Terrorism And The Constitution - Research Paper Example

Terrorism And The Constitution As the World Trade Center fell citizens of America were scared and horrified. Twenty-five days later, still reeling with shock, Americans and people around the world received another blow; the U.S. Patriot Act was established. The U.S. Patriot Act remains the most controversial legislation passed by the Bush administration even to this day. For the sake of national security, the Bush administration insisted that they must take a stand to resist terrorists that threaten America. However, this act has done more harm to the lives of American citizens than good. There is no doubt that the U.S. Patriot Act intrudes upon the privacy of Americans, promotes censorship, initiates racial profiling, and lastly takes the issue of national security too far. First, the U.S. Patriot Act is unconstitutional because it intrudes upon the privacy of American citizens by violating their First and Fourth Amendment rights. The nature of the U.S. Patriot Act is an issue that still remains a mystery as Congress quickly passed the bill without much debate (Cornhels 1). The bill itself contains four hundred laws and expands the definition of “terrorism” drastically (Cassell 13). The First Amendment rights of freedom of speech along with freedom to assemble are rights that most Americans hold dear to their lives, but now actions such as civil disobedience, and protests, are now being defined as domestic terrorism under this legislation (Cornhels 2). A sixty-two year old elderly man found his rights to be jeopardized as he was arrested based on his beliefs about the bombings in Afghanistan (Cassell 6). Under the Patriot Act, a clause known as Section 215 terrorizes Americans because it breaks the 4th and 5th Amendment, which ensures the privacy of individuals (“Reform the Patriot Act” 2). In addition, the government can conduct “sneak-and-peek” searches, and the “victim” would have no clue whether his house is getting searched (Gottfried 27). Law officials are permitted to seek browsing history of Internet users from e-mail services (Kartashev 51). Furthermore, any evidence that is obtained illegally can be used in the court (Kartashev 50). Groups such as NRA, and NACOC were furious at the government who could use wiretaps for forty-eight hours without obtaining a search warrant (Smith 26). It was clear that these initiatives were an “all-out attack” against the American public itself. Peter Swire, a professor at Ohio University, reports that FBI officials are putting pressure on telecommunication companies to turn over records (Chang 49). Already concerns have been raised by the public whether sharing the information with federal agencies and local police is legal (Cassell 26). As Jim Edwards puts it, “The Patriot Act is already having a chilling effect, even in the areas where it does not apply” (Edwards 1). This law, however, does not affect US citizens only; in fact, the Canadian government has also passed legislation to “protect” its citizens. In Canada, a law has been created that prevents any public institution to store any private information in the U.S. (“Reform the Patriot Act” 1). Even Universities in Canada are striving to protect their students’ private information from USA (“Reform the Patriot Act” 2). Nova Scotia and B.C. legislations have set strict guidelines on public institutions when it comes to sharing information with companies outside the USA (“Reform the Patriot Act” 1).Therefore, the U.S. Patriot Act is unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional given rights of Americans. Secondly, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional because it promotes censorship. Section 215 in the U.S. Patriot Act is a fatal blow on libraries because it allows government to see records of a person’s checkout list (Smith 96). What is even worse is that the individual has no clue whether Section 215 has been used on him since the libraries can not disclose any information (Smith 98). A survey conducted in December 2001 by University of Illinois suggests that the government had already discussed private information with 85 out of 1500 libraries in USA. (“Reform the Patriot Act” 2) Bernie Sanders, an Independent party official who represented Vermont, introduced a bill that would repeal the amendment that enables the government to search records (Kartashev 65). Thanks to Sanders efforts, Kramerbooks, a book café, is one of the companies that is taking a step against the Patriot Act by refusing to connect the customer’s name with the books they buy (PCworld.com). As the post-September 11 attacks, many people became interested in Islam, yet the government discouraged the public to learn about different viewpoints (Bader 2). By limiting the knowledge about Islam through public institutions like libraries, the government has propagated censorship, which has led to ethnic profiling and bias. Thirdly, the Patriot act is unconstitutional because it leads to ethnic profiling. After the post-September 11 attacks on America, all eyes were turned towards Muslims since the attacks were carried out by Muslim extremists. Without a doubt, a lot of people were expecting Muslims to become the target of witchcraft (Kartashev 5). Prior to 9/11, many young Arabs were granted study visas and sometimes the visa would be expired (Gottfried 38). Middle Eastern men such as: Nasser Ahmed, Mazen Al Najjar, Imad Salih Hammad, all suffered at the hands of the USA government for no valid reason, and were later released because there was no solid evidence to justify their arrests. (Cole 51). Similarly, a Muslim FBI man named Gamal Abdel-Hafiz, was also fired from the agency because “he had loyalties to terrorists” (Pipes 1). Under the Bush administration, Muslims have been prosecuted because they exercised freedom of speech (Cassell 4).What was even worse according to David Cole, author of Civil liberties during Wartime, states, “The very fact that over 1200 people have been detained and that as of December 2001 over 500 were still being incarcerated raises questions about the government’s motives… so what justifies holding the other four-hundred and ninety in jail? (Cole 172). Indeed, this dark question still looms the thoughts of Americans, who continue to distrust the government about their arrests. With this is mind, most security officials up to this day in the airport search everybody who looks to have dark skinned, beard, turbans, or seem to assimilated with Eastern type of dresses (Gottfried 35). In addition, the Council of American-Islamic relations confirmed that Middle Eastern students and foreign visitors have been detained and raided (Gottfried 38). The Bush administration went as far to take a very hard approach on Islamic non-profit organizations (Cassell 95). Also, the FBI tried to charge Enaam Aranout, leader of Benevolence Islamic Foundation, and tried to connect him with Osama Bin Laden (Cassell 98). It is sad that officials have tried and threaten non-profit organizations, who try to help Muslims especially in the third world countries. Conversely, during World War II, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 commanding authorities to gather Japanese and transport to prisoner camps (Gottfried 62). Sadly, the public supported his actions because they feared that Japanese might be loyal to the Japan (Gottfried 62). Unquestionably, history repeats again as Muslims are being blackmailed as Japanese were during World War II as supreme court justice William Rehnquist in his book All the Laws but are states, “There is no reason to think that future wartime presidents will act differently from Roosevelt” (Gottfried 62). Again, during the 1950’s, Americans see the dark side of McCarthyism era during the cold war, where every celebrity was a victim of witch hunt (Chang 26). As George Bernard Shaw, an Irish socialist quotes about history repeating, “If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.” Indeed, the leaders of America have not quite understood from their experience, especially the Bush administration, who still continues to propagate for a legislation, which has lead to ethnic profiling. There is no doubt that national security is essential, but is it not overblown by the Bush administration? Undeniably, measures should be taken to secure the boundaries of America, but to what extent can they sacrifice civil liberties. As David Cole, professor of law at Georgetown University says, [the administration]decided to trade off the liberty of immigrants – particularly Arabs for the purported security of majority (Gottfried 34). Moreover, Elie Wenzel, author of PC World states that the courts have refused to disclosed the information about how the U.S. Patriot Act is used to track down not only Arabs, but American citizens themselves. (Wenzel 1). It is clear that this right has been abused because it does not confine to only one group of individuals. Every American is being watched and tracked as piles of metadata is being piled regardless of their activities. This has been foreshadowed into an era of deception and fear, in which the “Big Brother” is always watching. It is clear that the government has taken the role of Saddam because he violated checks & balances that have been upheld for more than 220 years (Kartashev 58). Even the Democrats have not taken any precaution against this statutory law as an action intended to harm the American citizens. As Norris Smith, editor of Homeland Security puts it, “How much freedom are Americans willing to give up in exchange for safety from terrorists?” (Smith 86). He even goes further to state that the government had many attempts to seize the hijackers involved in the World Trade Center in 2000 and 2001 without much success (Smith 68). Needless to say, the Patriot Act has infringed upon the same rights that Americans had stood for ages. It is shocking to see that the government has truly taken this accord into their own hands without much regard to the liberty of American citizens. This is highly unconstitutional and unbearable for any American citizen, who takes great prides at these liberties that are given to him. Without a doubt, the Patriot Act is a legislation that has snatched the liberties of Americans, promoted censorship, has targeted Muslims, and has exaggerated the idea of national security. Great American heroes such as: George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton had fought against the British to establish a nation where humans can enjoy their basic rights; how pathetic that this very country is demolishing those rights. Even today, American politicians strive to promote democracy all over the world from Iraq to Chechnya, yet it seems that the Bush administration has violated the simple rights that Americans have been enjoying for decades. As citizens of America, we should all stand up to fight for liberty and justice for all. Works Cited Cole, David. “Shredding the constitutional rights.” Terrorism and the Constitution. Ed. James X. Dempsey. New York: The First Amendment Foundation, 2002. Cornhels, Jim. “The Patriot Act Violates Civil Liberties”. Arlington, Virginia: Gale 2003. 1-8. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale Group Databases. Wheaton North High School Library. 28 October 2007 Edwards, Jim. “Librarians and Their Lawyers Scout Patriot Act’s Privacy Rules.” 20 February 2003. < http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/index.jsp> Gottfried, Ted. Homeland Security versus Constitutional Rights. Brookfield, IL: Twenty- first century books, 2004. Boykoff, Jules. "How Patriotic Is The Patriot Act?: Freedom Versus Security In The Age Of Terrorism How Patriotic Is The Patriot Act?: Freedom Versus Security In The Age Of Terrorism. By Amitai Etzioni. (Routledge, 2004.)." The Journal of Politics. Scahill, Timothy. "The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003: A Glimpse into a Post-PATRIOT Act Approach to Combating Domestic Terrorism." CR: The New Centennial Review: 69-94. Waßermann, K. "Patriot Act, Ferienlektüre." Atemwegs- Und Lungenkrankheiten: 357-60. Read More