Best USA reply to Usama: Patriot Act extension

By Michael Gaynor

If Adolph Hitler had asked for a truce in 1945, in order to rebuild and save money on munitions, would the Allies have agreed? Of course not. Some are not acceptable negotiating partners. They must be exterminated, not indulged. Hitler previously proved himself to be a very successful negotiator. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned from his conference in Munich with Hitler, Daladier and Mussolini really believing that he was "bringing peace with honor...peace for our time." What the Munich Pact actually did was sacrifice Czechoslovakia and make World War II much more costly, in blood and treasure. An exorbitant price for a brief delay in dealing with and destroying the evil, ugly reality.

What have the Congressional Democrats been doing during the last two months? Obstructing long-term extension of the Patriot Act and pretending that President Bush did a dictatorial thing instead of the right thing by authorizing secret, warrantless surveillance of al Qaeda or al Quada-suspected communications from abroad to America.

An ungrateful Usama has spotlighted the danger of these despicable political tactics, by releasing an audiotape announcing that more attacks on America are in process.

So what should America do: (a) try to negotiate a truce with the terrorists or (b) continue to try to prevent attacks on the American homeland, take the fight to the enemy abroad and do what is necessary to eliminate the terrorist threat?

Is this really a close question?

Lest some Congressional Democrats still be in doubt, the right answer is (b). It obviously is time to stop trying to weaken the Patriot Act and instead to renew it for the duration of the War on Terror, so that the Administration can focus on fighting the terrorists instead of fighting for the tools to fight the terrorists.

On December 22, 2005, Rachel Alexander, Founder and Co-Editor of IntellectualConservative.com and an attorney and policy advisor in Phoenix, Arizona with degrees in political science and history from the University of Washington (where she was Co-President of the Political Science Honor Society) and a law degree from the University of Arizona (where she was President of the Federalist Society chapter), posted a compelling article appropriately titled "Analyzing the Democrats' objections to renewal of the Patriot Act."

With key provisions of the Patriot Act again scheduled to expire shortly, Ms. Alexander's article, the text of which is set forth in full immediately below, is especially timely.

"The Senate agreed last night to renew the anti-terrorism Patriot Act for another six months. Democrats had threatened not to renew the Patriot Act at all, claiming that it encroaches upon the civil liberties and privacy of suspected terrorists. Enacted after 9/11 in 2001, the Act expanded the ability of law enforcement and intelligence to investigate terrorism. It should be noted that the only Democratic Senator who voted against the Patriot Act in 2001 was Russell Feingold. Democrats now hope to weaken several provisions of the Act. They filibustered a House-Senate version that would have extended the Act for a year, instead offering to extend it for three months. The House had originally proposed a four-year extension.

"Democrats are concerned that suspected terrorists are not given enough rights when being investigated by the FBI. Last week, not coincidentally, Democratic members of Congress leaked confidential information to the press regarding a directive by Bush in 2001 authorizing the National Security Agency to intercept international phone calls and emails coming in and out of the U.S. under suspicion for ties to terrorism. It is not clear what the ramifications are of leaking this information — for some reason I don't think the investigation will be as thorough as the investigation has been into the Valerie Plame leak.

"Democrats argue that Bush did not have the authority to approve this, since under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, a court order is required prior to government spying on U.S. citizens. However, federal courts that have examined the issue have held that the President has the authority to wiretap; both Presidents Clinton and Carter authorized their administrations to wiretap. As Commander-in-Chief, the President has extensive powers, particularly during wartime, which are not spelled out nor clearly delineated in the Constitution. Remember Reagan's opposition to the Boland Amendments during Iran-Contra (particularly the second Boland Amendment) as being an unconstitutional encroachment by Congress on the executive branch. If the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applies to the executive branch, it may be unconstitutional — and it appears the federal courts will agree.

"The key issue regarding government intrusiveness under the Patriot Act can be summarized as this: are foreign terrorists entitled to the same rights as Americans? The Democrats seem to think they are. But why should they be? We don't give everyone in society the same panoply of rights. Children have significantly less rights than adults. Prisoners have even more limited rights. Terrorists are not raised with our democratic values, and in fact want to tear them down. So why should we give them the benefit of 100% of our democratic values? We may as well give them the right to vote here as well. After all, we allow our citizens living abroad to vote in the U.S., and we give benefits to undocumented immigrants, so why not expand the right of voting to undocumented terrorists living in the U.S.? Regardless, technology is outpacing the Patriot Act. A lot of fears about the Patriot Act's intrusiveness are being assuaged as the pace of technological innovations in software and communications increase, particularly in the area of privacy.

"Critics have attacked Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows a judge to issue an order authorizing investigators to seize any tangible item related to foreign terrorism, including personal documents such as bank statements, medical records, and (as the ACLU likes to point out) library records. Before the Patriot Act, the permitted list only included hotel, car rental and storage materials. Why is the former a violation of civil liberties and privacy but the latter is not? It is a very gray slippery slope, and it is not clear where the line should be drawn.

"It should be noted that the ACLU and its mouthpiece, the mainstream media, are fond of pointing out that anything can be seized under the Patriot Act, yet they conveniently forget to mention that prior to the Patriot Act it was already legal to seize many items. This is not the black and white issue criminal defense advocates are portraying it as. It is not all or nothing, but rather a process of determining where that nuanced line in the sand should properly be drawn. The left would rather decide in advance where the line should be based on sound bites, rather than examine Fourth Amendment case law and existing statutes.

"Other provisions under attack include Section 203(b) and (d), which permit information sharing between government agencies, and Section 212, which permits internet ('communications') providers to notify the government of suspicious emails if there is an immediate threat of physical injury. This latter section is protested because it leaves it up to the internet provider to determine whether email rises to the level of an emergency. However, this argument is flawed, because every day citizens and businesses contact authorities to report emergencies and crime.

"There is also criticism that internet providers might investigate customers for other things, such as file-sharing. Well they already do. And virtually all internet providers state in their user agreements that they reserve the right to read customers' emails and monitor their activity (apparently the ACLU doesn't read the fine print). If someone is really concerned about their internet provider or the government reading their emails, they should use 128 bit encryption to send email. As for file-sharing, the dispute over whether music and video should be exchanged in file format is gradually disappearing, as companies like Apple are now permitted to sell music and video files at reasonable prices (.99 cents per song is dirt cheap).

"It will be interesting to see what modifications the Democrats propose over the next six months. It will take just one massive terrorist attack, that could have been prevented by adequate monitoring, to firmly establish where the line between civil liberties and preventing terrorism should come down. If the Democrats succeed in watering down the Patriot Act, I genuinely hope they are correct, that it is more important not to curtail the rights of suspected terrorists than it is to protect us from another terrorist attack.

"A list of the Patriot's Act controversial provisions can be found here.

"A full list of the provisions that were about to expire can be found here.

Is it "more important not to curtail the rights of suspected terrorists than it is to protect us from another terrorist attack?

Of course not!

Do Americans have a constitutional right to talk privately with terrorists calling from abroad?

Surely THAT is not a penumbral right emanating from values in America's Bill of Rights! Especially during wartime.

Instead of cooperating with the Democrats' dangerous obstructionism, the media should be reminding Americans what it was like on September 11, 2001, as Marie Jon, a political and religious-based writer, stressed last month in ""Remember a September Day Like No Other and Urge Roger Ailes to Remind Americans Why We Have the Patriot Act":

"Given Congress' shameless failure to extend for more than a few weeks key provisions of The Patriot Act, as initially urged by President Bush, before it adjourned this month, it is useful to recall that not all the heartbreaking scenes of death and destruction filmed on that horrendous day known as September 11, 2001 were ever shown to the American public. And to demand that the news media show us the entire footage depicting how so many lives were taken in a cruel and cowardly fashion.

"The biased alphabet networks that constantly undermine America's efforts in the War on Terror (ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC) are unlikely to do that. But Fox, the 'fair and balanced' network, may do so with some encouragement. So, I urge you, please join me in asking Roger Ailes of Fox News to have Fox News do a special on the need to renew those soon-to-expire provisions, by emailing a copy of this article to Mr. Ailes at Roger.Ailes@foxnews.com. Together with your own words of urgency and encouragement!

"'The Patriot Act has earned an undeserved stigma, which has allowed it to become the catchall for any government nuisance or useless bureaucracy, most of which are untrue or unrelated to the act.

"'As such, it is important to know that much of what the Patriot Act does is to add "and terrorism" to existing criminal and intelligence-gathering statutes, ones like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which serves to delicately balance civil rights protections with intelligence-gathering capabilities.

"'However, the irony over recent criticism of the president authorizing domestic wiretapping by the National Security Agency is remarkable. Democrats have criticized President Bush for not working within the existing legal framework while simultaneously working to eliminate part of that framework by filibustering the reauthorization of the Patriot.'

Full Article Jim Winston

"September of 2001 came quietly as months often do. Terrorists had come here to rob Americans of their feeling of safety by acting violently and bringing thousands of deaths in mere minutes in America's premier city and at the Pentagon, America's military headquarters, and, but for the bravery of the passengers of one hijacked airplane, America's national capitol. The horrible attack shocked the world. The devastation was shocking and horrifying, but NOT intimidating or insurmountable. Our minds could hardly grasp what our eyes were witnessing on television news, with devastating scenes repeated again and again. Those who lived in the affected areas were left dumfounded, yet heroism was not scarce. Fear turned into action to save a multitude, and to make certain that those who had died had not died uselessly.

"On October 24, 2001, forty-three days after a catastrophic attack on the United States, Congress passed what it called 'the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001" in order '[t]o deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.' Americans simply refer to it as the Patriot Act.

"Congress was not fooling around. It made a series of legislative changes that significantly increased the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement. Section 2 specified that the Act 'shall be construed so as to give it the maximum effect permitted by law.'

"After September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration quickly made many important proposals to make it easier for America to protect itself from terrorist attack. But the Democrats then controlled the United States Senate and Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, worked to weaken the law that ultimately would be passed. But Attorney General (and former Governor and United States Senator) John Ashcroft tellingly warned that further terrorist acts were imminent, and that Congress could be to blame for such attacks if it failed to act expeditiously. So the final bill was much stronger than Senator Leahy wanted. Then Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle, Democrat from South Dakota, had sought unanimous consent to pass the proposal without debate or amendment, and only one Senator, Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, had objected. Minor changes were made in the House, which passed the bill 357 to 66. The Senate and House versions were quickly reconciled, and the Act was signed into law on October 26, 2001.

"The Act contains a sunset provision terminating several of the amendments enhancing electronic surveillance authority on December 31, 2005. The War on Terror continues, so the Bush Administration is seeking to continue those provisions. But America's leftists, led by The New York Times, want those provisions to die, fearing the Bush Administration more than the terrorists, and seeming to forget the lesson learned on September 11, 2001 at a cost of some 3,000 innocent lives, not to mention the property damage and the horrendous effect on the survivors, particularly the families of the dead, and America's economy.

"A few weeks after Congress reconvenes early next year, it needs to renew the soon-to-expire provisions of the Patriot Act that a filibuster by a willful minority of mostly leftist Democrats and liberal Republicans blocked.

"There is a critical need for all patriotic Americans to understand fully the enemies we are facing, both abroad and at home. Many of us have become complacent and forgetful instead of continuing to remember a September day not all that long ago that was Pearl Harbor for Americans alive on that day and forgotten at our grave peril.

"In retrospect, the sanitization of that sad September day was a bad judgment call. We must not hide the truth that was witnessed by those who were on the scene that tragic day. Those unseen footages, held hostage by our own media, could serve as a much needed teaching tool and thereby pave the way for renewal of those soon-to-expire provisions crucial to our safety and a better future not only for America, but for the cause of freedom, democracy and peace around the world. All Americans have a need to know, not just the few chosen to serve on the on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (better known as the 9-11 Commission).

"If we as a nation wish to continue to remain free from further attacks, we must revisit that day in its horrifying fullness and reabsorb September 11th of 2001. In viewing all the innocent victims, we can fully understand the need for the Patriot Act . The stark reality would bring back the will to fight a war on terror. The lies about the Patriot Act would dissipate, and those who try to deceive us would hold no favor.

"It was on September 11, 2001 that America was thrust into a new era that would no longer allow us to simply put a yellow crime tape around an act of violent terrorism. Those moments captured on film and hidden away show all the fear, bewilderment, and dismaying shock that many are too willing to forget. To recapture those feelings, we must rekindle a resounding resolution never to forget those who were victimized on that day. In reality, we were all victimized on that day. Our enemies have not changed their wicked unfulfilled agenda. They are more than willing to do physical harm all over again. The unforgivable deeds perpetrated on our homeland must be seen over and over again, lest we forget to keep America strong and secured.

"Law-abiding Americans need not fear the laws written to protect them. Terrorists and their aiders and abetters do. A willful minority of legislators must cease and desist from playing with our very lives. We have been spared and shown mercy by a vigilant watch and a president who has carefully executed his duties and secured the passage of the Patriot Act.

Webcast Link — President Urges Senate to Reauthorize Patriot Act and :Pass Defense Bill

"Again, I urge you: please join me in asking Roger Ailes of Fox News to have Fox News do a special on the need to renew those soon-to-expire provisions, by emailing a copy of this article to Mr. Ailes at Roger.Ailes@foxnews.com. Together with your own words of urgency and encouragement!"

YES! Email Mr. Ailes. Fox News should take the lead in reminding Americans why the Patriotic Act was overwhelmingly enacted in the first place as well as why it is still needed. We can't expect ABC, CBS, CNN or NBC to do so.

© Michael Gaynor