Liberty is the most essential element in a successful relationship between a government and its people. We enjoy our freedom and place immense value in our personal privacy. Thus, a government that rewards these rights generally earns our trust. But when such basic human entitlements are threatened, we respond. When the British Empire denied our freedom to enjoy representation in government—we fought. When slavery suppressed the freedom of life from black Americans—we reformed. And when a governor attempted to suppress unions' freedom to bargain—thousands took to the streets.
Now I'm not suggesting that these events are in any way equal or exclusive. But the struggle for liberty, in all forms, is a continuous and all-encompassing battle between the individual and the government. In any such relationship our personal liberties must be suppressed to a certain extent—we can't all run around naked and set buildings on fire. But when it comes to the suppression of our personal freedoms, there's a fine line between what is and isn't acceptable. The recently extended PATRIOT Act, with all its intrusions and unconstitutional breaches of privacy, blasts through that line with the ferocity and power of a high-speed rail.
The renewal proposal, co-sponsored by none other than U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., extends the following three provisions:
1. The government may implement ""roving"" wiretaps that allow them to keep track of ""suspected terrorists.""
2. The government may obtain ""tangible records""—i.e. documents and information of any kind from banks, telecommunication companies or libraries without informing the customer.
3. The so-called ‘Lone Wolf' provision allows the FBI to keep track of non-American suspects with no ties to a specific terrorist group.
Never has a bill been so ironically named. Patriots, at least in the colonial sense of the word, fought for the freedom of religion, freedom of representation and the right to certain personal liberties. The most basic of these liberties is outlined quite clearly in our Constitution's Fourth Amendment:
""The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.""
If the authors of the Constitution could see us now, they would be rolling over in their graves.
But what does this tell us about the senators and congressmen who voted for the bill, and President Barack Obama, who signed it into law? Quite simply—they should not hold political office. In fact, I'll extend that notion to those who abstained (excluding Gabby Giffords for obvious reasons), for evil prevails when good men fail to act. Any elected member of government who would purposely aid in the reduction of our constitutional rights in pursuit of power grossly abuses their position.
Obama is particularly disappointing. While it must be noted that he never promised to eradicate the PATRIOT Act but rather modify its most overbearing provisions, in extending the bill he has outright contradicted himself. In multiple debates and public forums during the 2008 campaign, including a notable event in Lancaster, Pa., Obama specifically pointed out that the provision allowing for unrestrained access to personal documents and library records went too far, yet he has extended that very same provision.
For the sake of playing devil's advocate, let's address two possible explanations for his change of heart. First, perhaps this is political. It's quite possible that Obama has softened on the shadier provisions of the extension to appease a Republican-controlled congress in preparation for future bills. With bad blood between parties, perhaps the president is seeking a moment of appeasement, extending the olive branch, if you will. If this is the case, it still fails to justify his decision. Sure, you could argue negotiation is the nature of politics, but that doesn't change the fact that he's abandoned the Constitution in pursuit.
Second, let's entertain the GOP reasoning—the PATRIOT Act is a necessary tool in fighting terrorism. In the very same public forum that Obama cried foul over the library records provision, he pointed out that before the PATRIOT Act, the government ""could not wiretap a phone that was not land-based."" Wait a second, since when do we justify law in the pursuit of wiretapping? And even if such extensions are necessary, why must the provision extend beyond those tied to terrorist organizations?
The answer doesn't exist, for no action in the pursuit of power, wealth, or protection is worth the cost of our civil liberties. The PATRIOT Act was passed by a dazed and confused congress, high off the emotional roller coaster that was 9/11.
Now this very same body, led by a contradictory leader, keeps the hellish flame burning. The bill is inarguably an unconstitutional power-grab worthy of an Orwellian comparison, and an attack on our rights is a far greater threat than any terrorist could impose. So if we must choose between our safety and our rights my answer is quite clear: Give me liberty, or give me death!
Miles Kellerman is a sophomore majoring in political science. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
