The Patriot Act and War on Terrorism, Essay Example

It seems that, since the terrorist attacks of September, 2001, the United States has been involved in a different kind of war, and a uniquely civil one.  The government’s response to the attacks, initially accepted without much question by a terrified nation, was soon viewed as a totalitarian exercise in power and a corruption of basic liberties.  As the Patriot Act (PA), signed into effect by President Bush immediately following the assaults from Al-Queda, nears a full decade of enforcement, opposition is becoming increasingly, and rightly, vocal.

In terms of powers, the PA was a more detailed and expanded version of the earlier Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), which was in itself a radical and quick response to 9/11.  The ATA did not permit wholesale investigations into personal financial accounts, for instance, generated by federal discretion; the PA sanctioned them (Smith, Hung 152).  Essentially, in fact, the PA was less of a governmental modification of existing statutes, and more of an urgent and martial reaction to a wartime crisis.  Given the climate of fear gripping the nation at the time, it was, again, widely accepted as necessary, although it could be argued that the government took advantage of a national terror to subvert the law.

For instance, a great deal of the outrage generated by the PA within civil liberties groups was, and is, based on how the act eliminated a crucial step in the legal obtaining of information.  Prior to the PA, government officials had recourse to all an individual’s health, financial, and communication (email, etc.) data, but a judge-issued warrant was required.  Once the PA was in place, the agent or police officer could exercise that determining prerogative, and simply serve any holder of information with a National Security Letter (Marcovitz 10).

Hindsight is accommodating, of course; it is easy to say today, years after the only outright attacks made upon us, that the PA blatantly violates essential liberties.  However, the reality is that it does, as it did from the start.  A right to privacy may not be constitutionally guaranteed, but the spirit of it pervades the Bill of Rights, and the PA dispenses with it.  Consequently, the very outrageousness of the PA both explains its existence and demands its nullification.

There is one, and only one, justification for a republic so plainly stripping its citizens of their basic liberties, and that is an actual crisis of war.  Even so, government intrusion into private records seems excessive, but it is also acknowledged that terrorism changes the nature of international conflict, so the extremes of the PA could be justified.  At the time, there was no way of knowing how likely further attacks would be, and this drastic variation on martial law was, again, at least somewhat rational.

The great abuse lies in the timing.  The PA did contain “sunset provisions”, which mandated the ending of certain surveillance procedures by the end of 2005.  Interestingly, these have been renewed, and renewed yet again.  Remarkably, the PA operates today in something very much like its original form, and that is, ultimately, unconscionable.  No reasonable government, even faced with hostile intentions from other nations, may justifiably enact legislation enormously invading civil liberties beyond an immediate time frame dictated by actual violence.  That the PA was originally passed to be fully operational for five years is inherently suspect; the number of years is too arbitrary, since nothing was as yet known as to the extent of the “conflict”.

If the PA has taught any lesson, it is that extremes like it are tolerable only under the most urgent circumstances, and only for short spaces of time.  The public is correct to object to it, and this by no means points to a dangerous complacency on its part or a failure to appreciate potential risk.  Rather, it means that the public understands something the government appears to have misconstrued or deliberately abandoned: liberty implies a right to privacy, and liberty is not a privilege. It is a right, and only dire circumstances may allow for the lessening of it.  If the PA safeguards the United States, the greater question becomes one of what, precisely, is being saved, when a people fear and resent their own government.

Works Cited

Marcovitz, H. Privacy Rights and the Patriot Act.  Edina, MN: ABDO Publishing Company, 2008 Print.

Smith, C. S., & Hung, L. C.   The Patriot Act: Issues and Controversies. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, Publisher, 2010. Print.