The USA PATRIOT Act, passed almost unanimously by Congress on October 26, 2001 as a reaction to the September 11, 2001 terroris

Mary Huerter

Lately, talk of the Patriot Act has been swirling through not only congressional chambers and political journals, but also the nightly news, family dinner tables, and even high school hallways. The publicity that the act seems to be receiving is due largely to a promotional tour that hit more than a dozen U.S. cities this August. The unprecedented tour was organized and led by Attorney General John Ashcroft with the intent of informing citizens about the many benefits of the act. One of the large effects of the tour has been that people have taken time to look a little more scrutinizingly at the act that requires so much promotion.

The US Patriot Act, passed almost unanimously by Congress on Oct. 26, 2001 as a reaction to the September 11 terrorist attacks, is beginning to turn up as a matter of controversy for many United States citizens. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) hails the act as, " . . . a key part - and often the leading role - in a number of successful operations to protect innocent Americans from the deadly plans of terrorists dedicated to destroying America and our way of life," while the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says, "Many parts of this sweeping legislation take away checks on law enforcement and threaten the very rights and freedoms that we are struggling to protect."

It is impossible to take either of these opinions at face value because they apply to such a large piece of legislation that has applications everywhere from indefinitely detaining international terrorists to obtaining records of the websites you went to while you were researching you history paper.

While it would be almost impossible to explain the many different interpretations and applications of an act with the breadth and impact of the Patriot Act in one article, it is possible to focus on one of the most controversial parts of the act, Section 215, which falls under Title II of the Patriot Act, "Enhanced Surveillance Procedures," and how it can affect ordinary girls in Omaha.

Section 215. Access to Records and Other Items Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Summary: This section voids and rewrites sections 501, 502, and 503 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), which pertain to the federal government's ability to obtain people's personal records to aid investigations into international terrorism and foreign intelligence.

This section allows several high-ranking members of the FBI to request an order for " . . . any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items . . . " to protect the United States from international terrorism.

The catch is that unless the request is based on a person's First Amendment activities (religion, free speech, etc.) the judge to whom the request was made is not allowed to deny the order.

Change from previous laws: The major change associated with Section 215 of the Patriot Act is that this section marks the complete degeneration of the ideas of probable cause and evidence. Under the Patriot Act the person requesting the court order needs nothing more than to make any sort of non-First Amendment connection between an individual and international terrorism, and the judge cannot refuse to grant the subpoena.

This doesn't sound bad, except that there is no longer a definition of how strong a connection to terrorism an individual must have, so, for example, anyone of Middle-Eastern descent or who has visited the Middle East before or who one time checked Arabian Nights out of the library within six weeks of renting Aladdin from Blockbuster is now susceptible to court-ordered information requests.

Pros: "Examining business records often provides the key that investigators are looking for to solve a wide range of crimes," says the DOJ.

Cons: " . . . empowers the FBI to obtain records concerning anyone at all, even people who are not suspected of any involvement whatsoever in criminal activity or espionage," says the ACLU.

How it could impact you: It might seem a bit far-fetched to get yourself all up in a tizzy over something that only seems to affect international terrorists, but when it gets to the point where a movie rental or a Google keyword puts someone on the same level of suspicion as an international terrorist, it's time for concern. The phrase, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized," comes to mind.

Student Reaction: "I don't agree with it ≠ we have public libraries so that I have the freedom to check out whatever I want without the government knowing about it. If they inhibit that freedom it will be detrimental to the entire sharing of knowledge," says senior Christine Geistkemper.