparently the majority in the United States, feel that some freedoms are not too excessive a sacrifice for the feeling of safety. This group places its trust completely in the United States government, believing that it is acting in the best interest of the country and its citizens.

Nonetheless, according Etzioni, the dissenters focus on the government's focus on safety in favor of basic rights such as equality and the removal of checks and balances on government-approved actions such as surveillance and detention. Among these dissenters is the press, whose freedoms have been included in the government's new law-making paradigm. Indeed, according to articles such as one by Wendy Kaminer in the American Prospect, providing the Government with unchecked power removes the focus from terrorism.

According to this article, cited by Etzioni, the focus is now on domestic dissenters and immigrants, rather than on safeguarding the country's borders against further attacks of the kind perpetrated on 9/11. Indeed, under the guise of protecting the public, the government is instead focusing its efforts on monitoring and harassing immigrants and legal citizens that have now ill will towards the country that houses them. And indeed, so much manpower and funding is invested on these issues that little remains to focus on the actual problem of terrorism from outside the country.

Another tender issue is the war in Iraq. Here also thousands of innocent people have died for what many regard as the hidden agenda of the government - not to fight terrorism per se, but rather to seize the oil resources of the country. In the name of this agenda, or indeed in the name of terrorism, thousands of American lives, as well as innocent foreign lives, were lost.

Because of this, many Americans and international critics have begun to feel that the United States no longer adheres to its fundamental principle of not only freedom, but the also the very core of democracy upon which the country has been built.

The Effect of 9/11 on Constitutional Rights

The question of democracy is also addressed by Etzioni (2004). In considering issue of democracy in terms of historic events such as the fall of the Weimar Republic and the concomitant rise of Nazism, the author asserts that the focus in the Germany and many other similar cases is the development of non-existent democracy, while in the United States the issue focuses on the loss of existing democracy.

Etzioni takes a rather optimistic view of the issue, mentioning that an established democracy is almost never lost by means of internal developments, even such as the ones now faced by the United States. Etzioni then goes on to address possible definitions of democracy. It has to be noted that the term democracy might answer to a very wide variety of definitions. In many cases, it depends upon the particular paradigm under which the society in question operates. For some countries, for example, democracy may mean no more than regular elections. In terms of the United States, then, democracy needs to be defined according to the standards of the existing democracy that has been experienced to date.

In the United States, democracy refers to changes in power, two or more political parties at any time in governance, checks and balances in government branches, and courts that protect the rights of individuals. In addition, there are provision such as the freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the freedom to peacefully and undisturbed exercise one's religion or culture without government interference. In short, democracy means that the constitutionally guaranteed rights of all Americans, regardless of ethnic or religious heritage. This has not been the case after the 9/11 attacks.

In the same spirit, the exact meaning of the constitution and the Declaration of Independence is addressed by Robert Hole (2001). According to this author, Thomas Jefferson created the Declaration in terms of the time and specific concerns in the world where he operated. Hole for example mentions the case of slavery, which was still rampant during Jefferson's day. Indeed, the President himself was dependent upon the slavery paradigm for his way of life, his own prosperity, and even his progeny. Yet he created a document that stated that all persons are equal under the constitution. The provisions were however that all equal persons should be white and be able to maintain a certain standard of living.

It is interesting to note that Hole's book was published during 2001. This is the year of the 9/11 attacks, in itself was a time of particular political upheaval, where the paradigms relating to rights and equality were in a state of flux, as they are now. Instead of negroes, women and other minority groups, rights and liberties are now sacrificed across the board for the sake of "protecting the American way of life" by eradicating terrorism before it even has a chance to occur. According to the author, the reader has to consider the time and the context during which the laws were created. The paradigm of slavery can for example hardly be applied to the Constitution now, anymore than Jefferson could have been blamed for slavery in the face of the ideologies in his Constitution. Should one therefore revise one's criticism against the Patriot Act today?

When seen in this light, one might argue that the current threat of terrorism should be kept in mind when defining democracy and equal rights. Indeed, if Hole's premise were to be followed, one might argue with the government, that certain rights need to be placed on hold to guarantee the safety of the country and its citizens.

The difference between the situations is however the same as cited by Etzioni (2004). The democracy and its definitions, as evolved to the present cannot be declared null even in the face of the terrorist crisis. In Jefferson's time, democracy was defined in a certain way. The same is true of the budding democracy of all citizens during the 1950's. Democracy as it is understood today is the product of the evolution from Jefferson's times. It is a process that cannot be reversed. Democracy today means the same thing as it did seven, eight, and even ten years ago. It means what it guarantees: no person should be discriminated against on the grounds of his or her religion, gender, ethnic heritage, or any other distinguishing paradigm. This is not the case under the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act provides the government with the right to implement surveillance and detention against any person it regards as dangerous or oriented towards terrorism. This is where citizens' guaranteed rights become problematic. Because the terrorist attacks were perpetrated by Arabs and Muslims, the federal government now presumes that people with the same profile, regardless of number of year in the United States or demonstrated loyalty to the country, are more likely to perpetrate terrorist acts. The government is using this as an excuse to disregard any legal or civil rights that such citizens might previously have had.

Under the Patriot Act, the government is now creating profiles of people it regards as high risk in terms of terrorism. These people are also targeted for random surveillance and questioning. Some have even been detained for long periods of time without being informed when they would be released or even the reason for their detention. The situation at airports is no less dire. Some airlines have even refused to let Arabs on board because of their ethnic heritage and their perceived connection to terrorism.

One important issue that is overlooked with regard to this is the fact that many white citizens in the country have joined the Al Qaeda cause, because it gives them something to believe in and to fight for. The true terrorists are however ignored in favor of innocent citizens as a result of their skin color. This is certainly not democracy, and nor does the diminishment of equal rights guarantee safety, as the targets of such practices are innocent in most cases.

The issue of ethnic heritage and prosecution after 9/11 are also addressed by Nancy Baker (2003). According to Baker, the Patriot Act has been responsible for many civil liberty atrocities. The basis of these prosecutions is a provision the Patriot Act grants in the face of the innocence presumption clause in the American legal system. According to this key clause, a person is innocent until proven guilty, and in the case of criminal prosecution, proof must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the Patriot Act has suspended this presumption, especially as it applies to young, Muslim and/or Middle Eastern men. This is a clear case of discrimination against persons of a certain ethnic heritage and a certain age.

Indeed, immediately after the attacks, 1,200 foreign nationals were detained under the presumption that they were national security threats, or material witnesses for the same. This is clearly a violation of the First Amendment, which provides non-discrimination on the grounds of ethnic heritage, religion or age. The detained persons committed no crime that warranted their treatment or the presumption of their guilt. Indeed, this action smacks of the hysterical gut reaction mentioned above. People were summarily presumed to be guilty. The constitutional provision of innocent until proven guilty appears to have been reversed to the opposite: persons of a certain profile are guilty until proven otherwise.

According to Baker, Attorney General John Ashcroft and other officials detained the nationals on suspicion of minor crimes, but with the official position that the detainees were suspected terrorists. Indeed, Ashcroft and his associates justified their actions by saying that they were keeping suspected terrorists away from innocent American citizens under the premise of prevention. Since then, it has been the Department of Defense's policy to stop future terrorist attacks rather than focusing on action once the attacks took place. This took the focus away from investigating past attacks for the purpose of learning from them. Instead, the focus is now on potential future attacks. Also, rather than even using past attacks for information on future attacks, the methods of profiling, assumption of guilt, surveillance, and harassment are used. This of course is directly against the constitution and the Bill of Rights, as mentioned above. Further rules related to detention of suspected terrorists, include that they are to be either deported or charged with criminal offense after seven days of detention.

Further harassment procedures focusing on nationals originating from Arab and Muslim states include interviewing 5,000 of these people in the months after the terrorist attacks (Baker, 2003). Although they clearly were, Ashcroft denied the coercive nature of these interviews. In 2002, thousands of Muslims and Arabs were required to report for questioning to Immigration and Naturalization offices. Here they were questioned, fingerprinted and photographed. The first immigrants reporting in California were arrested in their masses.

After the beginning of the war in Iraq, persons from Muslim countries seeking asylum in the United States were imprisoned on the grounds of political prosecution. This was done, according to officials, to determine whether these people were honest asylum seekers or terrorists in disguise. This was done on a basis no better than the asylum seekers originated from countries with a terrorism presence. This action is also directly against the Constitution, and against the American guarantee of welcome and asylum to foreigners should they need it. It is almost as if the very country that is know for its democratic and civil rights has turned into a despotic environment the presumes terrorist activity on the basis of ethnic and national heritage. The burden of proof is no longer on the state, but on the accused to establish their innocence.

The inherent danger here is that emotions could escalate. Spokespeople for the Muslim community are already commenting on how all Muslims are now suspects as a result of the terrorist attacks and the American reaction to these attacks. It is also particularly harmful for American-Islamic relations. Targeting Muslims cause bad faith on either side, and soon the war is no longer external, against terrorism, but internal and civil, with citizen turning against citizen.

Baker mentions that the basis of John Ashcroft's action is what he sees as primary weaknesses in the American Constitution, which could be used against the country by terrorists. He further problematizes the issue by broadening the areas of civil liberties that he feels can be used in such a way; due process rights and the free press. The first have been discussed above: persons profiled as potential terrorists are harassed on the basis of their ethnic heritage rather than on the basis of any past or present criminal activity.

The free press is a further issue that has been briefly mentioned above. According to the Bill of Rights, the press exists as a check on unlimited official power. Guaranteeing freedom of the press allows citizens to live under a government under the insurance that they are under an obligation of full disclosure, even if such disclosure means embarrassment for officials.

According to Ashcroft, however, this is another area that terrorists can use against the country. Indeed, he claims that a seized Al Qaeda training manual describes how to use the free press to infiltrate the country and cause death and destruction. According to this logic, Ashcroft's next assertion is that, in order to curb the threat of terrorism, the government should exercise greater control not only over judicial procedures, but also over information and over surveillance. Since these policy changes, the ACLU has documented a vast number of cases involving atrocities such as profiling, closed hearings, and violations of the Freedom Information Act.

Some provisions of the Patriot Act do not even directly involve the terrorism it so proudly proclaims to fight against. According to John Berlau (2004), for example, Title III of the Patriot Act focuses on attempts to curb money laundering. Of course officials claim this as a possible part of terrorist activities. However, according to Berlau, the link with terrorism becomes increasingly fuzzy when American businesses are involved. According to the author, the provision in the Act encourage businesses to increasingly act like spies, and also increases the surveillance power of the government. Further increases of this kind relates to customer-monitoring requirements that were originally only applicable to banks. These are now also applicable to all establishments that can be classified as "money-service businesses." The definition of this has been expanded to include small convenience stores that offer financial benefits such as money orders and smart cards, as well as real-estate brokers, travel agents and car dealers. Indeed, almost all areas of business appear to be affected by the more stringent regulations implemented.

Berlau reports that businesses are required to report both activities above a certain amount, as well as activities that they regard as "suspicious." This is defined as customers who deviate from a government-established pattern. The author cites a car dealer whose main concern is that suspicious behavior in car buyers is largely open to interpretation, as car buyers often behave peculiarly in order to obtain a good deal. Government reports on such behavior could then have negative repercussions for business, and ultimately for the country's GDP, all in the name of catching increasingly ill defined terrorists.