CIVIL LIBERTIES  
comments_image -

One Nation, Under Watch

Even though many critics believe the Patriot Act was a sucker-punch to the Bill of Rights, Congress plans to make many of its provisions permanent.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

Six weeks after 9/11, with scores of heartbreaking obits being printed in the New York Times every single day and the toxic dust from the collapse of the twin towers still settling, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act into law.

The bill's supporters characterized the act as a necessary measure to secure the country's safety in the wake of the terrorist acts. The few congressional dissenters at the time were criticized for lack of patriotism.

"My primary concern was (and is) that the judiciary is not overseeing this sweeping grant of power to the federal government," U.S. Rep. Tom Udall, D-NM, says. Udall was one of just 66 House members who voted against the bill initially and against its renewal earlier this month. "In trying to find that balance between our freedoms and our security, in this case, we cut them out of the picture."

Indeed, a growing number of critics today believe the PATRIOT Act was passed swiftly amidst national hysteria, effectively sucker-punching the Bill of Rights and fooling the public into thinking it would be safer as a result. Since then, hundreds of red and blue counties and cities -- including Santa Fe -- have passed various opposition and non-compliance resolutions against the PATRIOT Act, while civil liberties groups have continued to document abuses of privacy and other rights taking place under its auspices.

Nonetheless, much of the bill is headed for permanence.

On July 29th, the Senate reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act was approved by a process known as "unanimous consent." The week prior, the House majority voted to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act (257-171).

President Bush is expected to sign the reauthorized and largely permanent PATRIOT Act into law on Sept. 11, 2005, pending an ironed-out version between the House and the Senate once the legislative session resumes.

While the law is one of the most far-reaching and drastic in U.S. history, it is not the first time the government has moved to utilize a time of real or perceived crisis to increase its powers of surveillance and detention. And while portions of the bill will be reviewed again in two years, much of what is considered its most invasive components remains. "We rushed to put together legislation that we thought would safeguard us from another terrorist attack," U.S. Rep. Don Young, R-AK, said in the aftermath of the House reauthorization vote. "In the process we have created a bill that I feel takes away from our constitutional freedom. This is not patriotism, this is Big Brother."

What some might call the Orwellian manifestation of "Big Brother," others refer to as Section 213. That's the portion of the PATRIOT Act that gives the FBI expanded ability to conduct "sneak-and-peek" searches of a person's home or office.

Under the PATRIOT Act, law enforcement agents do not have to prove they are suspicious of domestic terrorism to obtain the right to conduct such searches. They are allowed to utilize such sneak-and-peeks for regular criminal investigations as well. Once granted, a sneak-and-peek visit can include the taking of photos or of physical objects. As the law is currently written, the subject of the search is likely to never know the search has even taken place.

Udall and other critics of the PATRIOT Act believe the sneak-and-peeks constitute a violation of constitutional rights to privacy and freedom from unwarranted search and seizure.

"The reality is that these investigations are already happening covertly," Peter Simonson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in New Mexico, says. "What's worse, the target of a subpoena may never know that the FBI is looking through their property."

According to data released by the Bush administration in April 2005, sneak-and-peeks already have nearly doubled in the past two years. From Oct. 26, 2001 to April 1, 2003, the Justice Department asked for and received sneak-and-peek warrants 47 times. From April 2, 2003 to Jan. 21, 2005, the number of warrants increased to 108. The Justice Department also sought seizure authorization 45 times from Oct. 2001 to Jan. 2005.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email
Alternet Special Coverage - Occupy Wall Street
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Washington State Legislature Approves Gay Marriage

By Steven Rosenfeld | AlterNet

 
 
Congress Considers Adding GED and Drug Test Requirements to Unemployment Benefits

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
Study: Medical Marijuana Programs Don't Increase Adolescent Pot Smoking

By Paul Armentano | NORML

 
 
Archbishop Recants Apology for Sex Abuse, Says "I don't Think We Did Anything Wrong"

By Steve M. | No More Mister Nice Blog

 
 
CNN Suspends Roland Martin For Hateful, Homophobic Super Bowl Tweets

By Jorge Rivas | Colorlines

 
 
NYPD Marijuana Crusade Led to Cops Killing a Teenager in the Bronx

By Tony Newman | AlterNet

 
 
Dear Wall Street Journal: Your Editorial on Payday Lenders Is Wrong. On Every Point.

By Uriah King | AlterNet

 
 
Shocker! Komen Staff Knew Defunding Planned Parenthood Was a Bad Idea

By Kaili Joy Gray | Daily Kos

 
 
Look Forward to Trump in Charge of Foreign Policy in Romney Administration?

By Sarah Seltzer | AlterNet

 
 
Dozens Dead as Syria Regime Pounds Homs: Activists

By Agence France-Presse

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 1 ]