21
e
er
:nts,
' bene-
oseda
hat
iyto
ations.
•Igo
s, we
we
wth
;tu-
:s
nd
nt,I
ive
at
FAB
t
enefn-
come
dentin
teem
.Arm!
I form
/vhatw
Tieoffi
iity”ini
tat baa
inf wte
r edas
whotr
itf-ingr:
clesar
any n
J
I
i
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 5B • Thursday, February 5, 2004
Frightening proposition
With its invasive nature and potential for abuse y renewing the Patriot Act unwise
%
NICHOLAS
DAVIS
F or those Americans willing to
relinquish more authority to
the U.S. government,
exchange individual freedom for
security and cast aside all rights to
personal privacy, sit back, relax and
enjoy the ride, because that’s where
this country may be heading. The
Patriot Act is currently up for
renewal.
The Patriot Act essentially
strengthens the powers of U.S. intelligence agencies,
and it actively does so in many ways, not all of which
are bad. For example, the act facilitates information
sharing between intelligence agencies, renders har
boring of terrorists and affording them material sup
port a criminal offense and permits nationwide exe
cution of warrants in terrorist cases.
Unfortunately, these positive elements are over
shadowed by the act’s many glaring sections that, if
abused, have the potential to adversely affect U.S.
citizens. Such elements, stated by Gerald Lefcourt in
The New York Law Journal, include: secret searches
without direct notification to the individual or
delayed notice, the seizure of practically all personal
documents, the examination of financial records
without a court order, the allowance of authorities to
obtain permission from a secret court to listen to
individuals’ conversations providing information
that will never be known to anyone, and enabling
access to stored e-mail and other communica
tion records, including stored voice messages.
Now, surely one must think. “What hap
pened to probable cause when executing
search warrants?” According to the
Department of Justice, the Patriot Act low
ered the standard for such intrusions,
changing the requirement for executing
search warrants in these cases from ter
rorism being the “sole purpose” to it
being only a “significant purpose.” So
what constitutes a significant purpose
to suspect someone of terrorism ?
That’s a good question, and it’s a
question the Patriot Act doesn’t ade
quately address. It simply provides a
lengthy list, containing many gray
areas, of what merits the classifica
tion of a terrorist act. Discretion is
apparently left up to secret courts
and intelligence agencies.
But everyone can breathe a sigh
of relief, as the government would never attempt to use
this act tor any reason but preventing terrorism, right?
Not exactly.
According to The Washington Times, the Department
of Justice revealed that it obtained 1 13 secret search
authorizations throughout the year following 9-11 com
pared to the 47 secret searches authorized in the 23
years before the attack. Even more disturbing. The New
York Times reported that the Department of Justice con
ducted a study that found the act is regularly being used
in non-terrorist related activities.
This information should send up a red flag to the
American public. The act is said to specifically focus
on terrorist-related activities, yet even the justice
department claims the contrary.
It Americans lived under the watchful eye of an
ideal government that would never abuse its power,
renewing the act would not be problematic. However,
history has shown that governments cannot be afforded
arbitrary power over citizens or the luxury of operating
with impunity.
Renewing the Patriot Act does not necessarily mean
that the “Big Brother” society envisioned by Orwell will
become a reality, but it’s a step in that direction. No one
knows how this act will be executed in the future.
Some optimistic Americans may spout off, “If you
have nothing to hide, the bill is harmless.” Such an out
look is naive and frightening. Today, the government is
after terrorists, but tomorrow, who knows. The interpreta
tion and execution of the act is always subject to change.
More importantly, even if the intentions of the act
are good, no one can be sure of the people executing
the law. Already, the Department of Justice has reported
that the act has drifted away from its intended purpose.
This will only get more frequent with time. How far
will Americans allow the scope of the act to drift before
curbing the tide?
Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who give up
liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty
nor security.” Though times are different, the words of
this venerated man still apply. Preventing future terror
ist attacks should be our government's number one pri
ority, but the 9-1 I tragedy should not beguile
Americans into issuing the government a blank check
with their ci.vil liberties to. theoretically, prevent anoth
er attack.
Nicholas Davis is a senior
political science major.
Graphic by Rylie Deyoe
Bush’s job package will boost economy
T he economy is bad. With the loss
of three million jobs. President
, George W. Bush has the worst
f creation record since Herbert
hoover during the Great Depression.
Motions to this problem have been
Jydebnted amongst Republicans
no Democrats alike, but Bush’s job
cr 8 ™ isasoiuti ° n,hat
■l^e the Union address,
C Pnt || eXplained how his plan. Jobs for the 21st
aonm!;’ W °i* C i WOr k' r,1e P r °g rar n would give
oflahrw^r niillioti to the Department
u nr r 0 ^tribute tor education initiatives,
eoiijr'y * 1a ^ wou ld go to community
£wXrTr he,ra i ningofhighiy -
jotowarri rS ’ remain 'ng funds would
nentin , . ln c' reas * n g reading and math ach ieve-
528mill! sc * 100 * s ; There would also be a
Placement n lnCrease 111 tuncfm 8 tor advanced
wment programs.
AmericanTnVf 18 Bushs attem pt to retrain the
CccorH f0rcefor j° bs that actually
Edw °f ngtothe American Council on
dtl °n, by putting the money in the
Department of Labor as opposed to the
Department of Education, “the signal is
to focus on workforce training activi
ties.” Many people who
have been laid off due to
the decline in certain
fields need work else
where, and Bush is giv-
daniel ' n 8 t ^ len1 ^ c h ance to
ROSSELL find it.
Critics of Bush's pro
gram may respond that while job
training is important, job creation
is more critical in helping to alle
viate the country's current eco
nomic woes. Although Bush's
program may not immediately
create jobs, it can still help to
decrease unemployment. CNN
reports that the goal of this pro
gram is “on new, technology-
based fields hungry for workers.”
By retraining workers to better suit them for high-
tech fields. Bush’s plan helps alleviate unem
ployment caused by the economic downturn.
Even if it doesn’t create jobs, giving new
Many people
who have been
laid off due to the
decline in certain
fields need work
elsewhere, and
Bush is giving
them the chance
to find it.
jobs to unemployed workers still benefits the
economy. Furthermore, the technology compa
nies’ productivity will increase as well, as they
will no longer have to operate
with the skilled workers. This
will lead to further expansion in
the technology industry, which,
in the long-run, will lead to
more jobs.
Jobs for the 21st Century also
caters specifically to small busi
nesses. Fox News reported that
training workers in these critical
areas will enable small businesses
to "better provide for the needs of
their workforce.” Bush also wants
tax cuts for small businesses,
giving them greater capital with
which to invest in their business
and hire employees.
Helping small businesses is
another key to economic produc
tivity. Small Business Survival Committee
Chairwoman Kare Kerrigan points out, “Small
firms are responsible for the bulk of job cre
ation and innovation in the U.S.” Every mas
sive corporation that employs thousands of
workers was once a small business. Small busi
nesses have more room to expand than large
corporations, and the expansion process will, of
course, require more workers. Therefore, by
helping small businesses. Bush’s proposal will
create jobs in the long-run.
At a time when U.S. citizens are losing jobs
to foreign workers, a program is needed to
maintain the skill of American workers and
prepare the economy for the next generation of
workers. Robert Holleyman, president of the
Business Software Alliance said, “Support for
these types of investments will be critical in
maintaining the long term competition of
America.”
The economy is a heated topic this election
season. Both Republicans and Democrats are
trying to convince the American public that
they have the magical solution. While Bush’s
solution is by no means perfect, it is a step in
the right direction.
Daniel Rossell is a junior
nuclear engineering major.
overtaxed
lri Response to a Feb. 3 mail call:
like thp p aking mail cal1 look
^'^ocurek i t ? r ? munist Manifesto,
accor dinq tn h 3 about "^o 171 each
accor dinq y to hio 118 abilit y- t0 each
ft0nde ryou don' t needs " with y° u - No
Whati s U h d a ° n n n i Seethe big picture.
^ atis happeninn ni ?i 9 ' n Vermont is
SfT1 all perepnta 3 over ^e country,
f being forced tn 9e the Population
6 ^ejority iivpq P3 « taxe s while
6 poli licians who° ° ' l This wa y-
an squeeze mono prom ' se that they
9n Always con 3youtofthe ^il rich
vtjes. unt on a majority of
^rners'lg® '“P 50 Percent of
Jnh lf ) Conie taxes y i 96 '°i 3 P ercent of
hns idea of a ’ W0uld love t0 see
feonthl^ ,a * rate ,o be
but wC sh^ 11
!® d 'butXi , rich Wouldn't
ll0rlh s'rsu^ d,he V bs P un -
You see, John, we have this little
thing called the Constitution. If the
government would stay out of places it
has no business being, like social
security, welfare, zoning laws, etc. and
focus on the things it has been enu
merated to have control over, we
would all pay a lot less taxes on junk
and could spend more money on what
is really important: police, defense,
roads, etc.
At that point, the enterprising
among us can better enjoy the fruits
of their success while the rest get by
as best they can through their own
labors, as it should be.
Paul Sims
Class of 2006
Federal solution needed
In response to Lindsay Orman’s
Feb. 3 column:
Lindsay Orman’s column about the
same-sex marriage amendment com-
MAIL CALL
pletely misses the fundamental point
on this issue.
She asserted that definitions of and
legislation about marriage are best
dealt with on a state-by-state basis so
as to reflect the will of the people on
a regional basis.
However, legal scholars have point
ed out that if a liberal state like
Massachusetts chooses to recognize
gay marriages, gay couples will flock
to that state solely to get married,
return to their home states, and pro
ceed to challenge their state laws as
being inconsistent on federal consti
tutional grounds with the “Full Faith
and Credit” clause.
Article IV, Section 1, of our
Constitution states: “Full faith and
credit shall be given in each state to
the public acts, records and judicial
proceedings of every other state ...”
The idea that homosexual marriage
might be contained to a few liberal
states like Massachusetts is com
pletely untenable because of this
“marriage anywhere, marriage every
where” principle. A federal amend
ment for the defense of marriage is
the approach supported by most con
servatives because the state-by-state
approach Orman advocates is noth
TV)RHS out
•nte som
ing more than a Maginot line that gay
marriage advocates will simply do an
end-run around.
Jim Donahue
Postdoctoral research associate
Department of Chemistry