Unconstitutional “Patriot” Act Extended

As most of you may know, the so-called “Patriot” Act was recently extended. It was originally thought that the act would pass without opposition, but the Patriot Act failed the House vote originally by eight votes. It was later passed once it was put up for a second vote where only a majority was needed instead of two thirds. On Tuesday, the Senate passed a three month extension of the “Patriot” Act by a 86 to 12 vote. Some Senate members are attempting to pass the act permanently.

Much of the opposition in the Senate was led by Senator Rand Paul. “Now we have essentially government agents, akin to soldiers, writing warrants; it’s ripe for abuse,” said Senator Paul. The senator has also posted a press release explaining why he opposes the Act and encouraging his fellow congressmen to do the same.

In his letter, Rand Paul cites American revolutionist James Otis, who argued against general warrants and writs of assistance. During his time, they were often used without judicial approval by British soldiers and included no restrictions or description of what or where was to be searched or seized. He described these warrants as “the worst instrument[s] of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever w[ere] found in an English law book.” His objected was based on his belief that these warrants “placed the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.” Rand Paul analogously described his resistance to the “Patriot” Act as similar to Otis’s opposition to the writs of assistance.

Rand Paul addressed the Senate, arguing against the “Patriot” Act. He later discussed the “Patriot” Act’s renewal with Judge Andrew Napolitano on Freedom Watch:

Ron Paul also led the opposition in the House; unfortunately, his words fell on deaf ears. You can hear his address to the House of “Representatives” here.

According to Rand Paul in the video above, the “Patriot” Act has been used 200,000 times in the last ten years. Furthermore, so-called “suspicious bank accounts” were reported 2,000,000 times, from banks to the FBI. These bank records also merit some attention; most of these 2,000,000 bank records were from American citizens! This is an enormous infringement on privacy.

The Provisions that were set to expire and were voted upon are perhaps the worst parts of the “Patriot” Act, and addressed roving wiretapping, governmental seizures, and the “lone wolf provision.” The roving wiretapping allows law enforcement officials to use surveillance without identifying the individual who is going to be wiretapped or at what location. One section allows governmental seizures of “any tangible thing.” The “lone wolf” provision allows electronic monitoring of a person without proof that the suspect is an foreign agent or terrorist.

It should be clear that the so-called “Patriot” Act is an enormous infringement to our 4th amendment right to privacy, ignores the fact that only judges can issue warrants. However, for those of you who may be skeptical, here is the text of the Fourth Amendment:

“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.”

Think about it. Under the “Patriot” Act, law enforcement can participate in searches and seizures without a Judge’s approval. Now all it takes is an FBI letter, and their decision can be based on arbitrary terms; they can essentially search, seizure, or surveille anything they want. Anyone – law-abiding American citizens included – can be victims of the “Patriot” Act. 200,000 American’s already have. You no longer have a right to privacy, America.

The “Patriot Act” is anything but patriotic. We’re not drifting towards a police state, we are already there.

Illinois Wiretapping Laws Upheld – Recording Police Still Illegal

Recently, a Federal District Court Judge, Suzanne Conlon, dismissed a challenge by the ACLU in Illinois that questioned the Illinois law that makes recording someone with their consent, on public property, a felony. Doing so can be punishable by up to fifteen years in prison. While this law applies to all recording without consent, it has been specifically used against citizens who record police officers.

Charges against individuals for recording police officers on public property are not uncommon. For example, Michael Allison from Bridgepoint, Illinois, faces potential prison time for recording on-duty Illinois police officers. Read about it in Reason’s, The War On Camera’s.

In Illinois, it is against the law to use any “eavesdropping device” to record a phone call or any conversation without the consent of all parties involve. This law has been in place for some time, and is among the strictest. Illinois is one of a handful of states with similar laws. To see if your state’s “wiretapping” laws, check out LibertyActivim’s state wiretapping law summary. According to the law, only audio recordings are against the law; video recordings are fair game. Of course, this law only applies to citizen’s who wish to record in public, not to law enforcement officials. For more on the Illinois wiretapping law, read the page at the Citi Media Law Project. There is also an additional summary of Illinois recording rights here.

While it makes sense for state’s to protect privacy by preventing audio and visual recordings of private conversations on private property, it seems irrational to require consent for anyone who might be present on public property. If we take a look at the expectation of privacy on public property, we can easily conclude that there is no expectation of privacy. If there’s no expectation of privacy on public property, what sense does it make to have a law that “protects privacy” on public land?

The law has been used primarily against citizens who record police officers on public property. I personally find it unsettling not only that one can’t audio record on public property without consent of all parties involved, but that we cannot audio record police officers. I think being able to record law enforcement is beneficial for the community because it adds transparency and accountability. It allows us to know what police officers are doing and make’s it easier to see abuses of power. Without the ability to record law enforcers, it becomes very easy for a rouge officer to break the law or otherwise abuse his power. Police abuse of power is already an issue; by making it even more difficult to track the actions of police officers we place ourselves even more within the hope that they are of good character.

Society should encourage audio and video recording of police officers and other public officials. We have the right to know what our “public servants” are doing and to keep them accountable. Furthermore, does not prohibiting of recording imply potential wrongdoing? While much of the time the officer may be doing his duty as he should, a police officer’s fear of the camera suggests that they may not want the public to know of their actions. What do they have to hide?

I am of the opinion that it should always be lawful to record police officers as party of our freedom of press and free speech. Doing so encourages accountability and discourages corruption and abuse of power. Though we in Illinois can still technically video record police officers (it’s only audio recording that’s illegal), it’s still very easy for a police officer to intimidate and make your turn off your camera under the guise of interfering with police or obstructing justice. Without the ability to lawfully record law enforcement, we suffering the risk of even more abuse of power.

Patriot Act Soon to be Renewed

We all want to feel safe. We want to feel the government is protecting us, but at the same time we want to feel that our freedoms are preserved. The Patriot Act infringes upon our civil liberties under the guise of security. Portions of the bill are soon up for renewal, and it has gotten there with very little press. It appears it will go renewed silently, without opposition.

The Patriot Act, originally passed in George W. Bush’s presidency in 2001, greatly reduced the privacy of Americans. Law enforcement agencies love this act because it gives them the ability to monitor telephone and email communications, as well as financial records much more easily than ever before in the history of the United States. As I’m sure most of you are aware, it’s intended to help curb terrorism (including domestic terrorism). The act passed easily in Congress, where it was supported by Republicans and Democrats. Interestingly, George Bush took some negative criticism over the Patriot Act, primarily from Democrats, despite the fact that many Democrats supported the bill. The bill was reauthorized in July, 2005 and passed into law in 2006.

The Patriot Act indeed threatens the fundamental civil liberties of Americans. One of the problems with the Patriot Act is that it is very broad and can apply not only to terrorists, but to suspected terrorists, lawful citizens, and essentially anyone deemed as a potential or suspected terrorist. Who defines what a terrorist is? Who comes up with the criteria? It should be obvious how easily this can be abused. This is only among the most obvious flaws of the Patriot Act. It has allowed the creation of things such “sneak and peak warrants,” wiretapping without a warrant, indefinite detention of immigrants, and several other atrocities.

President Obama renewed three provisions of the Act about a year ago. It’s now up for renewal again.

There is a good summary of the bill here, by the ACLU, that details the problems with the bill. You can also view an analysis of it by CATO, here. Within the bill, they detail roving wiretaps that allow the government to spy on individuals and even raid any place an individual has been over the past year. Section 215 allows the seizure of whatever records they want, including email, phone, and financial records. They don’t even have to let you know they’re doing this.

For those interested, a petition can be found here.

Good intentions often have negative, unintended consequences, and this is absolutely the case with the USA Patriot Act. Yes, we want to feel safe, but at what cost? I believe the cost here is far too high. When society allows such freedom for law enforcement and, consequently, such a loss of civil liberties and privacy, we should expect for our rights to only continue to be eroded. The Patriot Act has been in existence for ten years. Recently we’ve seen the installation of body scanners and more invasive pat-downs at airports. What’s next? It’s a wonder we don’t have such security at bus stations and malls yet. How long until the idea of a warrant is accepted as a foreign concept? Trading our freedom for security is a mistake we will have to pay for in the future.

Unfortunately, it’s the path America has chosen to walk.

Wiretaping Compromise Reached

Recently, Congress reached an agreement on the wiretapping bill that gives Telecom companies immunity. This new bill contains some checks on the Executive branch; however, these checks, in my opinion, are not sufficient enough.

First of all, to my understanding, Telecom companies that have already provided information to government agencies illegally (such as personal information) will receive immunity. These companies violated their contracts and agreements they had with their customers, yet they will face no consequences for this. I fear that this will set a bad example for future situations. In the future, companies may be more willing to breech their policies with their customers if the Telecom companies involved in this situation aren’t dealt with appropriately.

The precedent set by this might be something worth overlooking, except that with these new guidelines the government can now warrantlessly wiretap American citizens when they feel it’s an emergency. Now, I think the intent behind this is good – to better protect America by preventing terrorist attacks before they happen by surveying citizens who are suspects. However, what qualifies as an emergency? Now virtually any government intelligence agency can spy on U.S. citizens whenever they want as long as they feel it’s appropriate. That being said, they can only do this for up to seven days before getting a warrant from a special court.

This new agreement ends in 2012, but until then there is no doubt this will continue. The bill was passed in the House and will be voted on by the Senate this week.

Personally, I am sort of on the middle of the fence. I think that wiretapping and other types of surveillance without a warrant is okay, but only when it meets certain criteria. Simply allowing it at the discretion of U.S. intelligence agencies or at whatever they deem an “emergency” is good enough. We need specifics that outline when it is acceptable and when it is not. My second concern with this legislation is that it grants immunity to Telecom companies that have been illegally giving government agencies this information. This is not right and this is not acceptable. If, with acceptable checks in place, Congress decides that granting immunity to Telecom companies is acceptable in the future, that is fine, but not if it’s ex post facto. If the immunity is retroactive – if it applies to the past offenses with the Telecom companies – then this is not okay.

In my opinion, we’re treading a very thin line. Allowing the government to protect us through surveillance is one thing, but doing so at the cost of our civil liberties is another.

  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Facebook