LAST WEEK, for perhaps the first time ever, Dennis Kucinich, D.-Ohio, and Tea Party members of Congress agreed on an issue. In a bipartisan vote of 277 to 148, members of the House of Representatives were unable to secure a two-thirds majority on a measure that would extend three provisions of the PATRIOT Act set to expire at the end of the month. The failure to reauthorize these portions of the PATRIOT Act is a victory on two fronts. First, it means a return to pre-Sept. 11 privacy and civil liberties. Second, the bipartisan nature of the vote gives U.S. citizens hope that members of the 112th House of Representatives are willing to cross party lines to legislate in the best interest of their constituents.
The PATRIOT Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush in October 2001 following the Sept. 11 attacks. The act was then reauthorized by Congress and once again signed into law with only minor revisions in 2006. In 2001, only 66 representatives, including a mere three Republicans, voted against the PATRIOT Act. The act included provisions to reduce restrictions on the government's ability to search phone, e-mail and other records, and also broadened the government's ability to detain immigrants suspected of terrorism. These provisions are just a few of many that broadened the scope of government power. During such a tense moment in our nation's history, President Bush and legislators from both parties made counter-terrorism a priority. Support of the PATRIOT Act was widespread among legislators seeking to give law enforcement and the federal government greater powers to investigate and apprehend suspected terrorists in the United States. The act did not go unchallenged, however. Many against the PATRIOT Act, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, believe that it threatens basic civil liberties.
The three aspects within the PATRIOT Act that will expire on February 28 are considered some of the most controversial provisions within the legislation. The first concerns roving wiretaps; courts will no longer have the authority to permit surveillance on multiple phones. The second portion that will not be continued is what is known as the "library records" provision, which gives the FBI access to "any tangible thing" related to a terrorism investigation. These "tangible things" include medical records, computer usage and financial transactions, among others. The third and final aspect of the PATRIOT Act that will not be continued is commonly known as the "lone-wolf" provision, which allows secret government surveillance of non-US citizens who are suspected of being a "lone-wolf" terrorist, meaning that they are not affiliated with any terrorist organization.
All three of these provisions reach far beyond what the federal government's power should entail. Being able to tap phone lines and dig up medical records of people not even connected to extremist groups is a serious infringement upon basic civil liberties. Many opponents of the bill go so far as to argue that such provisions are unconstitutional. Kucinich stated, "The 112th Congress began with a historic reading of the U.S. Constitution. Will anyone subscribe to the First and Fourth Amendments tomorrow when the PATRIOT Act is up for a vote? I am hopeful that members of the Tea Party who came to Congress to defend the Constitution will join me in challenging the reauthorization."
And indeed they did. Tea Party Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky, whose father Ron Paul originally opposed the PATRIOT Act in 2001, stated in a press release last Wednesday, "It is time for Congress to stop quietly extending this law and avoiding a serious discussion about protecting all the rights of all Americans."
This failure to extend the act is surely a victory for the rights of American citizens. The vote also proves that despite the bitter political divide, Republicans and Democrats are still able to agree on some important issues. In last Tuesday's vote, 26 Republicans voted with 122 Democrats and 67 Democrats voted with 210 Republicans. While there is still a divide, with Republicans on one side of the issue and Democrats on the other, such a large crossover is promising. The House did not simply toe the party line. Instead, its members voted for what they believed was constitutional, which can give us all some hope that our elected congressmen do have our best interests at heart and are not just voting with their party.
Claire Shotwell's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at c.shotwell@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 5 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
