"Patriot Act" Undermines U.S. Constitution
While Supposedly Providing Americans Safety

The Patriot Act, unfortunately, has not drawn a great deal of attention, and this fault may be set against the American press; it is a collective failure to fulfill the responsibility demanded of the Fourth Estate by the Founding Fathers.

Its very name bespeaks a depth of cynicism; the legislation known as The Patriot Act is as hard a hit against American freedom as there ever has been. President George Bush does, however, have plans for the Patriot Act, now that he’s able to call his slim victory a mandate: he plans to strengthen it. But the press is silent.

Sen. John Kerry ought to shout about this from the rooftops. Why he has chosen not to denounce Mr. Bush’s plan is his shame. The Democrats as a whole appear to need to find their collective spine and stand up against efforts to use patriotism and something of a national war footing to thwart any criticism or opposition. At least if the Democrats came forward the timid national press would have someone to quote.

Like many easy-on-the-tongue, homeland-loving catch phrases, The Patriot Act moniker hides the fact it is tearing apart the Constitution. Luckily, a couple of pieces of the Act have been ruled unconstitutional. Late in September a New York Federal Judge, Victor Marrero, ruled illegal the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) request to randomly take information on Internet and telephone calls. No notification, just secretly capture the information.

Well, Judge Marrero said, "democracy abhors undue secrecy."

FBI operatives used National Security Letters, which allowed the bureau to seize customer records the operatives deemed related to a terrorist activity. These National Security Letters, strengthened in the Patriot Act, also place a permanent gag order on the recipients. They can tell no one about what they know of a government action; ever. How does this sort of bureaucratic power uphold the tenets of democracy that Mr. Bush is so anxious to implant around the world?

In the New York, a company got one of these National Security Letters and was ordered not to tell anyone about it. No lawyers, said the FBI. Is this the new democracy that Mr. Bush and the GOP are employing at home while declaring they are fighting to implant democracy everywhere else?

No lawyers; really?

Isn’t there something called the First Amendment that gives everyone the right to a lawyer?

So the company got in touch with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which quickly took the case.

Lawyers at the ACLU also argued that National Security Letters violated the Fourth Amendment because the concept gives the FBI unlimited power to obtain private information without any judicial safeguards; in essence, this is violating the unreasonable search and seizure rule.

It was unconstitutional on its face.

Judge Marrero did allow secrecy for the duration of the investigation, but no longer. He said: "Public knowledge ensures freedom. Under the mantle of secrecy, the self preservation that ordinarily impels our government to censorship and secrecy may potentially be turned on ourselves as a weapon of self-destruction."

In that one summary, Judge Marrero captures what is un-Patriotic about the Patriot Act.

Sooner or later, government secrecy over any field of knowledge will corrupt it.

That is not occasional. It is certain.

Look at any government over the centuries and see that any body of knowledge that is corralled in a certain way by the government becomes poisonous. Look at this current GOP government and it is evident the principle is at work.

Stem cell research is medical knowledge the government wants to keep from medical researchers. Private medical laboratories therefore pursue it. Canadian drugs offer lower prices but knowledge of that takes profits from American companies, so the government battles the clear knowledge that importation is economical with arguments regarding safety.

This president, George W. Bush, is dealing with half-truths – if even that.

Mr. Bush’s GOP has taken to excluding Democrats from the drafting of the bills in Congress. This means partisan legislation is all that is happening because nearly half of the elected members of Congress do not see the bills until they are ready to be voted upon. In other words, the GOP closes off discussing of upcoming legislation to all Democrats, hammers out what it wants for a national law, and brings it forward for a vote of the Republican majority.

The proposed legislation is handed out to the Democratic Representatives at the last minute, so technically it can be said they and their voter constituents have not been disenfranchised, but they have not time to read and digest the new laws, much less argue for changes, before a vote is taken. And even if they tried, the GOP has a majority and can simply move forward; the choice given the Democrats is to vote against the given bill, blindly support it, or abstain.

But the Patriot Act is far, far worse.

The Marrero ruling may be appealed by the Justice Department.

Judge Marrero is an appointee of President William Clinton, so it probably will be challenged, since the GOP will assume, in its fixed partisan mind-set, that Marrero’s decision must also be partisan.

And so it goes. The GOP, at this point in its history, can’t imagine that Judge Marrero might be relying on his understanding of the Constitution and his conscience. The Republicans can’t understand that possibility because they no longer share it; everything is partisan to the radical Republicans in Congress and the Bush Administration. There is no middle ground, no ‘we’re all Americans working for the best result, so let’s compromise.’

The GOP mindset is exemplified by how Mr. Bush, in another knowledge perversion and theft of balance, is rapidly filling federal and other judicial seats with extremely right-wing judges. In doing that, Bush used a special tactic in some cases, walking two radical judges through the Congress without review because he waited until a holiday when Congress could not ask questions.

All the tactics, all the power is being drawn close to Bush.

In the case of the National Security Letters, for example, the FBI can simply go to a judge and get the same material. The only difference is that approval would be in the hands of a judge, a member outside the executive branch. And that is the very point of the whole Patriot Act. Mr. Bush wants absolute control, absolute sway over as much bureaucratic power as he can seize.

He and his friends have even got a Patriot Act II in the wings. While some lawmakers – even some feisty Republicans – want a chance to bring the Patriot Act back into the fold of Constitutional laws, Bush persists in pressing for more secrecy, more unchallenged power.

Virtually everyone wants to catch terrorists and restore world order. That has been the first item on the table for all decent cultures since time began, and it is certainly the stated reason behind America’s current policies.

But America’s agenda should never include broad blanket secrecy as a means to an end. More importantly, America’s view of the world cannot be one of holding its people in fear. Yet that is exactly what Bush is doing. His methods are classic.

Apparently Mr. Bush thinks this is the right way to go about it. In thinking that secrecy and force are the main tools in the battle against terrorists, Bush shows the limits of his vision. He sees only enemies, not potential friends.

Sooner or later, the United States must look at the people of the Mideast – straight in the eye – and decide it is time for peace. That will happen. It must happen, for if one believes otherwise, the future is doomed. Mr. Bush does not see it, nor does it appear that he will.

W.B.