The Patriot Act: "War is Peace"
Apr 11 '04 (Updated Apr 21 '04)
The Bottom Line I recently submitted this piece for a class on Critical Thinking - the professor chose one of my hot button issues for me to discuss - the Patriot Act.
The horror and devastation unleashed upon America on the morning of September 11, 2001 was a singular moment in this nation’s history. Not since a December morning nearly sixty years earlier had the nation awakened to find itself suddenly thrust into war, yet this war was different from all others. This time, the war was personal – philosophies and ideals drove men of religious zeal to give up their lives in a final expression of vile hatred against us, their “Great Satan”. Terrorism had struck at our very heart, and unlike the wars of the previous centuries, there was no far off land to point to as the enemy. Though we knew the enemy well, he was elusive, invisible, and protected from our probing eyes and ears around the globe; from the start of our hunt for justice, the Bush administration had a problem – we had never waged war on a idea, embraced by a radical religious shadow organization with fanatical followers spread across the planet, ready to wreak havoc and destruction at any time.
On September 20, 2001, President George W. Bush delivered a special State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress, and to the nation at large. In this speech, Bush began laying the groundwork for our nation’s response to terrorism,
Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.(1)
Though America would eventually expend great military effort to search out the source of the terrorist actions in Afghanistan, and would expand its efforts to suppress even the possibility of terrorist proliferations by overthrowing the regime of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, these efforts required the debate of nations and a long build up before they could take place. Measures had to be taken immediately so that the United States could act with greater freedom to capture terrorists wherever they might be found, and so, the Bush Administration proposed and received passage of the Patriot Act, just forty-five days after the attacks in New York.
The Patriot Act gave the government increased powers of surveillance, police searches, ability to hold suspects without cause or judicial review, and many other wide-ranging abilities, all in the name of "our war on terrorism". All of these items were felt to be necessary to root out terrorists within the United States – the existing laws governing actions by legal authorities were not flexible enough to allow quick police action against terrorists. With the Patriot Act in place, the government was now able to act with great freedom to pursue the war on terrorism on the domestic front. The Bush Administration’s quick actions ensured that the war on terrorism would be fought on the terrorist’s home ground by our military forces, and on our own ground by our police forces – never tiring, never faltering, never failing.
While seeming to be an appropriate, and comprehensive solution for ensuring our ongoing safety and cherished freedoms, the Patriot Act is a direct affront to the very foundation of our nation, the principles laid forth by the founders in the Bill of Rights. According to a summary of the Act prepared by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Patriot Act threatens to weaken several Amendments of the Bill, namely the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth. These amendments include the freedoms of religion, press, protection against unreasonable search and seizures, and many aspects of the due process of law. By expanding the government’s abilities to work around these amendments in the pursuit of terrorists, I would argue that the Patriot Act is a dangerous tool that we cannot allow to be used by any governmental agency.
If the Patriot Act is allowed to continue in use, it will become more and more ingrained in our judicial system, setting legal precedence, being used to create new judgments and interpretations of other existing laws, and as the basis for new laws in response to events that will greatly affect our future. This is the way of our legal system – modern legal agencies interpret past law and mold it to fit our new circumstances. Bush’s intent for this war is obvious from his speech; he intends to pursue this course until we are free from fear and the threat of violence. But this is an unreasonable action – we cannot fight fear except within our own minds, we cannot be free from a threat unless the threat cannot be made at all. So, despite our military efforts to locate actual terrorists and prevent future terrorist action by neutralizing rogue nations and their actual weapons, even these things are not enough. The Patriot Act is designed to free Americans from fear and threat of violence, while at the same time, eroding the very freedoms we hold as self-evident.
If we take my position on the effects of the Patriot Act to be true, or at least, possible, what can we as Americans do to reverse this course of continual war on terrorism, and the establishment of new legal precedent that may cause our nation’s foundation to crumble? “We the people” is a powerful phrase, and one we must not shy away from. Already this year, Maine became the fourth state to pass a resolution calling for Congress to closely examine the Patriot Act; several other state legislatures are currently debating similar resolutions. We the people can encourage such action by exercising our freedom to vote, to choose the voices that we wish to speak for us at all levels of government. We have the power to make change, and we must not allow fear to overcome our national resolve to stand up to real violence. We cannot fight a shadow; we must have the courage to face evil when it rises, and we must steel ourselves for the pain that this confrontation may cause us. We must remember that it was our resolve to overcome adversity and oppression that allowed this nation to overthrow the rule of a tyrant, not an Act that promised to shield us from fear of or threats made by that tyrant. Fear and threats are appeals to our emotions, attempts to break us down from the inside. We have long demonstrated the ability to face these things head on – let us not try to legislate now what we have already proven capable of defeating.
A selection of voices I think should be heard
· Rep. C.L. Otter (R-ID)
You cannot give up freedom, you cannot give up liberty, and be safe. When your freedom is lost, it makes no difference who took it away from you. (The terrorists) have won. What did they want to do? Take away our freedom. They've won in some cases.(2)
· Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Given the tragic events of Sept. 11th there is no question that federal law enforcement agencies needed more tools and that Congress needed to update our nation's anti-terrorism laws. But it is also clear that Congress has an obligation to make sure the law is working as intended. We must strike a careful and constitutional balance between protecting the individual rights of Americans and giving our law enforcement and intelligence officials the tools they need to prevent future terrorist attacks. To date it appears portions of the Patriot Act may have moved the scales out of balance.(3)
· George Orwell, in his book, 1984
In past ages, a war, almost by definition, was something that sooner or later came to an end, usually in unmistakable victory or defeat. In the past, also, war was one of the main instruments by which human societies were kept in touch with physical reality. All rulers in all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers, but they could not afford to encourage any illusion that tended to impair military efficiency. So long as defeat meant the loss of independence, or some other result generally held to be undesirable, the precautions against defeat had to be serious. Physical facts could not be ignored… But when war becomes literally continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous. When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity...(4)
References
1. President George W. Bush. September 20, 2001 State of the Union Address. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
2. Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-ID) ("Otter to speak on Patriot Act dissent," Idaho State Journal, 11/9/2003) http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12632&c=206
3. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) ("Murkowski Proposes Changes to USA PATRIOT Act to Protect Civil Liberties While Fighting Terrorism," Press Release from the Office of Senator Lisa Murkowski, 8/01/2003) http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12632&c=206
4. Orwell, George. 1984. Part Two, Chapter Nine. http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/1984/1984_c17.htm
--------------
I know that this article will elicit responses from both sides of the issue - let's all agree to disagree and play nice, OK? ...and no petty infighting please. You know who you are.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
bob_tomato
|
 - Top 500 |
|
Member: Andrew
Location: Dallas Metroplex
Reviews written: 285
Trusted by: 211 members
About Me:
no more thhppptttt...
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.