On March 31, a federal judge ruled that the National Security Administration, overseen by Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, illegally used wiretapping. The judge ruled that in 2004 the Bush administration illegally wiretapped an Islamic charity in Oregon. This was done because the charity was suspected of having terrorist connections. No warrants were issued to justify the wiretaps, which is acceptable under the Patriot Act. This ruling could potentially stop the wiretapping currently being used by the NSA and Obama administration.

This is a trend of individuals accepting loss of privacy for a sense of security. Many, aside from some civil liberties activist groups, find it perfectly legitimate for the government to invade citizen privacy in the hopes of catching terrorists. There is no public record of how many terrorists have been caught and how many wiretaps were conducted. Despite privacy concerns, there are people who defend the Act.

The Pariot Act has been renewed numerous times, with support from both Republicans and Democrats. The principle argument made by these individuals is that the legislation protects Americans without risking their freedoms. In 2003 former Attorney General John Ashcroft said, ‘The Patriot Act grants the executive branch critical tools in the war on terrorism. It provides the legislative branch extensive oversight. It honors the judicial branch with court supervision over the act’s most important powers.’ The judicial branch has now struck down one of the most egregious uses of the Patriot Act. At the time, Ashcroft used the fact that there had been no abuses to support his argument. This recent case is a striking example of an abuse.  

Despite the defenses of the Patriot Act, it should be judged on its constitutionality rather than any results. Generally, stripping people of their rights will allow authorities an easier time to gather evidence. Doing so ignores the Fourth Amendment, which requires that warrants be issued for search and seizures of a person’s belongings without probable cause. The Constitution has no exceptions for terrorism. It cannot be selectively interpreted.

President Obama has claimed that the act is harmful, yet he has re-authorized it upon several occasions. In 2003, he promised to repeal the Patriot Act yet still voted for it. In December 2005, he stated that he wanted to end the wiretapping provision under the act. In March 2006, he voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act. This past February he approved a one-year extension for it.  

His record paints the picture of someone hypocritical and misleading. While he publicly claims that the Patriot Act is unlawful, he has privately approved of its usage. He did not deceive voters, for his record was not a secret. But he projected a false image. On multiple occasions he criticized the Bush administration for its use. At this point, he is no different than President Bush in his respect toward the Constitution — it is simply a rough guideline, something getting in the way. Unfortunately, too few are calling him out on it. He will have to come up with a good story if he decides to explain for the inconsistencies between his words and actions.

The judge’s order is open to appeal from the Obama administration. Hopefully, the order will remain intact. The incident highlights that the rules set out under the Constitution apply to everyone, regardless of the situation.

Harmen Rockler is an undeclared freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. His column appears bi-weekly, and he can be reached at horockle@syr.edu.

 

Published on April 13, 2010 at 12:00 pm