The USA Patriot Act: Are Our Civil Liberties in Danger? by Shelia Pacer

With the events of September 11, 2001, still fresh in our minds, security and homeland protection against future attacks are primary concerns to all. No one will ever forget the horrifying images of that morning: the planes crashing into the two majestic landmarks of New York City, the smoke rolling from the Towers and the mushroom clouds of debris as they fell, the wreckage left of the Pentagon, or the scarred field as the fourth plane was downed in Pennsylvania. No one will ever forget the thousands of people killed on that day. However, where does security against possible terrorism stop, and infringement of our civil liberties begin? With the passage of the USA Patriot Act in October of that year, our government now has expanded powers to acquire warrants, enabling them to monitor “possible” terrorists. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution provides that it is “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The vagueness of the Patriot Act allows this civil right to be in jeopardy. We, as Americans, should not allow our government to violate this right, or any other, in the name of security.

The “USA Patriot Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism)” was signed into law by President Bush, on October, 26, 2001 (United States Congress). This was our government’s response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, and it amends the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). FISA provided guidelines for foreign intelligence abroad and for gathering information on foreign nationals living in the United States. The Patriot Act broadens the requirements needed to obtain search warrants to such a degree that they are almost non-existent. All that is required under the Patriot Act is a “significant purpose” regarding suspected terrorist activity to obtain a warrant. But no one in the government has so far defined “significant purpose” to our understanding. The burden of proof has been lowered so that, if you or I are a suspected terrorist or support suspected terrorist organizations, or our surname is of middle-eastern ethnicity, the FBI has the right to obtain information from our banks, our credit file, or our library. They can monitor our telephone conversations, cell phone records, e-mail files and other records by showing minimal cause of suspected terrorism. The only good thing that’s understood about the Patriot Act is that agencies can share information on criminal activity with each other. The informed agency still has to acquire their own warrants to obtain their own intelligence from searches, wiretaps or electronic surveillance. Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act is of major concern for some librarians. It states: The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than that of Assistant Special

Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment of the Constitution. (United States Congress) Loosely interpreted, this section provides the FBI with the freedom to obtain library records to monitor patrons reading habits or Internet use. The FBI can also obtain e-mail addresses (they aren’t supposed to read the content, only monitor addresses), cell phone records and acquire roving wiretaps. A roving wiretap is one that follows the suspect from phone to phone or computer to computer instead of one that is for a particular address alone. According to the American Libraries publication of March 2003, a survey was conducted by the Library Research Center at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign and was released in January 2003. The survey showed that only 217 out of 444 libraries asked to provide information to law enforcement voluntarily, regarding patrons reading habits, complied. The other 51% of libraries did not. Some 90 out of 906 libraries have changed Internet-use policies to make it easier for law enforcement to obtain library records. But, 60% of the 545 libraries visited by agents during 2002 felt that the secrecy provisions in the Patriot Act violate First Amendment rights. Under the Patriot Act, librarians are forbidden by the law to inform a patron that a warrant was supplied for obtaining information regarding their reading habits or Internet use (GME).

According to Adam Piore’s article in Newsweek, Gregory T. Nogeim, of the ACLU states, “This statute trumps protections in place in 49 of 50 states, with consequences that could evoke images of ‘Big Brother’.” The ACLU has been searching for a librarian who is willing to test the courts by failing to comply with court orders. So far, there has been no evidence that any librarian has been willing to take up the challenge (Piore). FISA guidelines defined what was needed before warrants could be issued for intelligence gathering; evidence had to be supplied showing “probable cause” that crimes were being committed before warrants were issued for wire taps, electronic surveillance, or other monitoring systems, as well as showing that the purpose of the surveillance was foreign intelligence. The Patriot Act broadens the scope of evidence to include domestic surveillance of possible terrorism. When did we lose the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty? But the fact that warrants can be issued, it seems, on as little as “he said/she said” is extremely disturbing. If you are a suspected terrorist or support any group that is suspected of terrorism, the government can look at your spending habits, banking habits, reading habits or your credit file. Because the Patriot Act makes it illegal for bankers, librarians and credit bureaus to inform you that there has been an inquiry for your records, there will be no evidence for you to see that you are being monitored. The Justice Department has the power to fine any financial institution for not reporting large transactions. Western Union was fined $8 million for not reporting large transactions that helped fuel the terrorists of September 11th (McNamee). In January of this year Western Union stopped the $80 transaction of an African-American Muslim named “Muhammad” who tried to send money to relatives in Connecticut. When Muhammad returned home,

he received a call from Western Union’s Brooklyn office demanding that he return to the office and show photo identification. He also needed to provide them with his country of birth or the money would not be delivered. When he simply asked for a refund, the company denied this unless he met their demands. The year before Western Union had also frozen the funds of another Muslim family until proof was provided of their American citizenship (“Western Union…”). This sort of profiling must not be tolerated in the name of “homeland security.” A decision by the highly secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was overturned in November of 2002 by a federal appeals court that ruled the Justice Department has broad powers to use wiretaps and other means to combat terrorism and that the guidelines sought by Attorney General John Ashcroft does not violate the Constitution, as reported by the KRT News Service’s Shannon McCafferty. According to Jameel Jaffer, staff attorney for the ACLU, “Ordinary citizens are more likely to become the victim of highly intrusive government surveillance, because meaningful judicial oversight has effectively been eliminated” (McCaffrey). Joshua L. Dratel of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers agrees: “When you start expanding authority like this to where there’s no standards, all you increase are the number of innocent people who are surveilled unnecessarily” (Eggen). According to the article “A Question of Freedom,” the Attorney General John Ashcroft says “We are in a war and we have to do things differently than we did before.” He also told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the new approach is doing well, that America is “winning the war of terrorism and that our strategies and tactics are working” (“A Question of Freedom”). This may be true, but at whose expense? And, what is the

final cost in terms of civil liberties lost? Who defines the amendments to the Patriot Act so that ordinary Americans can understand just exactly what it is that we are giving up and to what end? We need to take a closer look at the Patriot Act and other laws like it. We should not be so willing to accept laws that are not clearly defined because they are wrapped in a blanket of fear. We need to hold our representatives, including the President and the Attorney General, accountable for violating our rights in the name of security and the war on terrorism.

Works Cited

Eggen, Dan. “Broad U.S. Wiretap Powers Upheld; Secret Court Lifts Bar on Terror Suspect Surveillance.” Washington Post. 19 Nov. 2002; Final Ed. A01. LexisNexus. Hinckley Lib., Powell, WY. 19 Mar. 2003 . GME. “Librarians Divided over Patriot Act Compliance.” American Libraries. Mar. 2003: 18 EBSCOhost. Hinckley Lib., Powell, WY. 2 Apr. 2003 . McCaffrey, Shannon. “Court Ruling May Give Government More Surveillance Powers.” KRT News Service 18 Nov. 2002 LexisNexus. Hinckley Lib., Powell, WY. 7 Apr. 2003 . McNamee, Mike and Lorraine Woellert. “The Money Trail: The Cash Squeeze on Terror Inc.” Business Week 17 Mar. 2003 Electric Lib., Hinckley Lib., Powell, WY. 5 May 2003 . Piore, Adam. “Librarians Keep Quiet.” Newsweek 28 Oct. 2002: 12. EBSCOhost. Hinckley Lib., Powell, WY. 2 Apr. 2003 . “A Question of Freedom.” Economist. 8 Mar. 2003: 29. EBSCOhost. Hinckley Lib., Powell, WY. 2 Apr. 2003 . United States Congress. “The USA Patriot Act of 2001.” P.L. 107-56: 26 Oct. 2001 Thomas. Hinckley Lib., Powell, WY. 31 Mar. 2003 .

“Western Union Blocks Funds Over Name ‘Muhammad’.” Newswire. 15 Jan. 2003. Electric Lib., Hinckley Lib., Powell, WY. 5 May 2003 .