To Forfeit Freedom

Signed into law on Oct. 26, 2001 and prompted by the catastrophic events of 9/11, the Patriot Act is the reactionary product of fear and a desire for safety. The passage of the act, which expanded the federal government’s power to surveil its citizens, was in many ways a mistake that President Obama this week had the distinct opportunity to correct or at least mitigate. Unfortunately, he did neither.

Obama’s recent choice to reauthorize the Patriot Act with no additional privacy protections is more than disappointing—it is disingenuous. President Obama campaigned on a platform of transparency and strengthening civil liberties, and, although he made no commitments to letting the Patriot Act expire, he did, according to his own campaign literature, consistently assert that, “He would support a Patriot Act that would strengthen civil liberties without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe.” Instead, Obama’s extended support for the tenets of the Patriot Act that infringe on civil liberties perpetuates Bush-era policies on national security and includes no additional privacy protections.

Indeed, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act was met with overwhelming support in Congress, but this complicity is neither proof of the efficacy of the Patriot Act nor does it justify this continued infringement on a right to privacy. Similarly, the dearth of successful terrorist attacks since 9/11 is not an adequate indicator that we have been made safer by the Patriot Act—to conjecture as such is to ignore the complex matrix that defines national security.

But what the Patriot Act certainly does symbolize is the erosion of the right to privacy that the Supreme Court has ruled is implicit in a number of constitutional amendments, including the Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendments. Even without the question of the value being brought to bear, a sacrifice of freedom is not in service of either American values or the U.S. Constitution.

Rather than continuing to infringe upon civil liberties in perpetuity, we should combat terrorism by removing its root causes. This surely will not be an easy endeavor, and it will require both vigilance and collaboration between all branches of government and governments abroad. But it is not an impossible proposition and does not require that we forfeit our right to privacy to the federal apparatuses, whether they are legal or governmental.

This is not to say that there are absolutely no protections evident in the Patriot Act. But we do assert that the privacy protections that are present—which include court authorizations—are inadequate safeguards against the government’s abuse of power.

In the face of terrorism, we must hold on to what makes America a standard for liberty, not forfeit the very freedom that we hold dear.