New bills severely limit citizens’ privacy

In a crushing blow to my already low estimation of Congress’s ability to make wise choices, legislators have once again disappointed me. Instead of invoking fear in the hearts of terrorists, Congress’s new anti-terrorism legislation is terrorizing the beliefs of civil liberties advocates across the country. Late Thursday night, the Senate passed the USA Act, and on Friday the House of Representatives passed a similar bill. The USA Act was approved with an overwhelming vote of 96 to 1.

The lone resistance came from Senator Russ Feingold who proposed three amendments that would limit the new surveillance powers enacted by the bill. All three amendments were flatly rejected. Senator Orrin Hatch called Feingold’s amendments outdated and nonsensical. Now, although I’m sure it would shock Senator Hatch, I believe these amendments were not completely preposterous. The First Amendment proposed that the roving wire tap provision be modified to say that authorities can only listen to a phone tap if the person using it is the terrorist suspect and not an innocent person. For example, the FBI may decide to tap a row of 20 pay phones in an airport because they are tracking a suspected terrorist there. Feingold’s amendment would have required that the FBI listen in only on a conversation involving the suspect. Apparently this common sense privacy protection was too outdated and nonsensical for other senators. It must be the case that a reasonable expectation of privacy is now an outdated concept in America.

There are many Americans who would respond with the common argument: Well, you shouldn’t mind if you have nothing to hide. This response is weak at best, and extremely dangerous at worst. The Constitution explicitly requires warrants for situations exactly like this. Once you start giving up your rights, you have no right to keep the remainder of them. As Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

In another one of his amendments, Feingold proposed the removal of a section of the bill that allows law enforcement to search homes and offices without notifying the owner first. The Constitution mandates that suspects be served a warrant prior to executing a search. Feingold called this section of the USA Act unconstitutional and pointed out that the Senators had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Yet they still rejected his amendment. Ninety-six Senators violated their oath of office with little more than a few regrets. Perhaps I should not be surprised by this. Perhaps I should not expect more from the people who have the greatest power to shape our country’s destiny. Yet in my idealism, I do expect more because the Senate has no excuse for summarily dismissing Feingold’s rational and intelligent proposals. There is no good reason why the Senate could not have spent a few days more considering the implications of the USA Act. If we rush ahead with legislation, throwing caution and rational debate out the window, we will come to regret these decisions.

To make matters worse, the USA Act includes no expiration date. It does not have a sunset provision as the House bill does. I see this as indicating that the USA Act will be around for an unknown amount of time. It may be a permanent change to the civil liberties of the American population. It is much harder to repeal legislation than to enact it because it will be forgotten or not considered worth the effort to repeal. A sunset provision would have accounted for this problem by requiring Congress to renew the bill in a few years or let it expire if its purpose had been served. The Bush administration is opposed to a sunset clause. They probably reason that terrorism will be around forever and therefore the government agencies will always need these increased powers. I don’t know about you, but I am not willing to accept indefinite loss of our constitutionally-granted rights.

While these restrictions may not immediately affect all of us, there is one that could pertain to University students. Feingold’s fourth amendment, which he never raised to the Senate because of the outright failure of his previous three, was intended to limit the scope of a section regarding computer trespasser communications. The section is intended to allow agencies to monitor terrorists who are illegally using computers for communication. However, the section could also allow universities, libraries, and employers to authorize government surveillance of people who are authorized to use their computer facilities. This section could be interpreted to mean that a minor transgression of an office or library computer use policy could be treated as computer trespassing. For example, a university that has a policy against downloading MP3s on campus computers could possibly use the bill to spy on student computer activities.

Perhaps the saddest part of all this is that Senator Feingold’s reward for having the courage to stand up for what he believed in will most likely be a severe blow to his career. He was the only one to vote against the USA Act, a fact that will most likely be twisted and distorted by his opponents when he is up for reelection in 2004. His opponents will claim that his vote against the Uniting and Strengthening America act was an indication of a lack of concern for stopping terrorism.

The American Civil Liberties Union has expressed that it is bitterly disappointed with the Senate and House bills. According to Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington National Office, Most Americans do not recognize that Congress has just passed a bill that would give the government expanded power to invade our privacy, imprison people without due process and punish dissent. The bill passed by the House was a modified version of the PATRIOT act. The House GOP replaced most of the PATRIOT act, a bill that had undergone significant revisions to protect civil liberties, with parts of the Senate USA Act.

This effort to rush legislation through Congress is shameful and foolish. Neither bill was given adequate time for debate or consideration of protective measures. The procedures used to get these bills passed reek of deceptive and oppressive practices. Legislators in the House complained that the House GOP leadership had forced a vote without giving time to review the 175-page document. Early on Friday morning, top House Republicans met privately and abruptly agreed to use the Senates USA Act instead of the more moderate bill that had been expected. Barney Frank, a representative from Massachusetts, protested: “What we have today is an outrageous procedure: A bill, drafted by a handful of people in secret, comes to us without a committee review and immune to amendment.”

The Senate and House bills grant the CIA and other federal agencies greatly expanded powers. Yet we must be careful that the law is not abused. Up until the mid-1970s, the CIA spied on as many as 7,000 Americans in Operation CHAOS. This operation in the 1960s and early 1970s involved spying on people who opposed the war in Vietnam, or were student activists or so-called black nationalists. As a result of this large-scale abuse of authority, the powers of the CIA were restricted and safeguards were put in place. The USA Act and House bill are a significant step towards reducing these checks and balances. The hasty way in which the bills were pushed through Congress implies that legislators can not possibly have taken enough time to consider the bills dangerous implications.

In this time of difficulty, we must be careful that in providing for national security, we do not sacrifice basic and essential rights.

John Davin is a sophomore computer science major.