Patriot Act a protection against terror

By: Andres Martinez-Fernandez/Contributing Writer

“Since the Sept. 11 attacks, Americans have lived in constant fear.” This is the opening sentence as well as the on-going theme to an article in the Sept. 16 edition of The Beacon, entitled “Security measures absolve our rights.” The writer, Jorge Mendez, seems to believe that since Sept. 11, 2001, Americans have locked themselves in their homes with their windows duct taped, venturing out to procure only the most essential of goods while Orwellian-style security forces patrol the streets in black matte uniforms and gas masks.

One of the things I found most odd about this article is the timing. The Patriot Act has not been an actively discussed issue by politicians, the media or even the general population for years. This is due in large part to the fact that most of the hyperbole, ludicrous accusations and slippery slope arguments used against it have not withstood the test of time. However, this did not stop Mendez from trying to revive a dead issue by exploiting the 10th anniversary of the deaths of thousands of Americans.

“It has become normal to be afraid, to have little privacy, to have your calls your texts, your emails your credit cards and your position tracked,” a reference to the Patriot Act passed in 2002. Ignorant and inflammatory claims such as these are the kind of rhetoric that takes away from an informed public discourse. The government is not tracking our positions, and it is certainly not actively monitoring our phone calls.

The Patriot Act is not used in this way, nor was it ever intended to be. The Patriot Act was written to address the flaws in our security and justice systems, which made the Sept. 11 attacks possible. Before its passing, it was illegal to monitor email conversations that even touched a United States server, let alone a phone conversation involving someone in the U.S., which is why several of the Sept. 11 terrorists were able to communicate with those assisting them in Afghanistan without the U.S. being able to intercept and monitor the calls.

This was due to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, more commonly known as FISA. Written in 1978, this law and its provisions were severely out of date, especially considering the explosions in cell phone use and technology, and the advent of the Internet and email, which is why the passing of the Patriot Act was deemed necessary.

Roving wiretapping, as outlined in the Patriot Act, is hardly a new tactic, although many would like to attribute its creation to it. Wiretapping was used as far back as the civil war, when former President

Abraham Lincoln used the method to gain intelligence on Confederate movements. It was used again during World Wars 1 and 2. If it was not unconstitutional then, there is no reason for it to be considered so now.

“We have let these cowards (terrorist organizations in the Middle East, I assume) dictate how we should run our society.”  Apparently, Mendez believes that adjusting our national security strategies so that they effectively combat terror is allowing the terrorists run our society. On the contrary, I think that by taking these measures, we have been able to continue with our lives without a constant fear of attack.

The reality is that our national security was lacking in the years leading up to the attacks of Sept. 11 as a result of outdated mentalities and approaches. This made it necessary for the government to make significant reforms to national security policy such as the passing of the Patriot Act.

It does not mean that we have surrendered all of our rights and become a police state, and it certainly does not mean that we as Americans now live in fear. Instead, such policies have made it possible for us as Americans to live our lives without fear that something as horrific as the attacks on Sept. 11 would be repeated.