Making "PATRIOT" Permanent

The New American
Aug. 17, 2005

Renewal of the so-called PATRIOT Act for 10 years effectively means that U.S. citizens will "have their constitutional rights put on hold for a decade," wrote Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas).

“If the PATRIOT Act is constitutional and badly needed, why were sunset provisions included at all? If it’s unconstitutional and pernicious, why not abolish it immediately? All of this nonsense about sunsets and reauthorizations merely distracts us from the real issue, which is personal liberty. America was not founded on a promise of security; it was founded on a promise of personal liberty to pursue happiness.”

As luck or something else would have it, the vote took place immediately after the recent round of subway and bus bombings in London, a terror rampage that prompted many of the act’s defenders to assert that critics of the act would be morally liable were such atrocities to be committed here. This refrain was both predictable and utterly absurd, points out Rep. Paul.

“Let’s remember that London is the most heavily monitored city in the world, with surveillance cameras recording virtually all public activity in the city center,” noted the congressman. “British police are not hampered by our 4th Amendment nor our numerous due process requirements. In other words, they can act without any constitutional restrictions, just as supporters of the PATRIOT Act want our own police to act. Despite this they were not able to prevent the bombings, proving that even a wholesale surveillance society cannot be made safe against determined terrorists.... The London bombings don’t prove the need for the PATRIOT Act — they prove the folly of it.”

Former deputy assistant Attorney General John C. Yoo, one of the chief architects of the PATRIOT Act, explained in a February 24, 2004 interview with the California Patriot that the Bush administration’s homeland security doctrine is based on the idea that “no artificial line could be drawn between foreign and domestic threats.” The primary achievement of the PATRIOT Act, Yoo continued, “was taking down the artificial line.”

As Yoo put it in a separate interview, the executive branch is now “using the legal tools of wartime” in dealing with matters of domestic security. In essence, this approach permits the president and his minions to make war on the American public — in the name of “protecting” us.

Yoo has described himself as a person who subscribes to the view espousing “limited government in areas aside from foreign affairs and security.” (Emphasis added.) Under this formula there are no limits on government intervention as long it is conducted in the name of “security.”