Problems with the PATRIOT Act

The opposition to the Patriot Act has not shown how the real provisions of that law have been abused, nor have they proven that America can be as safe if portions of the law are repealed or allowed to expire"
  — Trent England, policy analyst for The Heritage Foundation

The purpose of this makeshift page is to document and shed a little light on the USA PATRIOT act, which is surrounded by much confusion and smoke & mirrors. For example, prominent people have claimed that no section of the law has been declared unconstitutional, which is flat-out wrong (see below).

As I see it, the problem with the PATRIOT Act is that it expands police powers generally, beyond the implicit limits of the Bill of Rights, and does not limit itself to nor require any measurable success against terrorism. Thus, despite the sunset provisions, there is no benchmark for evaluating the bill's success, which sets the stage for immense hearsay and propaganda.

Trent England's implicit claim (see above quote) is that there is a negative burden of proof on the citizenry with respect to the law. This is incorrect; the law must be shown to be positively effective towards its end, and be such to a greater extent than its negative impact. Still, I think either route bodes poorly for the PATRIOT Act, and I hope the evidence on this page helps illuminate that.

This document is a work-in-progress and should not be considered "complete" at this time.

Resources

Below are some resources which provide evidence of the PATRIOT Act's flaws and use in an abusive manner:

• Text of the Act - Read it yourself (the people who passed it didn't). It can be pretty enlightening.
• Wikipedia article on the PATRIOT Act - Provides a great overview, including history and tour of abuses. Many kinds of abuses are represented, including (amazingly) one against a web site operator who was running a fan site for the TV show "Stargate SG-1". The alleged crime was... copyright infringement! Also points out that sections 505 (National Security Letters) and 805 ("expert advice or assistance") were ruled unconstitutional and vague, respectively.
• Documented abuses - Abuses of the act as determined by justice department investigators (not outsiders such as the ACLU). By 2003, over 1000 complaints had been received and about 34 had been deemed within-jurisdiction and substantial. Does anyone have an update of these figures?
• Act's "successful" track record questionable - A lengthy blog post breaking down the PATRIOT Act terrorism conviction figures, comparing claims to reality. Bush claims the number of convinctions is in the ballpark of 200, with the implication that these are all having an effect against terrorism. The Justice department's own figures give a "slightly" lower number for terrorism-related convictions: 39. You read that correctly— about 160 convictions under the patriot act had nothing to do with terrorism by the Justice dept.'s own admission; thus non-terrorism applications of the Act outnumber terrorism applications by a factor of more than 4:1.

  It is interesting to compare this "success count" to the Justice department's own figure for abuses of the Act, which had already reached a comparable level (34) two years ago (see above).

• The ACLU's PATRIOT Act myth's and facts page - Nice page, provides some more facts and arguments.

• Local government opposition - In this article an example of a local government is taken, which outlawed cooperation with the PATIOT Act's provisions by local officers. This is one example of many (hundreds?)
• Library opposition - Librarians of course hate the PATRIOT Act because circulation records could be subpoenaed and patrons implicated purely by what they have been reading— and not notified they are being investigated.
• Congressman Ron Paul argues against retaining the act - Succinct speech before congress by Ron Paul arguing that the PATRIOT act is not necessary and should be let to expire. The crux is that law enforcement doesn't need the extra-constitutional powers granted by the act, and that terrorism-fighting efforts are actually harmed by not requiring efforts be focused based on probable cause.

My Commentary

On the expanding definition of "terrorist": An Illustration

The bill's vague definition of a terrorist, in combination with similarly vage and widely-scoped formulations of what constitutes terrorism and aid to terrorists, allows for some counter-intuitive applications of the law.

For example, Karl Rove may be a terrorist. If indeed he leaked information about the identity of Valerie Plame and her CIA involvement to the press, Rove could be considered a terrorist. The text of the PATRIOT Act (specifically, Section 802) includes:

...
(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that—
 (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the 
     criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
 (B) appear to be intended—
  (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion ...

Rove may have publicly-divulged information crucial to national security, an illegal act dangerous to human life, with the intent to propagate this information publicly, in order to intimidate or punish elements of the CIA and the State Department— thus, to influence the policy of a government (our own).

Further, the PATRIOT Act defines the provision of "expert advice or assistance" as "material support" (see Section 805, which has not been nationally struck-down), which means Rove may have provided material support to terrorist groups (in fact, every terrorist group that has access to the mass media). The PATRIOT Act outlines stiff penalties and swift, severe response against those who provide material support to terrorist organizations; especially "domestic terrorists" such as Rove may be considered.

Whether such consideration might apply hinges only upon whether Rove actually committed the original information-leak act; the incident is otherwise compatible with both the letter and spirit of the Act.

Expansion of the drug war and shrinking property rights

Many of the provisions of the Act seem to have been designed to surreptitiously expand the "war on drugs". Because the expansion of powers to combat "money-laundering" were not limited to terrorism, they can be applied to anything. In essence, it is now completely illegal to conduct any significant international transaction outside the banking system (see Section 317). Anyone travelling internationally (with one point in the United States) caught with $10,001 in cash risks having it confiscated per se. Previously, the government had to show there was some reporting offense (such as tax evasion), or that the monies constituted criminal proceeds.

— apk

Last modified 2005-07-24.

© 2005 Aaron Krowne; This article may be linked-to or distributed (including as part of a compilation) verbatim (including the "Last modified" date above) in an unlimited fashion. All other rights reserved.

my home page