I can still remember being a child during the '80s when I asked my parents about the Soviet Union and why we as Americans weren't "friends" with them. They told me stories about police officers breaking into homes in the middle of the night and taking away fathers and brothers from their families with no warning, no reason and little chance of being seen again. It scared me to think about getting thrown in jail without being able to defend myself, see my family or even be told why I was there.
I was lucky to grow up in an atmosphere where due process was emphasized and individual rights were not to be taken for granted. Millions aren't that lucky, and that is perhaps the reason why little public attention was given to the U.S. Senate's recent consideration of making the surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act of 2001 permanent.
Maybe I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist, but it's rather curious that the most blatant attack on civil liberties since the Adams Administration's Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) was slipped into the news cycle at the same time as statues were falling in Baghdad.
Senators, led by Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, are robbing Americans of fundamental rights stemming from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and 10th Amendments while a war dominates the headlines as a convenient distraction. Maybe Hatch has neglected to read the Constitution. I suppose it could have slipped his mind, perhaps he simply doesn't care, or maybe he doesn't think that we care. Either way, this madness must stop.
These new provisions would essentially do away with the 2005 "sunset" limitation on the act, which ensures the phasing out of the government's current surveillance powers.
Henry Silverman of the Lansing City Pulse in Lansing, Mich., and professor emeritus of history at Michigan State University specializing in 19th and 20th century political, social and cultural history, speaks on this matter in a column on civil liberties. He points out that if Hatch and his minions are to succeed, the government would forever be allowed to detain American citizens "in connection with a terror investigation," without having to disclose their name until criminal charges are filed. One might ask, "At what time following detention are those charges required to be filed?"
Funny, the government doesn't say.
Additionally, Silverman points out that court limits on spying on religious and political activity would be repealed and chemical plants would no longer have to release information on health and safety hazards. The crown jewel, or should I say sickle and hammer, of the act would be to expand the definition of "terrorist" to those practicing civil disobedience, who in turn could be stripped of their U.S. citizenship, "have their organizations wiretapped and their assets seized."
All this requires a quick review of the Amendments I brought up earlier as the signposts telling Hatch he was going in the wrong direction.
And by signposts, I mean the Constitutional equivalent of rave-style strobe lights flashing "Stop, turn back."
The First Amendment obviously protects speech, the press, religion and assembly while the Fourth deals with searches and seizures and how they have to be examined in detail by a judge before a warrant can be issued. The Fifth enshrines the notion that a person cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without a certain set procedural requirement. The Sixth affirms the right for a fair and speedy trial that is public and heard by a jury (no military tribunals need apply). The Eighth says "no" to cruel and unusual punishment, and the Ninth says that in giving certain rights to people, it does not imply that other rights do not exist. Finally, the 10th says that powers not delegated to the government, be it federal or state, are reserved for the people.
Even if one argues a compelling governmental interest, I still maintain that unchecked domestic espionage cannot pass such a test.
Most laws are written to avoid incurring challenges on the constitutional level, particularly the parts of the Constitution that people know about, namely the Bill of Rights. But when a federal act can be questioned on the basis of seven of the first 10 Amendments, it shows a horrifying lack of legislative competence.
Americans, beware; the war for freedom is not over. This one, however, takes place in our homes, churches, synagogues and convention halls; its weapons are pens, paper and the Constitution of the United States.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
