Do you know anyone who actually read the Patriot Act? Thank
goodness for blogger Nigel Deans, who rolled up his sleeves
and delved into the actual document. Here in a special guest
report, Deans presents the results of his exploration.
by Nigel Deans
The Patriot Act is one of those documents that seems to attract
a lot more attention than readers. I too have been one of those
people who rely on the civil rights lawyers to actually read
the document, then I find their interpretations in the usual
pick-up windows to which civil rights advocates subscribe. But
it seems to me that a genuine concern about the threats to our
freedom should really be fortified with a more direct understanding
of the threat itself.
So I decided to read the document. Well, at least parts of
it, and sure enough, I began to understand something that I
didn't get from the interpretations. The sections of the Patriot
Act that I read seem to be little more than a hit-list for knocking
off pre-existing rules. This may explain how such a long document
could have been produced in such short order; the list probably
reflects decades of limits on what law enforcement agencies
would like to have done if not for the interference of our constitutional
rights. Indeed, all the rules on the hit-list are rules that
protect those rights.
Now, I understand that some folks believe that securing our
safety is worth the price of compromising "some" of
our civil rights, but that seems like a real dangerous thing
to commit to without really knowing what "some" means.
How many of those who support the Patriot Act even know which
specific rules are being stricken?
Let's look at section 505: “Miscellaneous National Security
Authorities” which has three sub-sections, each one attacking
a separate law. So just to understand Section 505, you have
to read and understand three additional laws.
# sub-section "a" affects the Telephone Toll and
Transactional Records.--Section 2709(b) of title 18, United
States Code.
# sub-section "b" (Financial Records) affects Section
1114(a)(5)(A) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978
(12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(5)(A))
# sub-section "c" (Consumer Reports) affects Section
624 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681u)
Of course nothing is stopping you from searching the internet
for the U.S.C. I think Legal Information Institute is a good
place to go. As a guide for what to look for, keep in mind that
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero stated that section 505 violated
the 1st and 4th Amendments. In general, section 505 allows the
government to search through your records without judicial supervision.
Judicial supervision is important because the government agencies
that are doing the searching are usually under the executive
branch, the judicial check upholds the check and balance designed
in the Constitution to make our government tyranny resistant
and this is where my perspective differs from those who say...
"if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing
to worry about." It's not me that I'm worried about and
it's not necessarily the current government that is still at
least to some extent, bridled to decency by the Constitution
either. What I'm worried about is the future government that
finds enough space between power and decency to redefine what
"wrong" is.
What guarantee do we have that ten, twenty or thirty years
from now the government won't be doing something, or forcing
us to do something that we can't tolerate? Then what? What recourse
would we have if we have already submitted ourselves to total
control? How would we organize any sort of counter-action if
we have already given our government the ability to prevent
any such counter-actions from occurring.
The Patriot Act is being sold on the premise of being an anti-terrorist
tool to combat the organization of terrorist resources and activities,
but think about it ... How do you think the government would
classify your resources and activities if you found it necessary
to fight them? It's impossible to lock down the nation and secure
it from terrorism without giving up your own right to insure
your own liberty and that's just what we are doing when we say
the Patriot Act is needed.
I suppose it's hard for most of us to understand because we
really don't know what it's like to be oppressed. For most of
us in the middle class, our government and our lives have enjoyed
a symbiotic relationship. But the authors of the Constitution
knew what oppression was. They actually had to fight for their
freedom. If you read the Federalist Papers you will notice that
the they were very worried about the potential for tyranny,
not just from foreign sources but from within.
It's this same exact concern that created the Constitution
that creates opposition to the Patriot Act and it's a very serious
concern. The 2nd Amendment which provides us with the right
to bear arms wasn't added for us to have fun shooting beer cans
in our back yard, it was added to preserve our ability to fight
our own government forces if we need to. That may sound a little
wacko to us in our comfortable co-existence with a Constitutional
government, but again, the founder of this nation understood
what oppression was like. A big part of our civil rights is
about our ability to withstand future changes, potential problems
that we may not have now, but we may have later. It seems silly
to buy into the Patriot Act without at least considering how
it will impact these rights and it seems downright cowardly
to compromise our rights just to help authorities catch a few
terrorists.
As Ben Franklin said... "Those who are willing to give
up liberty for the sake of security, deserve neither."
- I happen to agree with him.
-----------------
Nigel Deans' blog can be found at http://www.metaspective.com
The Patriot Act text can be found here
