Executive Summary

The Unpatriotic Acts

In my paper I discuss the dilemma that America has seen between National Security and personal freedoms. Many things are promised to us in the Constitution, especially in the Bill of Rights, that our current government seems to have blatant disregard for. In cases such as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 Americans were asked to hand over many of our rights to privacy to ensure National Security. Nobody could argue with that, who wants to vote no on something called the Patriot Act, only one Senator did. Thankfully, the American Civil Liberties Union has not turned its back to the American people. They are still fighting to make sure that no more of our liberties are taken away in the name of National Security. The government has begun to lose separation of powers and checks and balances. It is scary but in the paper, George Orwell’s Big Brother from 1984 was mentioned as a comparison to our current government. I still hold that this is a valid comparison, President George W. Bush has done all in his power to make it possible to know all there is about every citizen. The government has access to your oral, wire, and electronic communications. They monitor your bank account, your library card usage, and even “sneak and peak” into your home without your knowledge. For all of these invasions they no longer need prior judicial, completely eliminating checks and balances. This leaves our government open to all sorts of abuse, at our expense, in the name of National Security.

The Unpatriotic Acts

It protects us, it’s necessary, it holds us up at the airport, it listens to your phone calls, and it knows what our bank account is doing, it’s National Security! National Security is here for the American people’s own good, so then why has it infringed on so many inalienable rights? It may not have taken away the right to life, but certainly it has interfered with our liberty and even pursuit of happiness. Though, that would depend on your definition of “life,” in the literal sense the right to life has not been taken away, but in the other sense of the word, surely people would argue that their right to life has been infringed upon. One can be certain his or her rights to liberty have been drastically minimized since September 11, 2001. That’s okay though, many people would say as long as we are safe, National Security is a top priority in this country and personal freedom has taken the backseat ever since the president decided to ride the wave of patriotism convincing people these are necessary sacrifices. Personal freedom, some hunters would say, is the right to bear arms, feminists would say the right to be pro-choice, yet others would say it’s freedom of speech. I would agree, but furthermore I believe it is the right to privacy. America is not George Orwell’s 1984. However, every day with every new law, our government is starting to look a lot like big brother. I believe the citizens of the United States are in grave danger of losing their personal liberties for the price of National Security.

Are all of the measures being used to limit personal freedoms actually improving National Security? On October 26, 2001, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, USA PATRIOT Act, was passed taking steps to dissolve our freedoms, even from those of us— the majority— who are not terrorists. It has taken the initiative to enact laws that defy the bill of rights, laws that as John Whitehead said, give the government the ability to “search your e-mail, check your library books, do ‘Sneak and Peek’ searches of your home, turn your neighbor into a spy through the TIPS [Terrorist Information and Prevention System] program” (O’Meara, 2002). The Patriot Act is in direct violation of our rights as citizens, it affects all Americans: governors, janitors, the young and the elderly. Here are some of the rights the government has bestowed upon itself to help combat terrorism and infringe upon your freedoms through the USA Patriot Act:

§         This law allows for indefinite detention of non-citizens who are not terrorists on minor visa violations.

§         It minimizes judicial supervision of telephone and Internet surveillance by law-enforcement authorities in anti-terrorism investigations and in routine criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism.

§         The act expands the ability of the government to conduct secret searches— even in criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism.

§         It gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations.

§         The new law grants the FBI broad access to sensitive medical, financial, mental-health and educational records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime and without a court order.

§         The act allows searches of highly personal financial records without notice and without judicial review based on a very low standard that does not require the showing of probable cause of a crime or even relevance to an ongoing terrorism investigation.

§         It creates a broad new definition of “domestic terrorism” that could allow a police sweep of people who engage in acts of public protest and subject them to wiretapping and enhanced penalties.

§         And this law allows the sharing of sensitive information in criminal cases with intelligence agencies, including the CIA, National Security Agency, Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Secret Service. (O’Meara, 2002)

If O’Meara’s laundry list of the Patriot Act’s dirty little secrets doesn’t strike you as constricting, reread the Constitution or at least the Bill of Rights. The 4^th Amendment promises the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, the 5^th and 6^th Amendments promise that you will not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process and a speedy trial. To most law-abiding citizens these amendments seem almost frivolous, however mistakes happen and the Patriot Act is hard at work to violate many of your freedoms before you even know it, much less have the opportunity to prove yourself innocent.

For people who don’t think these new laws affect you, think again. Although laws are created for one reason, in this instance to catch terrorists, they end up being used for a whole slew of other reasons. The laws are supposed to protect you as your average citizen, and one would think government officials would be above the USA Patriot Act. That is not the case, however. Eliot Spitzer found out the hard way, New York’s Governor was the star of a Suspicious Activity Report for his money transfers leading the FBI to catch him with prostitutes (Hosenball, 2008). Now, this might be a good thing in the spectrum of morality, however the Patriot Act was created to fend off possible terrorists not to be the omnipresent hand of God. Spitzer was not aiding or abetting Al-Qaeda. He was participating in illegal activity, but activity that regardless, had nothing to do with the reasons for the creation of the Patriot Act. One can chalk that up to another benefit of the law: we got another criminal off of the street. Generally when laws are passed, the people creating and voting for them probably intend not to be punished by them. Nevertheless, they are and they negatively impact all U.S. citizens, as well. The amount of Suspicious Activity Reports skyrocketed from 204,915 in 2001 to 1.23 million in 2007 (Hosenball, 2008). If that many terrorists and people assisting them exist in the U.S. then surely there would have been a few more attacks on our soil. So who are they watching?

Even scarier than the fact every little thing you do is monitored, is the fact the FBI is left to police itself (American Civil Liberties Union, 2008). While they issue National Security Letters subpoenaing information about your credit, financial records and electronic communications, nobody is monitoring them. Furthermore, recipients of the Letters are issued gag orders, so they cannot disclose they have received them (American Civil Liberties Union, 2008). The FBI is not being held accountable for the hundreds of NSL’s they issue, because those who receive them can’t divulge it. This is just another instance of our government keeping hidden its corruption. National Security Letters are in and of itself legal, however the people entrusted with the power to issue NSL’s are defying the constitution.

When examining the issue of National Security versus personal freedoms, one has to look at the most recent events leading to the loss of liberties. As of 2008, those would be the attacks on the World Trade center, the anthrax scare and the U.S. response to a “War on Terror.” The former two are the reason for the latter of course, but because of this war— necessary for our protection— more and more freedoms have disappeared from our fingertips. Former Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, stated the attacks “will cause us to reexamine some of our laws pertaining to criminal surveillance, wiretapping, immigration, and so on” (Andrews, 2001). James Abourezk, former democratic senator from South Dakota, said George W. Bush “has forced various forms of tyranny” over U.S. citizens through “the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and spying on American citizens.” Those certainly sound like acts of a tyrant, and if he used the wave of patriotism that swept over our country after a national attack as an excuse, then why, 6 ½ years later, are we still allowing it?

 Also frightening is “almost no one in congress read the PATRIOT Act” before voting for it, with the exception of democratic representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio (Abourezk, 2008). In the six weeks from the Patriot Act’s first draft to the final adoption, the House and Senate were closed for part of the time because of the anthrax scare, and when they were meeting, it was “closed-door negotiations; no conference committee; no committee reports; no final hearing at which opponents could testify; not even an opportunity for most of the legislators to read the 131 single-spaced pages about to become law” (Levy, 2001). One can only hope after our congressmen made such a swift and grave mistake they would remedy it upon learning of the liberties they signed away. However, in the years since the Patriot Act other legislation has passed in the guise of necessity for National Security. Civil libertarians were right when they said “politicians have pulled a bait and switch by using the war on terrorism to implement intrusive – and unconstitutional – security measures” (O’Meara, 2002). The USA Patriot Act, like NSL’s, are intended to protect us from terrorists and possible suspects. However, “the problem, critics say, is that under these new powers every American citizen is a possible suspect of terrorism” (O’Meara, 2002).

Since the Patriot Act has been enacted, only one terrorist attack has occurred on U.S. soil. Comparably, that is consistent with the history of terrorist attacks on the United States. The amount of attacks against U.S. citizens has remained fairly consistent, as well. The following graph depicts the significant terrorist incidents as reports by our State Department, spanning twenty years from 1983-2003.

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

From the graph, it is easy to see the War on Terrorism has done nothing to lessen the attacks on the U.S. The data presented includes terrorist acts such as kidnappings, hostage situations, assassinations, attacks on embassies and other U.S. occupied structures, hijackings, and wounded and killed Americans. For all of the intelligence and security the U.S. attempts to gather, it hasn’t seemed to curtail much of the attacks. Most of the laws that have been enacted for National Security haven’t changed much, we are just as secure as we were when the World Trade Centers were attacked the first time or when the Oklahoma City bombing occurred. Yet our constitutional rights are being taken away, and we are no more protected abroad than we were before.

The Supreme Court is supposed to uphold the constitution, but former justice Sandra Day O’Connor saw no problem with the loss of rights. She stated, “We’re likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country” (Andrews, 2001). She was saying this not as a warning to citizens or to the president, but as a matter-of-fact necessity in order to properly fight the war on terror. With no supreme court to stand in his way, and no congress to stop him, President Bush has all of the benefits of being a tyrant without the title. The separation of powers is one of the cornerstones of the Constitution which are promised to us through judicial authorization and review, but the Patriot Act is doing all it can to remove that guarantee (Levy, 2001). O’Connor was right, even Osama bin Laden warned us, “freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people – and the West in general – into an unbearable hell and a choking life” (O’Meara, 2002). Osama can’t see the future, but he can see what is right in front of him, unlike the citizens of the United States. It was so predictable our rights would be taken away, O’Connor knew it, but nobody had a problem with it. Bush rode the wave of patriotism as far as he could, and Americans let him because they didn’t want to be unpatriotic and appear on the terrorists’ side. 

            National Security is a good and necessary part of life in America, but life in America is based on freedom. We still have our freedom of speech and religion, but we are losing freedoms that we don’t immediately recognize. That’s where our government made the correct move, stripping us of the rights we don’t use every day, so we won’t notice they’re gone. That’s where the American Civil Liberties Union comes in handy. Earlier this year the ACLU brought a lawsuit against the National Security Agency in objection to “warrantless eavesdropping on phone and internet communications to homes, workplaces and libraries for counterterrorism” (American Libraries). The ACLU is doing its job to protect our freedoms, and Americans appreciate it as they are also fed up with the Patriot Act, “more than 325 American communities, encompassing more than 51.6 million Americans in 41 states, have passed local resolutions asking Congress to revisit the Patriot Act and oppose any further expansion of the law and call for corrections to be made to bring the Patriot Act back in line with the Constitution” (Longley, 2004). The resolutions led to one such measure, the Security and Freedom Enforcement Act (SAFE) of 2003, “providing law enforcement with tools to engage in anti-terrorism efforts, while protecting individual freedom and privacy” (Longley, 2004). Unfortunately, one step in the right direction does not correct all of the other missteps.

            In the debate over National Security and personal freedoms, as ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said, “This is a false dichotomy – we can have both security and liberty” (Longley, 2004). Before people claim it’s necessary we relinquish our freedoms, they must think about the Bill of Rights, about separation of powers and checks and balances. These are things that America was built on, we were just as safe in America ten years ago as we are now. The real issue is this War on Terror and all of the incidents that happen abroad. Taking our liberties away at home is not helping soldiers, travels and reporters. People are still being kidnapped and planes are still being hijacked. These things are not happening on U.S. soil, but they are happening to American citizens. Next time the government tries to take away another freedom, ask them how it will protect you next time you decide to travel. The government seems to be very preoccupied with gaining more power and less occupied with using it for good. Sure, knowing everything about every citizen might help if they had enough manpower and hours to search for suspicious activity, but they don’t. It is unnecessary for the government to listen to you, monitor your bank account and library record. I don’t feel any safer knowing the government is sneaking into people’s homes without their knowledge or prior approval, do you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Abourezk, James G. (February 2008). Another “Surge” Is Needed–This Time, of Common Sense. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 27(1), 35-37. from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=2&hid=113&sid=91a34f92-03fd-4729-b5b5-a3e1ff7c9515%40sessionmgr102 Academic Search Complete.

James G. Abourezk is a former U.S. senator (D-SD), he supports my conclusion that President Bush has become to powerful. In his article he mentions the term “tyranny” and discusses the fact that neither congress nor Americans have questioned Bush’s actions. The supreme rule given to him in this system that we call democracy is a disgrace to the constitution. Abourezk helps to prove my argument, but does not offer any opposing views.

American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU Challenges National Security Letters In Congress And Court. 15 April 2008. Retrieved April 18, 2008, from http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/34903prs20080415.html

The American Civil Liberties Union is here to protect the citizens from being victimized and losing their freedoms. Exactly what is happening under Bush. The ACLU’s article is about National Security Letters (NSL), and the FBI’s abuse of them. The FBI has used its power to obtain information and the gag rule to obtain classified information by issuing over 50,000 NSLs in 2006. This article isn’t exactly biased; however they do not offer opposing views, but protection of citizens. I am using it because it provides information, and links if needed, about the widespread abuse of government power to take away our privacy, our liberty.

American Libraries. “Wiretap Suit Rejected as Eavesdropping Law Sunsets.” American Libraries. Apr. 2008. 03 June 2008 <http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/ehost/detail?vid=29&hid=5&sid=d942f5bb-cc0f-4a8e-9954-a2895a5819be%40sessionmgr3>. 

This is useful in finding information about the ACLU vs NSA.

Andrews, John. US Supreme Court Justice O’Connor says “personal freedom” will be curbed. World Socialist Web Site. 10 Oct. 2001. Retrieved April 18, 2008, from http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/ocon-o10.shtml

This is clearly a biased source, coming from the socialist party. However, Andrews discussed Justice O’Connor’s comments basically stating that she would not stand in the way of Bush’s invasion of personal freedoms. While discussion the Sept. 11 attacks, O’Connor said that we will likely see new measures in security that we have never seen the likes of before. This is useful for my research because Andrews supports my opinion.

Hosenball, Mark. & Isikoff, Michael. (2008, March 24). Unintended Consequences. Newsweek, 151, 12., p. 47. from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=18&hid=112&sid=f886553f-619a-4edd-8a7f-786744df32a5%40sessionmgr107 Academic Search Complete.

Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff discuss the irony that the government’s control of our personal freedoms led to the arrest of one of their own. Eliot Spitzer was flagged and and put into a Suspicious Activity Report when he asked his bank to transfer money in someone else’s name. That little act was enough to cause concern for the FBI, leading to the realization of Spitzer’s involvement with call girls. This article helps support my argument, because not only can the government listen to us, now they can see how we choose to manage our money. It’s just another liberty taken from us.

Longley, Robert. ACLU Warns Against New Patriot Act Measures. About.com. Retrieved April 18, 2008, from http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/patriot2.htm

In this article, Longley discusses the ACLU’s attempt to curtail the government’s abuse of powers. Longley is an unbiased source, he just reports his findings. However, he offers no opposing opinions. I still believe it is useful for my paper, because it offers good quotes about the false dichotomy between freedom and security and figures about resistance to the intrusive laws being passed by congress.

Levy, Roberty A. “The USA Patriot Act: We Deserve Better.” Cato Institute. 01 Nov. 2001. 16 May 2008 <http://www.cato.org/research/terrorism/pubs/levy-martial-law.html>. 

This is a good article because it was published right after the Patriot Act became a law. Levy Discusses the freedoms that are being taken from us.

O’Meara, Kelly P. (2002, September 16). Losing the War For Civil Liberties. Insight on the News, 18, 34., p. 18. Retrieved April 24, 2008, from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=26&hid=112&sid=f886553f-619a-4edd-8a7f-786744df32a5%40sessionmgr107 Academic Search Complete.

O’Meara’s article is good for my paper because she discusses the loss of freedoms in America under the scope of losing the war that way. She mentions that Bin Laden claimed America would see unprecedented amounts liberty taken away. He was right. O’Meara has a good article with a lot of facts and quotes that can help to support my claims.

“Significant Terrorist Incidents, 1961-2003: a Brief Chronology.” U.S. Department of State. Mar. 2004. Bureau of Public Affairs. 03 June 2008 <http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm>. 

This is helpful because it gave me the data to create my graph.

The Library of Congress. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001. Retrieved April 18, 2008, from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR:

The Patriot Act, in all of its glory. This obviously will help me because I need to know the exact measures that congress has allowed the government to take. I will primarily be looking at TITLE II–ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES, but also sections of other titles.

 

 

the paper… in progress…

The Unpatriotic Acts

It protects us, it’s necessary, it holds us up at the airport, it listens to your phone calls, and it knows what our bank account is doing, it’s National Security! National Security is here for the American people’s own good, so then why has it infringed on so many inalienable rights? It may not have taken away the right to life, but certainly it has interfered with our liberty and even pursuit of happiness. Though, that would depend on your definition of “life,” in the literal sense the right to life has not been taken away, but in the other sense of the word, surely people would argue that their right to life has been infringed upon. Nonetheless, one can be certain that their right to liberty has been drastically minimized since September 11, 2001. That’s okay though, many people would say as long as we are safe, National Security is a top priority in this country and personal freedom has taken the back seat to that ever since the President decided to ride the wave of patriotism convincing people that these are necessary sacrifices. Personal freedom, some hunters would say is the right to bear arms, feminists would say the right to be pro-choice, yet others would say it’s freedom of speech. I would agree, but furthermore I believe it is the right to privacy. America is not George Orwell’s 1984, however every day with every new law our government is starting to look a lot like big brother. I believe that the citizens of the United States are in grave danger of losing their personal liberties for the price of National Security.

Are all of the measures being used to limit personal freedoms actually improving National Security? The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, USA PATRIOT Act, has taken steps to dissolve our freedoms, even from those of us who are not terrorists. It has taken the initiative to enact laws that defy the bill of rights, laws that as John Whitehead says, give the government the ability to “search your e-mail, check your library books, do ‘Sneak and Peek’ searches of your home, turn your neighbor into a spy through the TIPS [Terrorist Information and Prevention System] program” (O’Meara, 2002). The Patriot Act is in direct violation of our rights as citizens, it affects all Americans: governors, janitors, citizens. Here are some of the rights the government has bestowed upon itself to help combat terrorism and infringe upon your freedoms through the USA PATRIOT Act:

§         This law allows for indefinite detention of noncitizens who are not terrorists on minor visa violations.

§         It minimizes judicial supervision of telephone and Internet surveillance by law-enforcement authorities in antiterrorism investigations and in routine criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism.

§         The act expands the ability of the government to conduct secret searches – even in criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism.

§         It gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations.

§         The new law grants the FBI broad access to sensitive medical, financial, mental-health and educational records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime and without a court order.

§         The act allows searches of highly personal financial records without notice and without judicial review based on a very low standard that does not require the showing of probable cause of a crime or even relevance to an ongoing terrorism investigation.

§         It creates a broad new definition of “domestic terrorism” that could allow a police sweep of people who engage in acts of public protest and subject them to wiretapping and enhanced penalties.

§         And this law allows the sharing of sensitive information in criminal cases with intelligence agencies, including the CIA, National Security Agency, Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Secret Service. (O’Meara, 2002)

 

For people who don’t think that these new laws affect you, think again. Although laws are created for one reason, in this instance to catch terrorists, they end up being used for a whole slew of other reasons. The laws are supposed to protect you, and one would think that government officials would be the last ones hurt by the USA PATRIOT ACT, that is not the case, however. Eliot Spitzer found out the hard way, New York’s Governor was the star of a Suspicious Activity Report for his money transfers leading the FBI to catch him with prostitutes (Hosenball, 2008). Now, this might be a good thing in the spectrum of morality, however the Patriot Act was created to fend off possible terrorists not to be the omnipresent hand of God. Spitzer was not aiding or abetting Al-Qaeda, he was participating in illegal activity, but activity that nonetheless had anything to do with the reasons for the creation of the Patriot Act. One can chalk that up to another benefit of the law, we got another criminal off of the street. However, generally when laws are passed the people creating and voting for them probably intend not to be punished by them. Nevertheless, they do and the negatively impact U.S. citizens too. The amount of Suspicious Activity Reports skyrocketed from 204,915 in 2001 to 1.23 million in 2007 (Hosenball, 2008). If that many terrorists and people assisting them exist in the U.S. then there surely would have been a few more attacks on our soil. So who are they watching?

Even scarier than the fact that every little thing you do is monitored, is the fact that the FBI is left to police itself (American Civil Liberties Union, 2008). While they issue National Security Letters subpoenaing information about your credit, financial records, and electronic communications nobody is monitoring them. Furthermore, recipients of the Letters are issued gag orders, so they cannot disclose that they have received them (American Civil Liberties Union, 2008). How is the FBI going to be held accountable for the hundreds of NSL’s they issue, if everybody who receives them can’t divulge it? This is just another instance of our government keeping hidden their corruption. National Security letters are in and of themselves legal, however the people entrusted with power over issuing NSL’s are defying the constitution.

When examining the issue of National Security vs. personal freedoms, one has to look at the most recent events leading to the loss of liberties. In 2008, those would be the attacks on the World Trade center, the anthrax scare, and the U.S. response of a “War on Terror.” The former two are the reason for the latter of course, but because of this war, necessary for our protection, more and more freedoms have disappeared from our finger tips. Former Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, stated that the attacks “will cause us to reexamine some of our laws pertaining to criminal surveillance, wiretapping, immigration, and so on” (Andrews, 2001). James Abourezk, former democratic senator from South Dakota, said that George W. Bush “has forced various forms of tyranny” over U.S. citizens through “the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and spying on American citizens.” Those certainly sound like acts of a tyrant, and if use the wave of patriotism that swept our country after a national attack as an excuse, why then 6 ½ years later are we still allowing it? Scarier even is that, “almost no one in congress read the PATRIOT Act” before voting for it, with the exception of democratic representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio (Abourezk, 2008). One can only hope after our congressmen made such a grave mistake they would remedy it upon learning of the liberties they signed away. However, in the years since the Patriot Act other legislation has passed in the guise of necessity for National Security. Civil libertarians were right when they said that “politicians have pulled a bait and switch by using the war on terrorism to implement intrusive – and unconstitutional – security measures” (O’Meara, 2002). The USA PATRIOT Act, like NSL’s are intended to protect us from terrorists and possible suspects. However, “the problem, critics say, is that under these new powers every American citizen is a possible suspect of terrorism” (O’Meara, 2002).

The Supreme Court is supposed to uphold the constitution, but former justice Sandra Day O’Connor, saw no problem with the loss of rights. She stated, “We’re likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country” (Andrews, 2001). She was saying this not as a warning to citizens or to the President but as a matter-of-fact necessity in order to properly fight the war on terror. With no supreme court to stand in his way, and no congress to stop him, President Bush has all of the benefits of being a tyrant without the title. O’Connor was right, even Osama bin Laden warned us, “freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people – and the West in general – into an unbearable hell and a choking life” (O’Meara, 2002). Osama can’t see the future, but he can see what is right in front of him, unlike the citizens of the United States. It was so predictable that our rights would be taken away, O’Connor knew it, but nobody had a problem with it. Bush rode the wave of patriotism as far as he could, and Americans let him, because they wouldn’t want to be unpatriotic and on the terrorists’ side. 

 

Some more sources…

Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America

Darren W. Davis, Brian D. Silver

The USA Patriot Act: We Deserve Better

Robert A. Levy

If Security Fails, There is Always a Scapegoat: Freedom

Andrew Potter

TIA: Terrorism Information Awareness or Totally InAppropriate?

Kinley Levack

Annotated Bibliography.

Works Cited

Abourezk, James G. (February 2008). Another “Surge” Is Needed–This Time, of Common Sense. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 27(1), 35-37. from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=2&hid=113&sid=91a34f92-03fd-4729-b5b5-a3e1ff7c9515%40sessionmgr102 Academic Search Complete.

James G. Abourezk is a former U.S. senator (D-SD), he supports my conclusion that President Bush has become to powerful. In his article he mentions the term “tyranny” and discusses the fact that neither congress nor Americans have questioned Bush’s actions. The supreme rule given to him in this system that we call democracy is a disgrace to the constitution. Abourezk helps to prove my argument, but does not offer any opposing views.

American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU Challenges National Security Letters In Congress And Court. 15 April 2008. Retrieved April 18, 2008, from http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/34903prs20080415.html

The American Civil Liberties Union is here to protect the citizens from being victimized and losing their freedoms. Exactly what is happening under Bush. The ACLU’s article is about National Security Letters (NSL), and the FBI’s abuse of them. The FBI has used its power to obtain information and the gag rule to obtain classified information by issuing over 50,000 NSLs in 2006. This article isn’t exactly biased; however they do not offer opposing views, but protection of citizens. I am using it because it provides information, and links if needed, about the widespread abuse of government power to take away our privacy, our liberty.

Andrews, John. US Supreme Court Justice O’Connor says “personal freedom” will be curbed. World Socialist Web Site. 10 Oct. 2001. Retrieved April 18, 2008, from http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/ocon-o10.shtml

This is clearly a biased source, coming from the socialist party. However, Andrews discussed Justice O’Connor’s comments basically stating that she would not stand in the way of Bush’s invasion of personal freedoms. While discussion the Sept. 11 attacks, O’Connor said that we will likely see new measures in security that we have never seen the likes of before. This is useful for my research because Andrews supports my opinion.

Brown, Sasha. Personal freedom vs. national security debated at forum. Massachusettes Institute of Technology. 29 Oct. 2004. Retrieved April 18, 2008, from http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2004/stratton-security.html

This article is sums up a debate about personal freedom. In it the few people quoted, support the measures taken by our government as necessary to national security. However, one person does discuss the lack of any attacks since the 2001 World Trade Center and the anthrax scare on American soil, chalking that up to the Patriot Act, but also saying that any policy looks good when you only look at the benefits. This is useful to my argument because I can look up the actual transcripts of the debate, and see what the credible sources have to say. It also offers opposition to my views.

Hosenball, Mark. & Isikoff, Michael. (2008, March 24). Unintended Consequences. Newsweek, 151, 12., p. 47. from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=18&hid=112&sid=f886553f-619a-4edd-8a7f-786744df32a5%40sessionmgr107 Academic Search Complete.

Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff discuss the irony that the government’s control of our personal freedoms led to the arrest of one of their own. Eliot Spitzer was flagged and and put into a Suspicious Activity Report when he asked his bank to transfer money in someone else’s name. That little act was enough to cause concern for the FBI, leading to the realization of Spitzer’s involvement with call girls. This article helps support my argument, because not only can the government listen to us, now they can see how we choose to manage our money. It’s just another liberty taken from us.

Longley, Robert. ACLU Warns Against New Patriot Act Measures. About.com. Retrieved April 18, 2008, from http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/patriot2.htm

In this article, Longley discusses the ACLU’s attempt to curtail the government’s abuse of powers. Longley is an unbiased source, he just reports his findings. However, he offers no opposing opinions. I still believe it is useful for my paper, because it offers good quotes about the false dichotomy between freedom and security and figures about resistance to the intrusive laws being passed by congress.

O’Meara, Kelly P. (2002, September 16). Losing the War For Civil Liberties. Insight on the News, 18, 34., p. 18. Retrieved April 24, 2008, from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=26&hid=112&sid=f886553f-619a-4edd-8a7f-786744df32a5%40sessionmgr107 Academic Search Complete.

O’Meara’s article is good for my paper because she discusses the loss of freedoms in America under the scope of losing the war that way. She mentions that Bin Laden claimed America would see unprecedented amounts liberty taken away. He was right. O’Meara has a good article with a lot of facts and quotes that can help to support my claims.

The Library of Congress. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001. Retrieved April 18, 2008, from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR:

The Patriot Act, in all of its glory. This obviously will help me because I need to know the exact measures that congress has allowed the government to take. I will primarily be looking at TITLE II–ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES, but also sections of other titles.

Sources.

I believe that the citizens of the United States are in grave danger of losing their personal liberties for the price of National Security.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR:

-The Patriot Act

http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=EV&pubid=158

-Got Privacy? Personal Freedom vs. National Security

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/patriot2.htm

-ACLU Warns Against New Patriot Act Measures

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/34903prs20080415.html

-ACLU Challenges National Security Letters In Congress And Court

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/ocon-o10.shtml

-US Supreme Court Justice O’Connor says “personal freedom” will be curbed

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2004/stratton-security.html

-Personal freedom vs. national security debated at forum

Lady Liberty and the Man trying to strip her of that.

So I’ll start by telling you how I even came to this decision. The original topic was going to be should the President be allowed to wiretap without permission, but upon deciding that was far to narrow I broadened it to the entire Patriot Act. However, that is far to broad, so I am going to deal primarily with certain titles and sections of the Act, mainly ones dealing with personal freedoms. My research paper will be about the price of national security versus the value of personal freedoms.

Research Topics.

For my Edu P&L 359 class I have to write a research paper, however coming to this decision is not an easy one. The topics I am debating researching are listed below:

1. Should the USA Patriot Act of 2001 remain a law?

2. Is No Child Left Behind effective?

3. Parochial Education, is it fair that there is no government support, but those parents pay twice for education?

4. Is universal health care beneficial?