|
Letter to the Chicago Tribune June 2005 It is disturbing that the Tribune (Editorial, June 7, 2005), a newspaper dependent upon the First Amendment, would endorse the complete reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, a law that poses a danger to a broad range of civil liberties. Many of the Act's provisions ought to be retained, but several that clash with basic notions of ordered liberty and fairness should not be reauthorized without revision. The Tribune found support for its position because the Patriot Act, for the most part, has not run into trouble in the courts. But it is not surprising that Act's search and surveillance provisions have not faced difficulty in the courts because the Act frequently does not require the government to notify the individual that he or she was the subject of government scrutiny. Because of this, the Act frustrates a fundamental check on the power of government: the individual's right to challenge objectionable government action in the courts. The Act's search/surveillance provisions should not be reauthorized without providing that at some point the person targeted be given notice and the opportunity to contest the government's actions. Your editorial states that the Act has not been abused. However the government used the Act to prosecute a Muslim graduate student in Idaho who maintained a website which promoted fundamentalist Islam and was hyperlinked to other Islamic websites, some with alleged ties to terrorism. The jury acquitted the student of the charge of providing support to terrorists. The government also used the Act to deny, on account of his political beliefs, admission to the United States of a Swiss national, Tariq Ramadan, a prominent Muslim scholar who was to assume a teaching position at Notre Dame University. Using the Patriot Act to punish persons who exercise their First Amendment rights is a threat to civil liberties. A recurring cycle in this country's history is, first, after a traumatic event such as the attack on September 11, the government seeks broader powers to combat the danger. Second, the government tries to expand those powers to the point of infringing on wholly lawful activities. Any reauthorization of the Patriot Act must prevent this cycle from recurring and prevent the federal government from deploying the Act against persons whose First Amendment activities attract its ire. Your editorial also fails to mention the harsh impact the Patriot Act has on immigrants. A frequently overlooked section of that Act allows the Attorney General to seize and detain an alien if he has "reasonable grounds to believe" that the alien has been involved in terrorism, or an activity that poses a danger to national security. Although that section (412) requires that such an alien be charged within seven days with either a criminal offense or a violation of the immigration laws, such as overstaying his visa, he could face indefinite detention if his country refuses to accept him. Every six months the alien may request the Attorney General to reconsider his decision, and may submit evidence in his favor. He can also challenge his detention through a petition for habeas corpus. But the Act does not require the Attorney General to notify the alien of the reasons for his detention or allow the alien to challenge those reasons at an adversarial hearing. Nor does it require the Attorney General to obtain court approval before detaining him. Nor does it require the government to prove that the alien is in fact a terrorist. Instead, an alien can be detained indefinitely based on vague and unspecified allegations that he is a threat to national security. The Tribune's editorial should not have so uncritically endorsed reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act. The Act requires several changes before it can exist harmoniously with our rights under the Constitution and be worthy of our democratic society. Gordon Waldron
|