Since President Bush recently asked Congress to push back the
forthcoming expiration of several portions of the USA Patriot Act,
the act has sparked renewed debate on the front pages of newspapers
and found itself at the core of the upcoming presidential
elections.
In these arenas, as well as others, the Patriot Act has been the
subject of widespread condemnation ““ both for its legal and
moral implications. But in almost every instance of controversy,
the act’s opponents have been undeniably wrong.
Most important is the legal claim. The misnamed American Civil
Liberties Union has been perhaps the loudest group opposing the
measure. In its publication “Unpatriotic Acts,” the
organization takes specific issue with Section 215 of the Patriot
Act, which defines the placement of warrants and relevance of
probable cause in national security investigations. The publication
reads, “Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing
the government to search and seize your personal records or
belongings without a warrant and without showing probable
cause.”
If the ACLU’s paranoid claims were true, there would be
ample reason to revolt against ““ let alone fear ““ our
government. Yet only a gross misinterpretation or a blatant
distortion of Section 215 could possibly defame the Patriot Act as
the ACLU has.
As Professor Orin Kerr of George Washington University’s
law school writes on UCLA law Professor Volokh’s Web site,
“The government has had the authority to conduct
sneak-and-peek searches since long before the Patriot Act. The
ACLU’s advertisement makes it sound like the Patriot Act
introduced sneak-and-peek warrants. But it didn’t. The courts
have interpreted the Fourth Amendment and the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure to allow sneak-and-peek warrants since the
1980s.”
As to the Patriot Act’s denial of probable cause, Kerr
continues, “A federal judge must authorize the sneak-and-peek
warrant after a finding of probable cause and reasonable cause to
delay the notice. While the notice can be delayed, it must be
given.”
So the Patriot Act is hardly what many make it out to be. It is
very much in line with the Constitution and statutory law.
Having expended our energies toward discovering what the Patriot
Act isn’t, we must now turn our focus to what it actually is
and what it means for Americans.
The purpose of the Patriot Act is simple. First, it promotes
information sharing between various government agencies. Much like
the Department of Homeland Security bridged the ever-expanding gap
between the FBI and the CIA, the Patriot Act bridges the gap
between intelligence and criminal agents.
If a member of one group encounters evidence that might be of
use to a member of another group, should any action be taken? The
Patriot Act answers in the affirmative. If the intelligence agent
learns of plots to murder or embezzle, then he should inform the
criminal agent. It is only in this manner that terrible crimes
might be prevented, not just punished.
Second, the Patriot Act authorizes the use of new investigative
techniques. Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, writes
for National Review: “The need for investigators to keep up
with the telecommunications revolution is hardly a new problem. It
was not long ago that agents who sought wiretaps to probe everyday
crimes were limited to an order that permitted interceptions over a
specific phone. As technology advanced, criminals naturally began
eluding wiretaps by using multiple cellular and other
phones.”
The rise of technology has given terrorists the ability to evade
surveillance and justice. The Patriot Act updates already existing
laws to give intelligence officers the necessary tools to track
down, arrest and convict terrorists ““ nothing more.
In short, the Patriot Act has maintained the spirit and essence
of the law while extending its reach to the 21st century. Our
founding fathers had their values right. The Patriot Act
understands and is in line with them. But they could not foresee
the wonders ““ the brilliant and the bad ““ of expanding
technology. To this end, the Patriot Act simply grants U.S.
intelligence and crime agencies the ability to do their jobs.
Countless opponents of the Patriot Act have cited Benjamin
Franklin’s timeless quote, “They that can give up
essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety.” But they haven’t been able
to explain just how the Patriot Act actually gives up our
liberties.
In the choice between liberty and safety, they have chosen
terrorism.
Hovannisian is a first-year history and philosophy student.
E-mail him at ghovannisian@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.