Nothing Patriotic About the USA PATRIOT Act!
By Alex Johannigman
Ed. Note: What follows is a college paper submitted by an 18-year-old student. I only wish that I had this young man's understanding of truth when I was that age. I sincerely hope that Mr. Johannigman will continue to share with us his keen insights into the current state of affairs in our country and around the world. His grasp of unpopular truths and his ability to present them with solid and verifiable facts and statements is remarkable. We need this generation to take up the call for truth and freedom, just like this young man has done.
A problem has arisen in American government, and it threatens to strip Americans of the rights guaranteed to them in the Bill of Rights. As suspicion of terrorist attacks increases, the government is passing new bills which grant the government tools to increase security and combat terrorism. After examining what the USA PATRIOT Act entails, it is clear that it should never have been passed because it violates so many amendments in the Bill of Rights, which is part of the central and most crucial law of the USA. The USA PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional and should be declared so by the courts. If it isn’t repealed, the government will continue to infringe on the Constitutional rights of its people using the excuse of “national security” and America will lose the freedoms that it claims to be working so hard to protect.
After the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington DC on September 11, 2001, America became incredibly frightened by the possibility of continued terrorist attacks. As a result, the US government passed laws, specifically the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) of 2001. The USA PATRIOT Act gave the government additional powers, claiming that these extra powers would allow them to locate and arrest terrorists at a vastly accelerated rate. The only cost for the American people was the loss of many of the personal freedoms that were mentioned specifically in their own Constitution. Because of widespread fear and how rushed the passing of the bill was - several Congressmen even admit they didn’t read it - it was passed without question by Congress, believing that the USA PATRIOT Act would only help America in its growing “war against terrorism.”
The USA PATRIOT Act gives the government power to perform actions that many would consider a violation of privacy, without notifying anyone involved. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, the FBI and police are allowed to conduct secret searches of homes and offices, conduct secret wiretaps on phones, computers, and Internet activity, and investigate bank records, credit card use, and other financial records. They are also allowed to view library activities and examine medical records without letting the person know that they are being searched or that their records are being accessed. They can even freeze a person’s funds and assets without prior notice or appeal. The USA PATRIOT Act eliminates all remnants of privacy that the American people once had by allowing the government unlimited and unquestioned access to people’s possessions and personal information.
One of the primary powers granted by the USA PATRIOT Act is the ability for the government to monitor American citizens using wiretaps and other methods of electronic surveillance without needing a warrant from the courts. The strongest protection Americans have against governmental intrusions into their privacy is the Fourth Amendment, which states “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.”[1] Some interpret this law as one that only applies to tangible objects with some kind of monetary value, excluding phone calls, e-mails, and other forms of communication because they are intangible and thus impossible to physically seize. They also believe that the government should have the right to search records if it will protect the American people from terrorists.
However, in Boyd v. United States, the court ruled that production of someone’s private papers was considered a breach of the fourth amendment even though nothing was physically taken. They referenced the English case of Entick v. Carrington, which stated that:
Papers are the owner’s goods and chattels; they are his dearest property; and are so far from enduring a seizure, that they will hardly bear an inspection; and though the eye cannot by the laws of England be guilty of a trespass, yet where private papers are removed and carried away the secret nature of those goods will be an aggravation of the trespass, and demand more considerable damages in that respect.[2]
The court of Boyd v United States decided that “it is not the breaking of doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the offense; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property…which underlies and constitutes the essence of Lord Camden’s judgment.”[3]
In response to the court’s reasoning in Olmstead v United States, which claimed there could be no seizure of words because they are intangible, Justice Brandeis stated that:
The makers of our Constitution…sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone…. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. [4]
By making this statement, he established the ruling that the Fourth Amendment includes the right to privacy, a right which the USA PATRIOT Act ignores. Privacy as protected by the Fourth Amendment represents a right to be free from unwanted government surveillance, and this right should be taken into consideration when looking at what the USA PATRIOT Act has allowed the government to do.
There are several reports of the FBI abusing the powers it has received from the USA PATRIOT Act. One such case involves George Christian, the executive director of the Connecticut nonprofit library consortium Library Connection, who was not allowed to tell his patrons that their library had been investigated by the FBI using National Security Letters. Using powers granted by the USA PATRIOT Act which enable them to seize internet records without a warrant, several patrons had personal records taken by the FBI, but the librarian wasn’t allowed to tell anyone that he had been searched nor inform patrons that their records had been seized, as decreed by the USA PATRIOT Act. Christian formally contested the Constitutionality of the search and detailed the harmful effects of being served with an NSL and how the accompanying gag order created difficulties for him and the plaintiffs accompanying him when dealing with coworkers, patrons, the media, and even their families. He then asked that Congress reconsider parts of the USA PATRIOT Act, emphasizing the gag order that prevents elected officials and the public from knowing anything about potential abuses.[5] "Our saga should raise a big, patriotic American flag of caution about how our civil liberties are being sorely tested by law enforcement abuses of National Security Letters," Christian said. "The questions raised vindicate the concerns that the library community and others have had for over five years about the broad powers expanded under the USA PATRIOT Act."[6] Some may continue to argue that they are not being personally affected by the implications of the USA PATRIOT Act, but they may be losing more of their rights than they think if they are not allowed to know if their records have been searched or not.
Those who defend the USA PATRIOT Act claim that it has been put into place to protect Americans from terrorist attacks. They use the reasoning that Americans should be willing to sacrifice their own freedoms for the safety of each other. They make it seem quite selfish to believe that one’s own personal freedoms are more important than saving lives and fighting against terrorism. It has not even been proven that an increase in security prevents acts of violence from occurring, since many criminals are willing to avoid the law because they have no respect for it. Benjamin Franklin said, “Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power,” and “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” He clearly thought that by giving up liberty to obtain security, one would lose both.
Other USA PATRIOT Act supporters believe that because the Constitution is capable of being modified, it is more of a guideline to how the law should work than a strict, unchangeable set of laws. They believe the authors of the Constitution planned for it to be modified as much as needed to fit the changes that would take place in the world. Changing times should cause amendments to be passed and lead to new laws being passed that help the American people while still remaining in the confines of the existing law. New laws should not lead to abandoning the law of the American nation. Michael Posner, the executive director of Human Rights First said, “The rule of law is a free society's method of ensuring that whatever crisis it faces, government remains bound by the constraints that keep society free.”[7] If the American people are willing to abandon the center of their system of law, nothing will prevent them from believing any other laws shouldn’t be interpreted literally.
There is no sign indicating that this trampling of civil rights will end. New laws granting more government power are being passed regularly. On October 23, 2007, H.R.1955, entitled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, was passed in the House and is currently being moved on to the Senate. This act aims to grant powers to fight what it calls “homegrown terrorism,” that is, terrorism that originates in the United States. However, the wording in the bill is so vague that it could be used to arrest political extremists who are exercising their rights to protest the government. Jessica Lee writes:
Under the guise of a bill that calls for the study of “homegrown terrorism,” Congress is apparently trying to broaden the definition of terrorism to encompass both First Amendment political activity and traditional forms of protest such as nonviolent civil disobedience, according to civil liberties advocates, scholars, and historians. Many observers fear that the proposed law will be used against U.S.-based groups engaged in legal but unpopular political activism, ranging from political Islamists to animal-rights and environmental campaigners to radical right-wing organizations. There is concern, too, that the bill will undermine academic integrity and is the latest salvo in a decade-long government grab for power at the expense of civil liberties.[8]
The bill also states that “The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.”[9] It seems as if the government is trying to legislate what is and isn’t allowed to be said on the Internet, in effect taking away the right to have an opinion in opposition to the government’s current policies. “One of the most useful tools for political campaigns today is the use of the Internet,” writes Anthony Merola. “Certainly we can see how this has been used over the last few months as Congressmen Paul, as well as other candidates, has used the Internet to spread their messages and appeal to new voters, but don’t worry, H.R.1955 has taken care of this.”[10]
If this bill is passed, and becomes law, a citizen’s words, actions, and even beliefs could be considered terrorism. H.R.1955 eviscerates free speech and empowers the government to declare anything they deem an "extremist belief system,” instantly make citizens terrorists. This could result in stripping of US citizenship, torture, and/or execution, with no habeas corpus rights and no ability to challenge even in the US Supreme Court simply because of thoughts or beliefs held by the “terrorist.”
The government is obviously not planning to stop passing more laws giving them more power to arrest anyone that they suspect of terrorism. And with the possible passing of H.R.1955 along with the USA PATRIOT Act, that could be anyone. Vice President Dick Cheney explained shortly after September 11: "Many of the steps we have now been forced to take will become permanent in American life," part of a "new normalcy" that reflects "an understanding of the world as it is."[11] As the government continues to claim more and more of America’s liberty in the name of safety, it seems more and more like the terrorists are winning. If it is true that the terrorists hate the freedom and liberty of American citizens and the US Government continues to take away freedom and liberty to protect its citizens from terrorism, then the government is doing exactly what the terrorists intended to do in the first place.
There seem to be only a few ways to stop this increasing assault on civil liberties and restore the freedom that the American people value so highly. Citizens need to let their Congressmen and judges know how they feel about the USA PATRIOT Act, as well as other laws that restrict personal freedoms in order to increase security. Congress alone has the power to create more laws, and until they are told to stop, they will continue to do so. However, when laws are already put in place, it is the power of the courts that declares laws unconstitutional. American citizens need to let their representatives know that if they don’t do something, they won’t be receiving very many votes the next time they run for office.
This fight has already begun. Judges around the nation have begun to declare sections of the USA PATRIOT Act unconstitutional. In January 2004, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.[12] In response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled that the USA PATRIOT Act was unconstitutional because it allows the FBI to demand information from Internet service providers using National Security Letters without judicial oversight or public review.[13] Additionally, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act, is unconstitutional because it "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."[14] American citizens need to continue to support these kinds of judges and strive to elect more with similar views when given the opportunity. The current government believes that patriotism is doing what is best for your government. But true patriotism, rather, is doing what is best for your country, realizing that dissent is a necessary form of checks and balances.
Associated Press. “Federal Judge Rules Part of Patriot Act Unconstitutional.” 26 Jan 2004. CNN. 30 Nov 2007. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/patriot.act.ap/
Associated Press. “Judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional: Provisions allow search warrants issued without probable cause, she says.” 27 Sept 2007. MSNBC. 30 Nov 2007. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20999950/
“Attack on Ron Paul: Greasing the Skids for Implementation of H.R.1955” 16 Nov 2007. LiveLeak. 23 Nov 2007. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dd2_1195189429
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. 1776-1992. Cato Institute: Washington DC, 2000
Eggen, Dan. “Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional: Internet Providers' Data at Issue” The Washington Post. 30 Nov 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59626-2004Sep29.html 30 Sept 2004.
“H.R.1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007”. 24 Oct 2007. GovTrack. 23 Nov 2007. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955
Oder, Norman. "John Doe"s Speak, Finally.” Library Journal. 15 June 2006. Vol. 131, Issue 11, p14
Posner, Michael. “Assessing the New Normal: Liberty and Security for the Post-September 11 United States.” Congressional Digest. Sept 2005. 214-222
Rackow, Sharon H. “How the USA PATRIOT Act Will Permit Governmental Infringement Upon the Privacy of Americans in the Name of ‘Intelligence’ Investigations.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review. May 2004. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0041-9907%28200205%29150%3A5%3C1651%3AHTUPAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X
Ed. Note: What follows is a college paper submitted by an 18-year-old student. I only wish that I had this young man's understanding of truth when I was that age. I sincerely hope that Mr. Johannigman will continue to share with us his keen insights into the current state of affairs in our country and around the world. His grasp of unpopular truths and his ability to present them with solid and verifiable facts and statements is remarkable. We need this generation to take up the call for truth and freedom, just like this young man has done.
A problem has arisen in American government, and it threatens to strip Americans of the rights guaranteed to them in the Bill of Rights. As suspicion of terrorist attacks increases, the government is passing new bills which grant the government tools to increase security and combat terrorism. After examining what the USA PATRIOT Act entails, it is clear that it should never have been passed because it violates so many amendments in the Bill of Rights, which is part of the central and most crucial law of the USA. The USA PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional and should be declared so by the courts. If it isn’t repealed, the government will continue to infringe on the Constitutional rights of its people using the excuse of “national security” and America will lose the freedoms that it claims to be working so hard to protect.
After the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington DC on September 11, 2001, America became incredibly frightened by the possibility of continued terrorist attacks. As a result, the US government passed laws, specifically the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) of 2001. The USA PATRIOT Act gave the government additional powers, claiming that these extra powers would allow them to locate and arrest terrorists at a vastly accelerated rate. The only cost for the American people was the loss of many of the personal freedoms that were mentioned specifically in their own Constitution. Because of widespread fear and how rushed the passing of the bill was - several Congressmen even admit they didn’t read it - it was passed without question by Congress, believing that the USA PATRIOT Act would only help America in its growing “war against terrorism.”
The USA PATRIOT Act gives the government power to perform actions that many would consider a violation of privacy, without notifying anyone involved. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, the FBI and police are allowed to conduct secret searches of homes and offices, conduct secret wiretaps on phones, computers, and Internet activity, and investigate bank records, credit card use, and other financial records. They are also allowed to view library activities and examine medical records without letting the person know that they are being searched or that their records are being accessed. They can even freeze a person’s funds and assets without prior notice or appeal. The USA PATRIOT Act eliminates all remnants of privacy that the American people once had by allowing the government unlimited and unquestioned access to people’s possessions and personal information.
One of the primary powers granted by the USA PATRIOT Act is the ability for the government to monitor American citizens using wiretaps and other methods of electronic surveillance without needing a warrant from the courts. The strongest protection Americans have against governmental intrusions into their privacy is the Fourth Amendment, which states “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.”[1] Some interpret this law as one that only applies to tangible objects with some kind of monetary value, excluding phone calls, e-mails, and other forms of communication because they are intangible and thus impossible to physically seize. They also believe that the government should have the right to search records if it will protect the American people from terrorists.
However, in Boyd v. United States, the court ruled that production of someone’s private papers was considered a breach of the fourth amendment even though nothing was physically taken. They referenced the English case of Entick v. Carrington, which stated that:
Papers are the owner’s goods and chattels; they are his dearest property; and are so far from enduring a seizure, that they will hardly bear an inspection; and though the eye cannot by the laws of England be guilty of a trespass, yet where private papers are removed and carried away the secret nature of those goods will be an aggravation of the trespass, and demand more considerable damages in that respect.[2]
The court of Boyd v United States decided that “it is not the breaking of doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the offense; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property…which underlies and constitutes the essence of Lord Camden’s judgment.”[3]
In response to the court’s reasoning in Olmstead v United States, which claimed there could be no seizure of words because they are intangible, Justice Brandeis stated that:
The makers of our Constitution…sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone…. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. [4]
By making this statement, he established the ruling that the Fourth Amendment includes the right to privacy, a right which the USA PATRIOT Act ignores. Privacy as protected by the Fourth Amendment represents a right to be free from unwanted government surveillance, and this right should be taken into consideration when looking at what the USA PATRIOT Act has allowed the government to do.
There are several reports of the FBI abusing the powers it has received from the USA PATRIOT Act. One such case involves George Christian, the executive director of the Connecticut nonprofit library consortium Library Connection, who was not allowed to tell his patrons that their library had been investigated by the FBI using National Security Letters. Using powers granted by the USA PATRIOT Act which enable them to seize internet records without a warrant, several patrons had personal records taken by the FBI, but the librarian wasn’t allowed to tell anyone that he had been searched nor inform patrons that their records had been seized, as decreed by the USA PATRIOT Act. Christian formally contested the Constitutionality of the search and detailed the harmful effects of being served with an NSL and how the accompanying gag order created difficulties for him and the plaintiffs accompanying him when dealing with coworkers, patrons, the media, and even their families. He then asked that Congress reconsider parts of the USA PATRIOT Act, emphasizing the gag order that prevents elected officials and the public from knowing anything about potential abuses.[5] "Our saga should raise a big, patriotic American flag of caution about how our civil liberties are being sorely tested by law enforcement abuses of National Security Letters," Christian said. "The questions raised vindicate the concerns that the library community and others have had for over five years about the broad powers expanded under the USA PATRIOT Act."[6] Some may continue to argue that they are not being personally affected by the implications of the USA PATRIOT Act, but they may be losing more of their rights than they think if they are not allowed to know if their records have been searched or not.
Those who defend the USA PATRIOT Act claim that it has been put into place to protect Americans from terrorist attacks. They use the reasoning that Americans should be willing to sacrifice their own freedoms for the safety of each other. They make it seem quite selfish to believe that one’s own personal freedoms are more important than saving lives and fighting against terrorism. It has not even been proven that an increase in security prevents acts of violence from occurring, since many criminals are willing to avoid the law because they have no respect for it. Benjamin Franklin said, “Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power,” and “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” He clearly thought that by giving up liberty to obtain security, one would lose both.
Other USA PATRIOT Act supporters believe that because the Constitution is capable of being modified, it is more of a guideline to how the law should work than a strict, unchangeable set of laws. They believe the authors of the Constitution planned for it to be modified as much as needed to fit the changes that would take place in the world. Changing times should cause amendments to be passed and lead to new laws being passed that help the American people while still remaining in the confines of the existing law. New laws should not lead to abandoning the law of the American nation. Michael Posner, the executive director of Human Rights First said, “The rule of law is a free society's method of ensuring that whatever crisis it faces, government remains bound by the constraints that keep society free.”[7] If the American people are willing to abandon the center of their system of law, nothing will prevent them from believing any other laws shouldn’t be interpreted literally.
There is no sign indicating that this trampling of civil rights will end. New laws granting more government power are being passed regularly. On October 23, 2007, H.R.1955, entitled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, was passed in the House and is currently being moved on to the Senate. This act aims to grant powers to fight what it calls “homegrown terrorism,” that is, terrorism that originates in the United States. However, the wording in the bill is so vague that it could be used to arrest political extremists who are exercising their rights to protest the government. Jessica Lee writes:
Under the guise of a bill that calls for the study of “homegrown terrorism,” Congress is apparently trying to broaden the definition of terrorism to encompass both First Amendment political activity and traditional forms of protest such as nonviolent civil disobedience, according to civil liberties advocates, scholars, and historians. Many observers fear that the proposed law will be used against U.S.-based groups engaged in legal but unpopular political activism, ranging from political Islamists to animal-rights and environmental campaigners to radical right-wing organizations. There is concern, too, that the bill will undermine academic integrity and is the latest salvo in a decade-long government grab for power at the expense of civil liberties.[8]
The bill also states that “The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.”[9] It seems as if the government is trying to legislate what is and isn’t allowed to be said on the Internet, in effect taking away the right to have an opinion in opposition to the government’s current policies. “One of the most useful tools for political campaigns today is the use of the Internet,” writes Anthony Merola. “Certainly we can see how this has been used over the last few months as Congressmen Paul, as well as other candidates, has used the Internet to spread their messages and appeal to new voters, but don’t worry, H.R.1955 has taken care of this.”[10]
If this bill is passed, and becomes law, a citizen’s words, actions, and even beliefs could be considered terrorism. H.R.1955 eviscerates free speech and empowers the government to declare anything they deem an "extremist belief system,” instantly make citizens terrorists. This could result in stripping of US citizenship, torture, and/or execution, with no habeas corpus rights and no ability to challenge even in the US Supreme Court simply because of thoughts or beliefs held by the “terrorist.”
The government is obviously not planning to stop passing more laws giving them more power to arrest anyone that they suspect of terrorism. And with the possible passing of H.R.1955 along with the USA PATRIOT Act, that could be anyone. Vice President Dick Cheney explained shortly after September 11: "Many of the steps we have now been forced to take will become permanent in American life," part of a "new normalcy" that reflects "an understanding of the world as it is."[11] As the government continues to claim more and more of America’s liberty in the name of safety, it seems more and more like the terrorists are winning. If it is true that the terrorists hate the freedom and liberty of American citizens and the US Government continues to take away freedom and liberty to protect its citizens from terrorism, then the government is doing exactly what the terrorists intended to do in the first place.
There seem to be only a few ways to stop this increasing assault on civil liberties and restore the freedom that the American people value so highly. Citizens need to let their Congressmen and judges know how they feel about the USA PATRIOT Act, as well as other laws that restrict personal freedoms in order to increase security. Congress alone has the power to create more laws, and until they are told to stop, they will continue to do so. However, when laws are already put in place, it is the power of the courts that declares laws unconstitutional. American citizens need to let their representatives know that if they don’t do something, they won’t be receiving very many votes the next time they run for office.
This fight has already begun. Judges around the nation have begun to declare sections of the USA PATRIOT Act unconstitutional. In January 2004, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.[12] In response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled that the USA PATRIOT Act was unconstitutional because it allows the FBI to demand information from Internet service providers using National Security Letters without judicial oversight or public review.[13] Additionally, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act, is unconstitutional because it "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."[14] American citizens need to continue to support these kinds of judges and strive to elect more with similar views when given the opportunity. The current government believes that patriotism is doing what is best for your government. But true patriotism, rather, is doing what is best for your country, realizing that dissent is a necessary form of checks and balances.
Works Cited
Associated Press. “Federal Judge Rules Part of Patriot Act Unconstitutional.” 26 Jan 2004. CNN. 30 Nov 2007. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/patriot.act.ap/
Associated Press. “Judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional: Provisions allow search warrants issued without probable cause, she says.” 27 Sept 2007. MSNBC. 30 Nov 2007. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20999950/
“Attack on Ron Paul: Greasing the Skids for Implementation of H.R.1955” 16 Nov 2007. LiveLeak. 23 Nov 2007. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dd2_1195189429
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. 1776-1992. Cato Institute: Washington DC, 2000
Eggen, Dan. “Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional: Internet Providers' Data at Issue” The Washington Post. 30 Nov 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59626-2004Sep29.html 30 Sept 2004.
“H.R.1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007”. 24 Oct 2007. GovTrack. 23 Nov 2007. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955
Oder, Norman. "John Doe"s Speak, Finally.” Library Journal. 15 June 2006. Vol. 131, Issue 11, p14
Posner, Michael. “Assessing the New Normal: Liberty and Security for the Post-September 11 United States.” Congressional Digest. Sept 2005. 214-222
Rackow, Sharon H. “How the USA PATRIOT Act Will Permit Governmental Infringement Upon the Privacy of Americans in the Name of ‘Intelligence’ Investigations.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review. May 2004. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0041-9907%28200205%29150%3A5%3C1651%3AHTUPAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X
[1] The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America
[2] “How the USA PATRIOT Act Will Permit Governmental Infringement Upon the Privacy of Americans in the Name of ‘Intelligence’ Investigations.”, 1654
[3] Rackow, 1654
[4] Rackow, 1655
[5] Oder. "John Doe"s Speak, Finally.”
[6] Oder
[7] Posner, “Assessing the New Normal: Liberty and Security for the Post-September 11 United States.”
[8] “Attack on Ron Paul: Greasing the Skids for Implementation of H.R.1955”
[9] “H.R.1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007”
[10] “Attack on Ron Paul”
[11] Posner, 214
[12] “Federal Judge Rules Part of Patriot Act Unconstitutional.”
[13] “Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional: Internet Providers' Data at Issue”
[14] “Judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional: Provisions allow search warrants issued without probable cause, she says.”
