Since the tragedy of 9/11, America has been under examination, pressure, and surveillance. Since the threat of terrorism has ushered in a new era Homeland Security and a global war against whatever my fall under the elusive definitions of ‘terrorism’. There is no binding definition of what terrorism is. Terrorism is, however, generally understood as a political tactic that uses violence, coercion, or the threat of against non-combatant citizens.
In October 2001, 45 days after the massive attack in New York, when American jaws across the nation still rang with from the unimaginable blow of 9/11, congress passed a bill entitled Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. Otherwise known as the USA PATRIOT Act, cheesy right? Either way, this act gave the government substantially more power than it had before for the purposes of tracking down and stopping terrorists. With this power, the governments able to do some things that were controversial on grounds of legality. I hope most of this is old news for most of you.
This act has been in steady use for past decade. Makes you feel old to think about it, but ten years with agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA and even local police given the duty of being the frontline against shadowy threats that are covert and supposedly all around at all times.
Cut to Jack Bower torturing a detainee.
The Patriot Act (which I will refer to as ‘the PA’, not on any moral grounds but because of it being irredeemably corny and to save space) was legislation that permitted what would normally be, and are still considered by many, as violations of civil liberties. Allowed to wiretap anyone at any time, look up bank records under suspicion, and to even be able to come into your house under section 215. And the PA has been used in criminal cases that do not involve any terrorism, but rather peaceful protests.
The PA has rode on the backs on ten of the most paranoid years since the Red Scare, but its end date is marked for Feb. 28 of this year. So it has come up for discussion and thus why it has found its way on to my blog. The push for renewal has even been backed by President Obama this time last year. But this year it is not going so smoothly for the domestic surveillance initiative.
Feb. 9 the Unites States House of Representatives DID NOT renew the desired provisions of the act. With the vote tally being 277-148, the bill did not receive the 2/3 vote necessary to be reinstated. And the most surprising, 26 republicans voted against it. Many of which were ‘tea party leaning’. So what does this mean for the ‘tea party leaning’ republicans to be taking a stand that they share with many liberal democrats who opposed the PA from the beginning. Does this say to those dems and progressives that these republicans hold similar believes as they do? Does it say that Obama is out of touch with those self-described progressives? Is this the tea party being strict opposition to anything that Obama is remotely ok with or is this some horrible coordination on the part of republicans? What are your thoughts.
P.S.- What are your opinions on the Patriot Act in general?
You're treading on some dangerous ground here, asking these questions to journalists.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, when it comes to the Patriot Act I think there are, well, countless reasons to disagree or even hate it. It tramples a right to privacy in the name of security. I think you draw an extremely relevant connection to the Red Scare here.
Only now, we're not dealing with communists — we're dealing with terrorists. And, really, the pervading mentality of an average God-fearing American (this is, by no means, a slant against religion, just keep reading) I would think can be considered parallel to a democracy-loving American during the days of Sen. McCarthy. Instead of instigating a fear based on a love for America as they did with Russians and communists, they're instigating a fear based more on religious extremists. And the word extremist should really be considered when using such a term.
While it could, I suppose, be argued that the PA is a necessary evil to keep America safe and out of harm's way, why don't we just restructure our intelligence programs? Richard Reid might have been stopped if the world just worked together. Secret intelligence being not-so-secret with each other.
This incident here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8431470.stm
That's what kills me. What good does intelligence do if it isn't necessarily always followed up on?
Ah, yeah, I've read that article before. Its like a form of overkill where there is so much intel that it almost makes even the actual tip off insignificant. good looking.
ReplyDeleteThere are some reasons why the Patriot Act is necessary, but every time I go to open a bank account or apply for a job is it really necessary for me to fill out that paper confirming I'm not paying my wages to terrorist groups?
ReplyDeleteSome things are a little crazy but I'm sure there are some provisions that have saved us from further attacks.
Even though I'm not too entirely familiar with the Patriot Act, I know that we need some of it to prevent further 9-11 type events from happening.
Your blog looks great, but you need to use your comments in crowdsourced posts.
ReplyDeleteThe Patriot Act is needless because it completely disregards our rights laid out for us in the Constitution. No matter the party, it seems that most politicians are willing to continue the Patriot Act. I would say that is largely due to corporate interests invested in these politicians (i.e. thank the lobbyists).
ReplyDeleteI think the Patriot Act is wrong and I do not agree with the invasive techniques the government uses to "protect" us. They don't need to tap our phones to "protect" us or pat us down at the airport and feel our genitals to "protect" us. They are turning the American people into sheep, haha. And I feel like we are living in the book "1984." You have cameras watching you everywhere and an unconstitutional document that makes sure the government can bend almost any rule to investigate or incarcerate you.
Just like the 50s, there had to be a common enemy for the military industrial complex to focus it's attention on. Then it was communists, now it's terrorists. You read all the time about five year old children getting put on no-fly and terrorist watch lists among countless others. A terrorist could be anyone and defined by practically anything.
I understand why it was implemented, but I do find it silly to assure people that I am not supporting terrorists. Does anyone actually admit to it? I do not see the point in it just because I have a hard time beveling anyone would admit to it.
ReplyDeleteI want to comment on the new TSA full-body scanner controversy which is related to 9/11 security changes. While I think the Patriot Act is/was unconstitutional, I have no problem whatsoever with beefed-up security measures at airports. I don't mind that a couple folks in a dark room see my body if it means that it's less likely that someone will be able to conceal a weapon. If the scans were copied and published with a name attached it would be a different story. But I'm willing to sacrifice a few moments of privacy for overall security. The Patriot Act is like a full-body scanner on steroids. A bit too invasive.
ReplyDeleteThose who would give up Essential Liberty
ReplyDeleteto purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Whenever the PA comes up, I think of the above quote, by Benjamin Franklin. Safety is an inalienable right of humanity (not just US citizens) but our liberty is just as an inalienable right. And to sacrifice one for the other simply doesn't work.
Of course, finding the perfect balance between the two is just as impossible, hence the constant ebb and flow of each, depending on the political and world environments of the time.
The PA is such a touchy subject for just this reason, it casts a very bright light on that conundrum, igniting the fires beneath both sides of the debate. You can see it within the comments of this post, we have people supporting and railing against the PA. While I believe the PA itself is outdated, we do need to insure our safety in some manner. Do I agree to wiretapping and other invasive modes of surveillance? No. But these methods aren't exactly new.
On the other hand, a laissez-faire style of governance would work well until human nature was factored in.
TL;DR version, the PA is outdated, but the concept behind it isn't.
@everyone commenting on whether people admit to supporting terrorists:
ReplyDeleteThe Ohio State University has a student group supporting Hezbollah. The United States among other NATO and surrounding countries classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. So, as strange as it seems, some people might very well admit to it.