THE UNITING and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, better known as the USA Patriot Act, is undoubtedly one of the more controversial pieces of legislation to emerge in the post-Sept. 11 era. If you listen to the critics of the Patriot Act long enough, you might actually start to believe that the legislation is an Orwellian, fascist attempt to transform the Justice Department into America's own Gestapo. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Patriot Act is a crucial component in protecting American lives and liberty against the worldwide threats of terrorism, and criticisms of the law are nothing more than liberal hysterics.
The Patriot Act was signed into law in October 2001 after receiving overwhelming support from both houses of Congress. Critics of the law derided the accelerated passage and small amount of formal debate. The principles of the Patriot Act, however, were not simply drawn up in the days after Sept. 11. The Patriot Act is a compilation of 15 existing statutes that were updated to reflect new technologies (e.g. wiretaps for cellular phones) and new threats. In addition, the legislation allows for congressional review of any abuses of the Patriot Act every six months and the majority of the most controversial pieces of the Patriot Act will expire in 2005 unless renewed by Congress.
One of the more controversial sections of the Patriot Act is section 215, which allows the government to examine the business and library records as well as phone logs of suspected terrorists or terrorist supporters. Contrary to what the critics would have you believe, investigators still have to obtain a federal warrant to examine such records. Prior to the passage of the bill, the search of such records also required proof of "probable cause" that a crime had already been committed, not exactly the kind of provision to have when the "crimes" are terrorism. As for the search of library records, the American Library Association's hysterics over potential invasions of privacy finally compelled Attorney General John Ashcroft to reveal last fall the total number of library record searches made by the federal government: zero.
The point is that despite what the ALA would have you think, the FBI is not going around looking up the library records of everyone with a Middle-Eastern last name. It's much better to have the law even though it isn't often used than to have something fall through the cracks due to the lack of the law.
Another pet peeve of the anti-Patriot Act gang is delayed notification search warrants. Such devices allow investigators to carry out search warrants without tipping off criminals (in this case, terrorists), thereby preventing the possible destruction of evidence or worse, allowing the terrorist to flee. The ACLU warned the provision "would mark a sea of change in the way search warrants are executed in the United States." Such search warrants, however, are nothing new; the Patriot Act merely codified the practice. In fact, in Dalia v. U.S., the Supreme Court held that "covert entries are constitutional in some circumstances, at least if they are made pursuant to a warrant."
The most asinine aspect of critics of the Patriot Act is their seemingly complete lack of factual information of the law, its wording or its purpose. They rely on hyperbole and blanket statements to try and provoke fear or loathing of the law. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., warned Americans to sell any stock in Amazon.com because the Patriot Act has made Americans "afraid to read books." Not that this practice is any different from what liberals usually resort to: spreading hysteria by using keywords like "fascist", or "invasion of privacy." Unfortunately, our own U.S. House of Representatives gave in last year to the smear campaign and voted to ban funding for the aforementioned delayed notification search warrants.
The American public, however, seems to recognize the ridiculous criticism of the Patriot Act for what it is, namely lies. An August 2003 Gallup poll revealed 69 percent of Americans felt that Patriot Act went "about right" or "not far enough" in restricting civil liberties to fight terrorism. More than two and a half years removed from Sept. 11, one would hope it won't take another terrorist attack for legislators to realize the vital role the Patriot Act plays in preventing terrorist acts and prosecuting those who support terrorists. One thing is for sure, the last thing the government needs in the fight against terrorism is a fight against the lies and blanket statements proliferated by the critics of the Patriot Act.
Joe Schilling's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at jschilling@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
