When the American Civil Liberties Union begins alerting Americans about the actions of their government, rejoice. Indignation from the ACLU usually means someone in Washington has done something sensible. Now is such a time.
The ACLU is grieving the passage of the USA Patriot Act (H.R.3162), which expands the federal government’s power to monitor and detain suspected terrorists. The ACLU, which has codified their serial hyperventilating into a series of panicky statements says, “This bill goes light years beyond what is necessary to combat terrorism. Included in this bill are provisions that would allow for the mistreatment of immigrants, the suppression of dissent and the investigation and surveillance of wholly innocent Americans.” Such fatalism is meant to cultivate the requisite fear to stop the government. A reading of the bill reveals no such need.
The new law expands federal ability to conduct electronic surveillance and nationwide search warrants; gives the FBI access to private records; allows the detention, for up to seven days, of immigrants suspected of terrorism or supporting terrorism without their being legally charged with a crime or immigration violations; and, among other things, mandates that banks determine the source of money in unusually large private accounts.
The ACLU looks at all that and says the bill “threatens liberty.” (Aside: Is liberty really that frail?)
About the bill, some perspective: the legislation does swell the power of the FBI and the CIA to monitor personal communications, but the bill’s major provisions-including the new wiretapping and surveillance powers-expire in 2004, and individuals may sue the government if personal data is disclosed slanderously. Besides, if someone is considered a likely candidate to perpetrate terrorism, isn’t it reasonable to give the government a meager seven days to figure things out?
Knowing of government interest in our personal communications is discomfiting, but if the government is serious about stopping terrorism, they have no choice. As Washington Post columnist George Will noted, “The complexities of urban industrial societies make them inherently vulnerable to well-targeted attacks that disrupt the flows and interconnectedness of such societies. The new dependence on information technologies multiplies the vulnerabilities.” Furthermore:
“The grim paradox is that terrorism, a particularly primitive act, has a symbiotic relationship with the sophistication of its targets. And opportunities for macro-terrorism directed against urban populations and their water, food-handling and information systems multiply as societies become more sophisticated.”
Terrorists can exploit society’s reliance on technology by using viruses to cripple computers, which in today’s world can, in certain ways, be as disruptive as a military attack. And because it enables instant worldwide communication, the Internet is wonderful for terrorists who function internationally. In the time it takes to board a plane, terrorist A in Iraq can send terrorist B in China the signal-an e-mail-to blow up something or someone.
Especially crucial, despite its intrusiveness, is the capability to monitor e-mail. “It is commonly agreed,” wrote historian Jay Winik in the Oct 23 Wall Street Journal, “that our greatest breakthroughs in this war will most likely come not from military strikes or careful diplomacy” but from “crucial pieces of information” like “reliable intercepts warning that a new attack is going to take place.” Given this fact, given the massive use of the Internet, and given the death that may result from missing reliable intercepts, can the U.S. Government afford to not look at an e-mail if they think it might be a prelude to a bombing or hijacking?
Opponents of the law cite the Patriot Act (along with John Adams’ Alien and Sedition Acts, Abraham Lincoln’s Civil War suspension of habeus corpus and Franklin Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese) as another case study in the government’s wartime tendency to trample civil liberties. However, the Patriot Act, even granting that it may have constitutionally uncertain components, is not a reincarnation of past presidential abuses.
“If history is any guide,” wrote Winik in the same Wall Street Journal column, “we see that the Bush administration’s proposals, even at the far end of the ledger, pale in comparison to what previous wartime administrations have imposed.” Moreover, “it is also worth noting that despite these previous and numerous extreme measures, there was little long-term or corrosive effect on society after the security threat had subsided.”
People concerned with what they perceive to be an attack on civil liberties should concern themselves with the consequences of more attacks like those of Sept. 11th. That security is a prerequisite of a free society seems dramatically clear, but consider the words of this constitutional scholar: “Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their safety seems to be the first.”
That’s from John Jay, in Federalist #3. In the present circumstance, it is heartening to know that the Founders, and not the ACLU, are playing the leading role.
Matt Emerson is a sophomore studying political science.
