Security vs. Freedom
If you were alive at the time, I will wager a bet that you can remember exactly what you were doing, wearing, and thinking at the moment you heard the United States had been attacked on September the 11, 2001. It was a horrifying and terrible moment. Rogue airliners, hijacked by Muslim extremists, had come hurtling into three of our proudest buildings and a fourth, apparently on its way to the White House, crashed into a Pennsylvania field after a group of brave Americans regained control of the jet. In the days and months that followed, one question was on every American’s mind: How do we prevent this from happening again? It was at that moment in our nation’s history we found ourselves confronted with the very human dilemma between our well being and our independence. We had a choice to make; which was more important? Then-President Bush made decisions to protect the American people and our homeland. Some would argue his safety measures destroyed our freedoms and liberties. I disagree, but the lines in the sand had been drawn: how far is too far? When does the battle for a well-defended nation become the usurpation of the liberties of the plebiscite? In the United States, we believe in a system of personal freedoms and liberties; while we must protect our homeland, it cannot be at the expense of the rights of the American citizen.
In the 2002 film directed by Steven Spielberg, Minority Report, a new system based on the thoughts and visions of so-called “PreCognitives” is implemented as a way to reduce crime, especially murder, in Washington, D.C. From the onset, the everyday population viewed this method of arresting would-be criminals before the crime was committed with mostly admiration and thankfulness. However, as PreCrime detained more and more individuals, it faced an unhappy contingent: the innocent civilians it had erroneously locked up. In a similar manner, the Patriot Act and related laws passed in the years that followed the attack on New York are intended “to protect and defend” our nation from the ever-growing threat of terrorist violence. Many times, they work. From its passage in October of 2001 (“Search Results”) until the debate for its renewal in 2005, the Patriot Act helped convict more than 200 terrorists (“Patriot Act Works, Bush Claims”). Former President Bush remarked in a speech that year, “For the state of our national security, Congress must not rebuild a wall between law enforcement and intelligence” (“Patriot Act Works, Bush Claims”). The Patriot Act was a swift and hard response to the brutal slayings of nearly 3,000 Americans, and it has done much to keep the United States safe. As noted by Kishkunas in his 2003 opinion piece, the Patriot Act, while granting the government a few new law enforcement powers, most combined previously available tools and applied them to terrorists instead of groups such as the Mafia or drug lords. Now, the persons responsible for murdering thousands could be prosecuted in a way that fit their dastardly crime.
However, it is always a dangerous decision to cede more power to any government, especially the federal government, and a strange alliance of far left groups and civil libertarians formed shortly after the bill’s signing by the President (“Patriot Act Works, Bush Claims”). They published and continue to publish stories of alleged abuses of power by both local and federal authorities. In April of 2009, another such case came to light, with a widowed mother being awoken in the dead of night by more than a dozen FBI agents bursting through her door, brandishing guns. After grabbing her tenth grade, sixteen-year-old homeschooled son from his bedroom, they served her a search warrant and led him away in handcuffs (“USA using Patriot Act against its own citizens”). Also shown in the newscast by Raleigh, NC CBS affiliate WRAL is the mother telling of how the federal agents also took numerous electronics from his bedroom, including his personal computer, Xbox game console, the router device that connected the household to the Internet. Says the distraught mother, “I was terrified. There were guns, and I don’t allow guns around my children. I don’t believe in guns.” She says her son has done nothing wrong and is being held on charges of domestic terrorism under the USA Patriot Act. Authorities claim her son made numerous bomb threat calls, a charge Ms. Lundeby vehemently denies. After the arrest, sheclaims she has been provided extremely limited access to her son and has little to no solid information about the evidence surrounding the charges being brought against her son.
As usual, there are two sides to this chilling story. Two weeks after the WRAL broadcast, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Indiana, near where the teenage boy, Ashton Lundeby, is being held contacted the media and claimed the sixteen-year-old is not being held under the USA Patriot Act (Lamb). “This charge is unrelated to the Patriot Act,” claimed U.S. Attorney David Capp (Lamb). Of course, the mother disputes this claim (Lamb), and the case continues. But what if the mother is correct, and the federal government is holding him under the Patriot Act, a law that gives them the ability to strip away certain Constitutional provisions from alleged enemy combatants (“USA using Patriot Act against its own citizens”)? Those that subscribe to this theory believe we may be headed for a 1984-style protectionist regime, in which everyday citizens are treated as the enemy. In response to this story, “Southpaw” from the Balitmore Sun talk forums said, “Maybe it’s not “1984″ but it sure feels like it is heading there.” Truthfully, that is a disturbing prospect. The Federal Government maintains that no American citizen has been unjustly prosecuted by this far-reaching law (“Patriot Act Works, Claims Bush”), but that has done little to quell the voices on the far reaches of the political spectrum.
Most people agree we need to work to protect and preserve American lives and our way of life. Is the Patriot Act the end-all answer? In 2005, in a bi-partisan move, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and former Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Act needs to be tempered with more protections for the average American citizen (“Patriot Act Works, Claims Bush”). Providing more civil protections to citizens of the United States, not foreign nationals, is an idea, if followed through correctly, on which most Americans could agree. It only makes sense to continually improve our laws, even those that are already working, and since our government is made up of and works for the American citizen, it is their duty. How should we improve? First, provide more information to the accused person and his or her representatives. Do not hide the entire process under an apparent veil of secrecy. The Constitution provides that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not the defendant. They should not have to prove their own innocence. Secondly, admit the USA Patriot Act and related terror laws work and have on numerous occasions fulfilled their promise of preventing further terror attacks in the United States, including a major “second wave” attack that would have decimated the city of Los Angeles (Jeffery). Thirdly, educate the public to the extent it is safely possible regarding the Act’s abilities against American citizens, but not its tools to combat foreigners. While no patriotic American wants the government to show all of its cards to the enemy, if the Patriot Act is to persist, we deserve to know the extent of its powers and how they can be used against us in an arrest or a court of law, just like any other statute.
Every society must deal with the issue of enemies from within and without. It is the responsibility of the citizenry in a republic to demand protection from their government against these forces. However, it is also their job to defend their rights and civil liberties against a power-hungry and ever-growing government. They are the ultimate check and balance. Indeed, it is in them in which the power of government is vested from an active and engaged population cannot be usurped. While the current administration has done away with phrases such as “War on Terror” for “less offensive” substitutes such as “Man-caused Disasters,” (Kessler) the threat of a terrorism on our home soil is as real as ever, and we must not let down our guard. The battle waged between ultimate protectionism and anarchy will continue, but the balance lies somewhere in between. The sweet spot is at the point where citizens lead their own lives, taking risks and working for themselves and the borders are secure, the military strong, and the government following the will of the people.
