The Guilfordian

Issue date: 3/25/05 Section: Forum

This flier claims that the USA PATRIOT Act allows for organizations like Greenpeace to be classified as terrorist groups at the whim of the government

Passed shortly after 9/11, the USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act implemented new strategies of counter-terrorism to be carried out by the Attorney General. Several hundred pages longer than the average bill, it was read in its entirety by only two congressmen- the only two who voted against it. It was only after the bill was passed that doubts about its constitutionality began to arise.

After cautioning me not to believe anything I learned about the USA PATRIOT Act on the internet, Republican Senator to North Carolina Richard Burr told me, "as one of the drafters of the bill, I do not think it poses any threat to the First amendment rights of Americans."

What Burr neglects to tell us is how the act affects the rest of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is the most coveted by Americans, so by outwardly stating that it is protected, the underlying privacy violations in the act are overlooked, such as violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

The Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unreasonable seizures and searches and prohibits the issuing of a warrant without "probable cause" (as defined by the Attorney General), is undermined in the act, which states that if the warrant keeps any tangible property or wire or electronic communication from being seized, it can be delayed. The court can extend the delay indefinitely.

The Fifth Amendment protects our right to habeas corpus, due process, and keeps our private property from being taken for public use without "just compensation." Not only is compensation not mentioned in the act, judicial review and habeas corpus are explicitly disregarded. There is also no right to appeal in such a case, and the final word is left to the Supreme Court with its "Rule of Decision."

It's been almost three and a half years since 9/11 and though future terrorist attacks are possible, the extreme actions described in the act may no longer be necessary. Richard Burr told me that in a time where there is less threat of terrorist attack, he thinks it may be a good idea to broaden some of the restrictions set by the act.

Continued...

Page 1 of 2 next >

Article Tools