By Lauren Gunsel

About half of University students asked to comment on the USA Patriot Act have no opinion because they have no idea what it is. Period.

Congress enacted the Patriot Act after Sept. 11, 2001 in an effort to protect Americans from terrorism.  It enabled investigators to gather information about terrorism-related crimes, yet in doing so unleashed many issues of civil liberty.  It almost passed unanimously by the Senate 98-1 and 357-66 in the House of Representatives.  However, there are many critics who feel that the act violates privacy and promotes unwarranted surveillance.

“The Patriot Act allows the government to infringe upon your amended rights to privacy,” freshman Jeff Barnett said. “[The government] is allowed to observe someone without [that person] knowing and without their consent-basically bending your rights to fit their needs.”

The Department of Justice is taking a proactive stance in an attempt to disprove such sentiments and assure the public that the Act is in place to protect innocent Americans from the deadly plans of terrorists.  Interestingly enough, the Act has caused a public relations frenzy between the Department of Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  The Department of Justice’s Web site theme, “Preserving Life and Liberty” versus the ACLU’s “Keeping America Safe and Free” motto is a prime example of the irony in this debate.

Both organizations claim to keep America’s best interests at heart, yet express two very different opinions.  The Justice Department attempts to downplay the acts intrusion on an American’s privacy and play up the fear of future attacks.  The ACLU has run ads that say the Patriot Act lets the government “secretly enter your home while you’re away and rifle through your personal belongings and download your computer files and seize any items at will.” Worst of all, “You may never know what the government has done.”

Sophomore Fareen Azeem said, “The Act is enforced when needed, but in some ways invades privacy; however, only for our protection.”

The reality of the situation is that the Feds had the authority to conduct these types of searches before the Patriot Act.  A federal judge has to authorize a search warrant, and the warrant has to specify what is being seized. 

The ACLU also complains that law enforcement agencies now have unchecked power to search citizens and “wide powers of phone and internet surveillance.”

Prior to the Patriot Act, the Internet was unchartered legal territory.  Both private parties and governments’ rights were hazy.  Basic information about electronic communications, such as e-mail, is now protected under the Act. 

It’s now a federal crime to obtain information without a court order.

Regardless of the fairness of their campaign, the ACLU’s public relations methods have been exceptionally effective.  Since January 2002, the organization recruited more than 240,000 new members and Internet donations have nearly doubled.  Cities, counties and states passed 356 resolutions in opposition to the act and other anti-terrorist policies.

The ACLU fails to point out that many tools of the Act enable law enforcement officials to use tactics that have been used for decades to combat organized crime and drug dealers.  And more importantly, no congressional committee has found any evidence that law enforcement abused the powers provided by the Patriot Act, to the public’s knowledge. If a situation arises, Section 223 allows citizens monetary damages for violations in an effort to further deter against the violation of individual liberties.  However, it is possible that gag orders keep these situations from surfacing into the public eye.

“I think the country should stick together whether or not you agree with all of the provisions of the Act,” senior Pat Balzar said. “Support your country-bottom line.”

Some students aren’t as unconditionally supportive.

“I think it really needs to be reviewed and rewritten,” senior Jared Greenberg said. “American citizens should be informed when they are being investigated.”

Some students guessed the Act was to help increase jobs or to encourage support for the troops, or even a law that says people cannot speak out against the United States during time of war.  Many other guesses and blank stares from students reflect the fact that many University students do not discuss the Patriot Act in their classes nor seek out information about it on their own.  This act should especially concern young citizens who are living in an age of media convergence where instant access to vast information lies in their own bedrooms and classrooms.  Any student who researches or uses a computer should know their rights and boundaries. 

Professor Susan Drucker of the Department of Journalism and Mass Media Studies has the opportunity to incorporate the Patriot Act with students taking Mass 104, a class that examines media and the law.   

Drucker feels that any professor who requires their students to do research should be discussing the Act in class.

“If students have a class where they are asked to do research, they should ask their professor if the Patriot Act relates,” Drucker said.

Drucker encourages students to form their own opinions.  Reading the Act can be very confusing and reading the Web sites-depending on which one you are surfing are somewhat slanted or biased.

“There are parts of the Act that seek to streamline some law enforcement,” Drucker said. “Selective surveillance and greater surveillance at lesser standards jeopardizes civil liberties.”

Section 213 and 215 of the Act particularly rile Patriot Act skeptics.  Section 213 said law enforcement can delay notifying a target if their property has been searched and 215 allows investigators to seize documents such as library records.  The government rationalizes these acts by citing that such powers existed before the Patriot Act and that the Supreme Court upholds their constitutionality.

Drucker said, “Think about what we are being asked to do. Decide how much security we want, and how much we are willing to pay for it with our freedom.”

Citizens are converned about the presidential candidates positions since key provisions of the act are set to expire Dec. 31, 2004. 

“The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule,” President Bush said in a State of the Union address, “Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens.”

Democratic candidate John Kerry promised early in his campaign, “We will put an end to sneak and peek searches, which permit law enforcement to conduct a secret search-and-seize evidence without notification.”

Kerry voted for the Act in 2001 and supports the law, yet he expresses mixed feelings and accuses the Department of Justice of abuse.

Speed and secrecy can very well mean life or death in a time of emergency, and technology is advancing beyond the limits of our laws.  Information can destroy as well as educate.  Voters decide on Nov. 2 whether the act is a tool to enable the government to keep the United States safe, or if it’s merely an infringement upon Americans’ rights.