Opposition:
The ACLU

The ACLU strongly condemns the surveillance systems put into place by the Patriot Act and believes that the Bush administration intimidated members of Congress only weeks after the 9/11 attacks to vote in support of the act. The Patriot Act according to the ACLU made changes to surveillance laws that were desired by law enforcement agencies but had been denied earlier by Congress. Members of Congress had little time to think about the bill and were neither permitted amendments or even discussion before they had to vote (ACLU: Surveillance…2003). Four important government surveillance powers increased through the act are: record searches, secret searches, intelligence searches, and “Trap and trace” searches (ACLU: Surveillance…2003).

One of the main concerns of the ACLU is the unchecked power of government agencies to go through “individuals’ financial records, medial histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other that leaves a record” (ACLU: Surveillance…2003). The Patriot act specifically violates both the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment. The First Amendment right granting freedom of speech is compromised by the Patriot Act because it prevents those individuals involved in search orders from telling others about those orders. The First Amendment’s freedom of speech is comprised again by the Patriot Act because it permits the FBI to investigate citizens for exercising freedom of speech (ACLU: Surveillance…2003).

The Fourth Amendment is violated in two different ways by the Patriot Act:

• The first way is that the Fourth Amendment guarantees that the government must get a warrant showing probable cause before they conduct a search and the Patriot Act allows for investigators to delay obtaining a search warrant.
  
• The second way that the Fourth Amendment rights, and even the Fifth Amendment rights are violated is that the Patriot Act neglects to inform people whose privacy has been invaded. This failure to notify subjects of a search is seen by the ACLU as the Patriot Act to “unconstitutionally amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures to allow the government to conduct searches without notifying the subject” (ACLU: Surveillance…2003).

Without notification the governmental agencies can operate in secret, individuals under investigation have no way to make sure that what is being searched is in direct connection to what the warrant calls for. As a result individuals have no way to protect themselves from unjustified searches.

The ACLU stresses disapproval of the DOJ’s Web site that specifically addresses the Patriot Act in 2003, stating that it generates myths and inconsistencies about the act. The ACLU along with others noticed factual inaccuracies in their Web site dealing with such issues as wiretapping, section 215, section 213, and the extent of changes to surveillance laws that resulted from the Patriot act. An example of an inaccurate statement made on the DOJ site, was that prior to the establishment of the Patriot Act wiretaps could be obtained by the FBI for the mafia, but not for terrorists. In actuality, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and under criminal laws the FBI has at all times had the ability to conduct wiretaps on terrorist (ACLU Says…2003). The errors made on the Web site have mislead the American public and caused confusion for those wanting to understand their rights and have lead to decrease creditability in the DOJ.

Another criticism that the ACLU makes against the Bush/Ashcroft Justice Department is their lack of accountability to American citizens and to Congress, stemming from their inability to answer questions about the implementation of the Patriot Act. Request for information concerning surveillance behavior from civil liberties groups operating under the Freedom of Information act, and questions from the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have been remain unanswered (Kranich…2003). However, there has been evidence of implementation in libraries by FBI agents. The ACLU was victorious in a case on behalf of a group of Connecticut librarians that were asked by the FBI to search records of individuals who had used the libraries computers. The FBI did not use a search warrant and issued national security letters to the librarians, essentially preventing them from discussing the search. The ACLU suit resulted in the decision that now allows people who are given national security letters the right to speak with a lawyer.

Librarians

Librarians throughout the country on May 7, 2003 destroyed records, such as computer sign-up sheets and other documents, in protest of the Patriot Act. Under the Patriot Act local governments have to give up personal information of terror suspects, which can include library records. In Paterson, N.J., Cindy Czesak, a librarian for Paterson Public Library was approached by the FBI following the 9/11 attacks. Patterson, is known for its large Middle-Eastern population and the Paterson library was believed to be used by two of the hijackers (Herridge…2003). Librarians like Czesak, are not theoretical allowed to comment on FBI visits to check users information, and have been issued gag orders in connection with FBI terrorist investigations. Interested by the gag order placed on librarians by FBI searches, the University of Illinois held two nationwide surveys following the 9/11 attacks on this topic. They found that out of 1,500 libraries more than 200 had been part of an FBI investigation (Kranich…2003).

Various Politicians in opposition to the USA Patriot Act

Fearful of cases such as this, where personal information can be readily taken by the FBI, Representative Bernard Sanders I-Vt., introduced The Freedom to Read Protection Act of 2003. The bill was supported by the American Library Association, the American Booksellers Association and newspapers around the country. It deals directly with section 215 of the Patriot Act, and tries to protect libraries, bookstores, and their customers from unwarranted government surveillance investigations (Herridge…2003). The bill did not come up for a vote, but was reintroduced by Rep. Sanders on March 9, 2005. However, due to the Bush Administrations’ reauthorization legislation that slightly altered section 215, it now offers more protections for individuals. However, these modifications do not satisfy concerns of the Freedom to Read Foundation and the American Library Association.

One of the most enthusiastic and passionate objectors to the Patriot Act has been Sen. Russell Feingold D-WI., who was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act when it was first introduced. Sen. Feingold has made a few speeches in protest of the Patriot Act, condemning it for its civil rights abuses. On October 25, 2001, as the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, he addressed the president in a speech about his concerns with the anti-terrorism bill. Some of the issues that Sen. Feingold has with the original Patriot Act were: the decrease protection under the Fourth Amendment, the federal governments involvement in fighting computer crime, the expansion of governmental power under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the powers given to the Attorney General to detain immigrants or legal residents indefinitely, and the detention or deportation of people involved in associational activities (Feingold…2001). In this speech Sen. Feingold states two necessary cautions for the government in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. He first cautioned that the government must continue to respect and value the Constitution, and American civil liberties established in the Constitution. The second caution was directed towards the exploitation of Muslim and Arab Americans, as well as, others in South Asian countries.

“As it seeks to combat terrorism, the Justice Department is making extraordinary use of its power to arrest and detain individuals, jailing hundreds of people on immigration violations and arresting more than a dozen ‘material witnesses’ not charged with any crime. Although the government has used these authorities before, it has not done so on such a broad scale. Judging from government announcements, the government has not brought any criminal charges related to the attacks with regard to the overwhelming majority of these detainees.” Said Sen. Feingold in his speech on the Anti-Terrorism Bill (Feingold…2001).

Evident by this quote, Sen. Feingold is disturbed by the failure of governmental authorities to ensure traditional civil liberties to individuals in the United States. He mentions Albader Al-Hazmi, a San Antonia radiologist whose name resembled those of the 9/11 hijackers, and was arrested for trying to book a flight for a medial conference. Al-Hazmi was held for six days by the FBI without the opportunity to speak with his lawyers. Sen. Feingold believes that what happened to Al-Hazmi is inherently wrong, and demonstrates the flaws within our democracy and its inability to protect civil liberties (Feingold…2001). Recognizing the feelings of anxiety and panic associated with establishment of the Patriot Act, Sen. Feingold understands why the act was hastily passed. However, he is troubled by people who think that in times of crisis it’s okay to give up certain freedoms. Especially considering that the current “War on Terror” is based around the idea that we need to protect our innate civil liberties. On December 19, 2005, Sen. Feingold assisted in leading a filibuster preventing the renewal of the Patriot Act with the help of 40 Democrats and four Republicans (Stolberg…2005). Sen. Feingold along with supporters in the Senate believe in fighting terrorism, but want to balance that commitment with maintaining and ensuring civil liberties.