Posted on 04/14/2008 7:27:12 AM PDT by onja
On October 26, 2001, shortly after the horrific 9/11 attacks, Congress passed and President Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act. This legislation intended to remedy the serious security problems America had at the time; in effect, to abandon the benevolent inactivity of the post Cold War days and return to the realization that there is still a battle to fight and win. Many of the reforms were necessary and quite reasonable, such as bringing about interagency cooperation. However, the act is widely criticized for a number of provisions, primarily focusing on communications, which restrict personal freedoms. Pundits, commentators, and even some politicians revel in the chaos, using manipulative pathos, oversimplifications, out-of-context information, or even outright falsities to advance their agendas. The subject of whether these acts are justified is a quandary; a question that is difficult and terrifying to answer, and not to be taken lightly. Ultimately, appropriate action must be taken, but it is difficult to draw a line in the sand where action is justifiable and government force is sufficient but not overbearing. Although I personally support the Patriot Act, an assertion that I make with not a little trepidation, the opposing view, that personal freedoms must be defended with few qualifications, is certainly a valid consideration. Nonetheless, it would seem that these endless rhetorical debates, about something as complex and volatile as the Patriot Act, are inadequate without context or perspective, so this paper begins with the past. A holistic and balanced view of the matter, starting with history and precedent, provides a reasonable frame in which to look at the moral, legal, and practical consequences of this legislation.
Since the earliest days of human civilization, controversy has surrounded the distribution and use of power. In what amounts and circumstances can the state intervene against individuals? During the bygone days of emperors and kings, a careful balance was crafted between what the ruler demanded and the people would accept. Misuse of power meant expensive rebellions. However, beginning with the Greek city-states, a new philosophy emerged, which became the basis for western thought and society. Freedom is given to men not as a stopper from revolution, but because it is in the fundamental nature of men to be free. This notion of the “natural rights of man” became the foundation of thinkers such as John Locke, who in turn spurred on the Age of Enlightenment. America’s war of independence represented a new evolutionary level of this concept, from the British paternalistic republican structure to a supposedly democratic system. The pursuit of democracy was idealized, and strong checks were put in place to ensure that the government would be reasonably restrained from violating the rights of the people. This has become a national identity of sorts, and a point of great consensus in times of peace. Unfortunately for the libertarian movement, dire circumstances often cripple ideology in favor of pragmatism. In times of need, leaders have been given or taken extreme power to solve the issues at hand. From the Alien and Sedition Acts, to Lincoln’s breaches of the Constitution, to the present Patriot Act, these actions, whether ultimately dismissed or approved of, have provoked extensive debate. Idealistic defenses of civil rights are a great asset to our nation, and are the basis of our civil society, but obviously cases exist where they must be abridged. It is useful to examine what our forefathers said and did, as some precedents to draw light upon the current situation. After all, on debates over whether these actions should be allowable, who better to look to than those men who wrote the very papers?
The early foundations of our country, and our constitutional law, stem directly from our forefathers who fought for independence and debated about our future government. Giants such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson eloquently and uncompromisingly attacked movements like the current Patriot Act. Franklin declared that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” while Jefferson said that in a choice between “government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government”, he would, without hesitation, choose the latter (Wikiquotes). However, other great men disagreed and were far less radical, showing that the constitutional intent of extent of liberty is not definite. Personal freedoms were important, but did not override crucial matters. John Adams passed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, during the undeclared Quasi-War of 1798-1800 with France, that had the ability (not used in actuality) to suppress domestic opposition to the Federalist government. George Washington, although technically neutral in cabinet affairs, overwhelmingly supported the ideas of Alexander Hamilton over Jefferson, to the extent that Jefferson resigned from Washington’s cabinet. Hamilton pushed for a very strong central government, and constantly used the necessary-and-proper-clause of the Constitution, which gives the government power above and beyond what is explicitly stated in the Constitution. He further stated, "Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates." (UMKC) In fact, even Jefferson, the epitome of a strict constitutional idealist, once he became president, continued the same extra-constitutional practices of his Federalist predecessors. To clarify, these examples are not intended to say that our founders disfavored individual rights. By no means. However, if the writers of the Constitution saw the occasional need for pragmatism over idealism, this puts into question whether the Patriot Act is inherently incorrect in its view on the flexibility of the constitutional in certain matters.
The previous examples attempt to show that the constitutional founders were clearly not united in libertarian ideals. Another field to investigate involves actions taken during crisis. The issue of whether or not this "War on Terror" is in truth a war will be addressed later. For now, we'll look at previous crisis measures, to put the current actions into perspective. On one end of the spectrum are the Alien and Sedition Acts, which are nearly universally dismissed as wrongfully created. Internal aliens thought to endanger the peace and stability were monitored, aliens of nations currently at war with the United States could be deported, and the acts criminalized supposedly false, scandalous, or malicious writing. This act is similar in a way to the current situation, since the measures were largely focused on fears of French sympathizers intervening within the States during the Quasi-War with France. This is one example when intrusive measures were summarily dismissed, since although their need may have been real, the action taken was excessive, particularly regarding freedoms of speech. Alternatively, during the chaos of the American Civil War, President Lincoln ignored courts and Congress, suspended Habeas Corpus, conducted military tribunals for citizens serving in foreign militaries, shut down opposition newspapers, imprisoned dissidents or political opponents, and executed many other constitutionally questionable maneuvers. Lincoln’s decisions were much more invasive than the Alien and Sedition Acts, yet are generally accepted and applauded. Respected constitutional historian Dan Farber declares that Lincoln's defense, claiming necessity allows manipulation of the Constitution, was more or less workable. Although he himself hesitates to connect these actions with the actions of President Bush, Farber states that, if there are questions as to whether our presidency is able to respond to extreme direct threats, "we can look at the Civil War as a test case." Of course, the Civil War was far direr than the War on Terrorism, and necessitated more direct action, but this case shows that the Constitutional rights can be bent to a large degree without breaking, and that, in the abstract, need can supersede idealism.
In future conflicts, such as World Wars One and Two, the Constitutional limits were more generally protected, but executive power, as so often happens, did frequently push the envelope. Since then, after the “imperial presidencies” of the late Cold War period, Congressional oversight has tended to increase along with Presidential authority. However, President Bush, after the World Trade Center attacks, had attempted to maintain extensive power over foreign affairs, even after the 2006 midterm elections, which enabled the Democratic Party an opposition majority in Congress. While the current administration is not a return to the “Imperial Presidencies”, it has admittedly attempted to increase executive power to a point of some worry. As one small example, in the 2006 case of Hamdan v Rumsfield, the US Supreme Court found that President Bush had gone beyond his jurisdiction by ordering that the inmates at Guantanamo Bay be tried by military tribunals. (UMKC) As a whole, in terms of possible presidential overreach, I think that while President Bush is no Adams, and certainly no Lincoln, he has inappropriately advanced the powers of the executive, and the other branches should not hesitate to defend their oversight powers.
So, what does history teach us? To clarify, history is not a mindless cycle of events constantly reoccurring. Every situation is unique. However, two basic principles, relevant to this issue, stand out. Our founder’s views on the struggle between freedom and security are divided, and thus, in all likelihood, is also the Constitution’s original intent. More importantly, there is a definite precedence for matters concerning the War on Terrorism, for both caution and action. Different branches have constantly checked each other in times of unwarranted expansion, but measures such as the Patriot Act have also been allowed if the need is real and the actions are reasonable. A crucial aspect of this qualification revolves over the basis and operation of this war. War-time powers require an actual war. Does the War on Terror fit this role? War is, according to the base definition, merely a conflict between two parties. Yet, how can one engage in a war on the idea of terror, or even terrorism? I suppose it should then be called the War on Terrorists, which isn’t nearly as catchy. In any case, clearly America is engaging large, organized forces which are well subsidized and have an intense desire to cause serious harm to the United States. Efforts have been put into place to seize funds, eliminate support to terrorists from hostile nations, collaborate on information that will prevent or capture terrorist cells, and generally lead a global coalition against those who practice terrorism. True, it is impossible to utterly destroy the tactic of terrorism. Obviously, that is not the intent. As in the Cold War, the struggle is to confront nations, such as Afghanistan, which spread this tactic and associated ideology, and contain or defeat the expansion in other areas. Victory can never be completely accomplished, but, as in the case of the Cold War, a good enough victory can be achieved to make the remaining adherents ineffective and mostly harmless. As to the proper extent of the War on Terrorists, it is difficult to draw a definite line. In Afghanistan, the United States attacked the Taliban government, which was directly allied with the Al-Qaeda that destroyed the World Trade Center, and therefore it seems safe to say that the war in Afghanistan is a true part of the general war. Al-Queda has been attacking the United States, among many other nations, for a number of years, including the USS Cole incident, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing (failed), the 1998 US Embassy bombings, and, of course, the September 11th events. Al-Queda is a valid enemy to fight, and there is a distinct, although necessarily limited, basis for extended war-time powers.
Is the Iraq War an honest part of the War on Terrorism? I don’t know. However, America is certainly engaged in continued struggles against Al-Queda and its global allies, in Afghanistan, now Iraq, a number of allied countries (Pakistan, for example), some distinctly unfriendly nations (among many, Somalia), and operatives within America itself. It would seem that this qualifies as a legitimate war, if we restrict the term to the certain terrorist organizations which we are engaging. Does this then justify the war to be on the scale of the US Civil War, when we gave the President practically any power necessary to achieve victory? Of course not. Still, there is a legitimate basis for some scale of intervention, to be qualified by necessities, circumstances, and our political system.
Furthermore, it is interesting to analyze other Western democracies. Obviously their example does not pardon any offences, and we cannot defend actions with the excuse that our friends are doing so as well, but it does put the Patriot Act into a global perspective. America is not alone in a pursuit of security. Privacy international, a civil liberties non-governmental organization, ranked the United Kingdom’s civil liberty rank equal with Russia and China, as one of the “endemic surveillance societies” (New York Times). Video-cameras observe the people of London constantly, and the citizens are closely monitored, with the average Briton being “captured on film about 300 times a day” (New York Times). The Terrorism Act of 2006 allows up to seven years imprisonment for glorifying or encouraging acts of terrorism, passing out such literature, training for such acts, or visiting such sites. Freedom of speech is not the priority. Suspects can be held for twenty-eight days until being charged, and the ruling government furiously attempted to amend the period to ninety days. Australia as well has largely restricted freedoms of speech. Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act was very similar to the American Patriot Act. The German government’s blanket powers are sweeping and ill-defined. Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands have all increased anti-terrorism measures. World-wide, democracies have been increasing security procedures, to the general detriment of civil liberties. Again, neither these nor the US historical precedents intend to say that the current actions are necessarily good. However, they do seem to point to the conclusion that the current situation is not unique, and that fears about the overreaching power and inherent danger of the Patriot Act may be unfounded.
What then are the specific problems with the USA PATRIOT Act? As stated previously, the general legislation is not too controversial. Additional funding is provided for anti-terrorist activities, miscellaneous laws fix small problems, provisions are put in place to halt money-laundering, tighter border-control procedures are created, aid is given to victims of terrorism or their families, and information is shared between government organizations. The controversy revolves mostly around information gathering, although there are a few cases where the Patriot Act has been used wrongfully. These incidents of misuse include use against the homeless, for drug-related activity, and copy-right infringement, and are usually local governments acting without proper authority. Incidents like these are frustrating and troublesome, but are not cases of great national importance.
More important controversies revolve around communication and information, including intrusive surveillance, obtaining of personal records, and false accusations of terrorist-related activities. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) declared that “there has never been a more urgent need to preserve fundamental privacy protections and our system of checks and balances than the need we face today”. Tens of thousands of “National Security Letters” (NSLs) were issued to obtain financial records concerning customers of Las Vegas businesses. Telephone communication companies released large amounts of personal information on individuals through similar NSLs. It is within the law to demand these records, but there is reason to believe that these cases were not dire, and that too much information was voluntarily disclosed by the parties being investigated. Personal records, ranging from medical results to library book checkouts, can be probed on the discretion of investigators. Authorities can, through Sneak-and-Peek warrants, obtain search warrants without notifying the searched. Wire-taps have been put into place without the obligatory court-approval. Together, along with other measures, these paint a very poor picture of the internal freedoms in America.
In matters of false accusations, the situation doesn’t look much brighter. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) sympathetically reported that Sabri Benkahla, a supposed member of the “Virginia Jihad”, a group training to fight in Kashmir, was wrongfully accused and held in extended custody. He was detained for a month before being alerted to his “crime” and was tried and acquitted. Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon attorney, was charged of being involved in the Madrid Bombings and was held wrongfully for two weeks. The Economist reports that immediately after the September 11 attacks, hundreds of foreigners were rounded up and held, many without charge, for months, while tens of thousands more were questioned and finger-printed. Apparently, none were terrorists. These such occurrences are very unfortunate, but are being addressed by the courts, and the Patriot Act itself is being modified by Congress.
To an unprecedented level, the courts have taken an active role in combating unconstitutional and unfair measures. A judicial audit found that the FBI has improperly used Patriot Act powers to investigate individuals, sometimes without proper authorization, or in non-emergency matters. Federal Judge John D. Bates found over 1000 cases of improper use of National Security Letters, and demanded that government documents of the cases be handed over for examination. (FAC) In Doe v Gonzales, a New York federal judge declared that these national security letters were unconstitutional, breaking at least the Fourth Amendment. (DoJ) The case regarding Brandon Mayfield resulted in the judge declaring that the Acts interfered with the 4th Amendment, and attempted “to break down barriers between criminal law enforcement and intelligence gathering.” (New York Times) Rasul v Bush led to the Supreme Court ruling that inmates at Guantanamo Bay could challenge their detention in American Courts. These court cases have led directly to changes in the law, more judicial oversight, and more Congressional action against certain controversial actions.
Many of these cases are fairly ambiguous and complex, and first impressions may be incorrect. Miscellaneous incidents, often from over-ambitious local administrations, are unfortunate, but are all too common in the bureaucratic nightmare that is called government. They should be addressed, but are minor enough to be of little overall consequence. Admittedly a number of individuals have been charged in error, which is a matter of great concern. However, once again, many of these cases have more than meets the eye. The Madrid bombing case was a freak situation, since the man’s fingerprints very closely matched those found on the detonator caps (only twenty individuals matched the prints), and he had, as a lawyer, previously defended terrorists. The odds were minuscule that he was not the culprit. This minuscule chance was judged enough to warrant his short-term confinement, for a greater security benefit. Benkhala actually was a part of the Virginia Jihad group, 9 of 11 of which were convicted originally. He was found innocent of having actually trained in Afghanistan, but was convicted of having committed perjury. He denied that he had trained with militants in Pakistan, when he in fact had. These incidents show that, however flawed our system for locating and prosecuting terrorists may be, associated problems are sometimes exaggerated. Roving wire-taps are disturbing, but not that really revolutionary in actuality. The measures, which end the requirement for separate court approval for each and every device being monitored, have long been available for criminal cases. It seems a small change to allow this in terrorism cases as well. National security letters, which require no probable cause or judicial oversight, do seem inherently unlawful. Doe v Ashcroft though addressed this issue, and the law has been modified to allow for greater judicial review. Many other cases exist, in forms that are confusing and indefinite. However, the system is working, and the government is actually regulating itself. The USA Patriot Act has not achieved perfection, but the courts are identifying points of illegality, Congress is amending the law, and the president is accepting the revisions.
The historical precedent for action such as the Patriot Act cannot be questioned. Our founders, and Constitution, are divided on the issue of security vs. freedom, and honorable men such as Mr. Lincoln strongly justify force when necessary. The war itself, the War on Terrorists, is in theory a proper war, although it is difficult to ascertain if it is proper in its entirety. The practices are questionable at times, but in many cases the facts are distorted and exaggerated. In others, where there is a clear violation of law or rights, our democratic system seems to be functioning properly. This war will not end soon, nor will it end cleanly. Although there are a number of flaws, especially in incompetent implementation and insufficient oversight from the other branches, something on the order of the PATRIOT ACT is needed. Something is certainly required to prevent future terrorist attacks, such as already occurred in New York, London, Madrid, Istanbul, Baghdad, and countless other locations. I believe that, with more oversight and regulation, the Patriot Act is a suitable response to the struggle of our day.
Does it make sense, and are my points valid? Yeah, i hate how I can't get deeper into the issue, but there are so many cases and so little information available I just figured I'd try to do a more general look.
Do you get paid by the comma?
Yeah, i tend to put commas in as breather marks. Bad habit.
You’ve argued your topic reasonably well, and your paper is coherent. These are my suggestions:
My thoughts are that you’ve chosen a fairly “dense” writing style (ie not “dense” meaning stupid, but “dense” meaning “difficult to easily parse”) and your teacher might ding you for that. 25% of your sentences are in the passive voice — this is high for a paper of this nature. You may wish to consider using the Active Voice more often — it results in easier comprehension.
Your Fleisch-Kincaid Grade Level is 12 — as I understand that metric, anyone less educated than Grade 12 will not be able to understand what you have written. So lower is better. Standard business English should strive for a score of about 8. If you are using MS Word, you may wish to turn on the option to show readability statistics after it does its spelling and grammar check, then use that tool iteratively to drive your readability.
Spell-check is your friend: you misspelled Al Qaeda once — your teacher may not ding that too hard for that. You may wish to consider running spell check as a matter of course — but don’t get mesmerized by it: also use your hardcopy dictionary, for which there is no real viable substitute.
Your most common issue is comma-use: the Grammar Check option in MS Word is your friend, too — usually its selections are quite good I have found. You may wish to make use of the Grammar Check option iteratively, too — it tells you its suggestion, as well as why it is suggesting it. As often as not, it is correct.
In all, as an English paper it is quite good: I particularly liked your use of vocabulary.
I skimmed it rather than reading the entire thing, sorry. I only do that when I don’t know how much time or energy I’ll I have to read the news. You made good points. I didn’t notice any glaring grammatical errors while skimming through it. Besides, do you REALLY want us to tell you that you put the wrong word in a sentence, had a run on or whatever AFTER you’ve handed it in so you can agonize over it?
Long winded and wordy. Decide the purpose of your paper and them choose the material. Every paragraph of your paper takes us down a different road and we never seem to arrive at any point of conclusion. The polite word for that problem is “mindnumbinglyboringwithwaytoomuchextraneousmaterial”
This subject proves the key theme base on the following piece of evidence:
I would only suggest you do this if you already have experience with your teacher/professor's opinion on this formatting style. I have found often High School/College writing classes create standards that aren't always accepted in the corporate world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.