The renewal of the USA Patriot Act, initiated by President George W. Bush within just six weeks after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, would extend the greatest threat to the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution since World War II. On February 8, 2011, the House of Representatives unsuccessfully sought a further extension of the Act through the end of 2011, failing largely because Tea Party House support was not there. This surprised Republican Party leadership; avid supporters of the Act, but Tea Party Patriots are dedicated to the Constitution first. Without an extension, the Act is set to expire on February 28, 2011.
The Fourth Amendment reads, “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.”
This was placed in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution because of the tendency of the British government to simply walk the streets arresting anyone who looked the least bit guilty of something, invade their premises, and draw up accusations based upon what they found. The Founders saw this as harassment and invasion of privacy and did not want our government empowered to do the same thing.
Among other things, the USA Patriot Act allows searches without notice to the suspect; grants roving wiretap warrants that allow government eavesdropping on any telephones used by suspects; and allows the interception of email. So much for the right to be secure in one’s “houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches.” All of this is Constitutionally permitted only with a search warrant that emanates only upon probable cause (a real definable reason). Reasonable is determined, not by the secret agent snooping through your papers or eavesdropping on your conversations, but upon probable cause determined by someone disassociated from the accusing party, a judge, who holds his position by his sworn oath to preserve the Constitution. Even then such a Warrant must describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. All of this must precede governments disturbing your house, papers, and effects.
The USA Patriot Act also allows investigators to obtain information from credit card companies, banks, libraries, and other businesses; authorizes the seizure of properties used to commit or facilitate terrorism; and allows the indefinite detention of non-citizens whom the “Attorney General believes may cause a terrorist act,” all clear and major violations of the Fourth Amendment. How could the Constitutional language “not be violated” be any stronger? The American Library Association objected and issued a statement that the Act “allows the government to secretly request and obtain library records for large numbers of individuals without any reason to believe they are involved in illegal activity (USA Patriot Act, Wikipedia).”
With the word terrorist poorly defined one wonders why the government was/is more interested in internal terrorists (fellow Americans) than external “terrorists” (foreigners). The same government appears unconcerned about our very porous southern border even knowing that many come across from terrorist countries—even Hezbollah (See “A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border,” House Committee on Homeland Security, 2006).
All of this initiated by a Republican President and approved by a Republican Congress with almost unanimous Democratic Party support, falls short of meeting even basic constitutional standards of due process and fairness, as it allows the Attorney General to detain persons based on mere suspicion (see USA Patriot Act, Wikipedia). Where were the Constitutionalists from either party? Certainly, the times were drastic and unusual but the urgency was over-stated and is now largely gone thus mere renewal is not the proper course. We have time and another chance to do this right without distorting the Constitution. Hopefully the Republicans who gave us the USA Patriot Act will join their Tea Party and Democratic Party colleagues on preserving the Constitution instead.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College.
We are presently over 14 trillion dollars in debt, three trillion of which was incurred the last two years under President Barack Obama. So what is a trillion dollars? Let me try to give some perspective. To begin with a trillion is the number 1 followed by twelve zeros. A trillion dollars is a thousand billion and a billion is a thousand million. This still means very little to my students who count their money in fives, tens and twenties.
One mathematician gave us a more practical way to evaluate our outstanding debt. One trillion one-dollar bills stacked atop each other (not end to end but flat) would reach nearly 68,000 miles into space—a third of the way to the moon. If so, the debt incurred under President Obama alone would take us to the moon. Moreover, if you like traveling atop this stack of ones, you could return to earth for yet another three trillion dollars which is six trillion dollars. You could repeat your visit to and from the moon for yet another six trillion, making 12 trillion total. We have two trillion in debt remaining, just enough to get us two-thirds of the way to the moon again (See CNN News Cast, Feb. 4, 2009).
Senator Mitch McConnell gave another illustration just as awe striking. He calculated that if we spent a million dollars every day since Jesus was born we still would not have spent a trillion dollars—only three-fourths of a trillion dollars. We would have 13 1/4 trillion left.
Someone else equated our national debt to seconds and concluded that a million seconds is about 11 ½ days and a billion seconds is about 32 years. A trillion seconds is about 32,000 years thus 14 trillion seconds is 448,000 years (See CNN News Cast, Feb. 4, 2009). This is not helpful and only makes my head spin. My Ph. D is not in math.
I ask my students, “Who gets to go without so that this debt can be paid?” Go without?” That is a concept foreign to this generation!! They do not know and neither do their parents and grandparents who laid it on their backs. When they are told that their immediate share of the debt is $127,529 (see USDebtClock.org) due immediately, they are angry. The 13th amendment ending slavery has been rescinded. The past generation wanted nice costly programs for free and were willing to sell their children in order to drive new Cadillac’s now. Well, the Cadillac’s are in the auto wrecking yards, Communist China owns a tenth of us and the bills are due. What is worse the older generation is still anxious to incur even more debt on our defenseless children and grandchildren. Are we the most debt addicted, insensitive generation in all human history?
But there is hope. When you go bankrupt in your personal life you are expected to sell everything that you own to get out of debt. The nation has one asset left that could probably vaporize this national debt and do so in one generation but I am reluctant to bring attention to it until we have learned the lesson that we cannot spend beyond our means without someone paying for it latter. Unfortunately, neither party is fully there yet. Sell government land. Most are surprised to learn that the federal government unconstitutionally owns a third of the landmass of the United States. The Constitution limits the amount of land that the federal government can have to 10 square miles for a capital and land acquired through the limits of the Constitution for military purposes.
Over the decades the federal government withheld the land that went with statehood in the West. New states were so anxious to gain statehood that they overlooked the omission. According to public land statistics Alaska owns only 1 ½ % of itself. Arizona 56% of itself, California 52 ½ % of itself, Idaho 36% of itself, Nevada, a mere 12% of itself, and Utah 36 ½ % of itself. We, of course, would have to restrict foreign countries and perhaps place a limit on individual takes, but the idea would be to spend every penny derived from the sales to liquidating our 14 trillion dollars of debt.
On September 19, 1796, just prior to leaving the presidency, President George Washington issued his famous Farewell Address. He said that he offered his advice as the “warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel.”
In his usual stately manner, as the father of this great nation, he warned posterity of possible pitfalls that could undermine or destroy liberty. His warnings may well be even timelier today as we commemorate his birthday.
In strong terms he cautioned us to avoid debt. He said: “As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit … use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense … [Use the] time of peace, to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.”
Today our national debt exceeds 14 trillion—the highest in our history—three trillion of which has come about in the last two years. This is about $127,700 for every taxpayer in America growing at $171 per week (See USDebtClock.org). The President’s 3.73 trillion dollar new budget, 2 trillion of which will be passed on to posterity, does not suggest that we are following this wisdom.
Washington pleaded with the nation to keep religion and morality strong. He said: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.… Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? … Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
The Founding Fathers never supported the notion of separation of religion and government—only the separation of an organization of religion from government. What would Washington say of the immorality that prevails today?
His warning about foreign aid was especially good. He basically told us that gift giving in foreign affairs is a good way to be universally hated. He said it placed us “in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more.” Today there is hardly a nation in the world, dictators and tyrants alike, that does not have its hand out, and when the amount is reduced or terminated we are hated all the more for it.
He warned against the origin of “combinations and associations” whose intent was to suppress the desires of the majority in favor of that of the minority. He called them artificial power factions. We call them special interest groups. Such factions, he said, “may answer popular ends and become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government.…” The antidote for this, Washington explained, was “to resist with care the spirit of innovation” upon basic constitutional principles or premises no matter how flowery, appealing or “specious the pretext.”
Washington worried about posterity not holding their elected officials strictly to the limits imposed by the Constitution. He knew many would seek to undermine that document by twisting it to give power they could not acquire without the distortion. He said: “But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” Today much of what the federal government does is not even mentioned in the Constitution.
But patriots are not likely to be popular. “Real patriots,” he said, “who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.”
Our practices are largely the opposite of what George Washington advised. No wonder we have all the problems he predicted and are losing our freedom.
Why is it that both Republican and Democrat administrations always favor tyrannical non-democratic regimes in times of revolution? Time and time again whether in Iran in 1979, under Jimmy Carter, Tiananmen Square in China under George Bush, Iran again less then two years ago, under Barack Obama, or now in Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, it is the same. We want guaranteed stability from known murderous dictators rather than risk the unknown by supporting pro-democracy governments. We alone are capable of individual liberty, a position somewhat insulting to other people. The fallout is always the same; we only preach freedom but do not support it in practice. We consistently let the people seeking their own liberation down then wonder why they fall to more radical preachments and end up hating us. We play these people for our own benefit.
President Carter, in 1976, openly supported the Shaw of Iran, as had his predecessors, a brutal dictator against the will of his people demonstrating for freedom. I had several Iranian students in my classes at the time and they could not understand such friendship. They said, almost in unison, “We don’t hate America!” “Your media lie to you!” “We hate—how you say his name—‘Roc-ke-fell-er’.” “You know about him?” History does show David Rockefeller as having played a major role in bringing the Shaw to power in Iran. When the hated Shaw was finally forced out we brought him to Panama for medical treatment despite intelligence reports that the Iranians would retaliate. Iranians were, in part, driven to accept a far more radical leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, by linking their hated leader with America who sustained him in power. The more extreme element expressed their anger by taking U.S. embassy personnel hostage.
In Tiananmen Square university students built a statue of liberty modeled after our own then paraded it about with slogans asking for freedom as expressed in America. The government, caught totally off guard, finally brought in tanks to encircle the thousands of dissenting students. One student stood in front of incoming tanks. They unsuccessfully tried to move around him. Friends finally removed him but his “Patrick Henry type” body statement, ”Give me liberty or give me death,” resounded throughout the world. This promising bid for liberty ended when in the middle of the night tanks savagely raced in crushing hundreds of sleeping demonstrators. The U.S. reprimand was mild and short lived as George Bush awarded the Chinese most favored trade status within a month of this horrifying event.
Less than two years ago the Iranian people begged America to help them depose their fanatical religious dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. President Obama, with absolute knowledge of this tyrant, who soon will have nuclear power, found it prudent not to get involved. Video coverage released to the Internet, by the victims themselves, shared the sounds of Iranian paramilitary forces entering the homes of dissidents. Their last cries for help were heard worldwide as they were savagely beaten. When we had the power to usher in a far more friendly government our silence only strengthened the repression. Why would any Iranian thereafter have faith in our words of freedom? We are hypocrites.
For many years Hosni Mubarak has been the second major recipient of our foreign aid. Just sixteen months ago President Obama spoke in Egypt calling upon the Arab world to respect the “will of the people.” The Egyptian people loved him and now wonder where he is when they want it. They are finding his silence a form of betrayal just as have other protesters in other lands. One protester’s sign in English, obviously for the West to see, said it all, “Foreign Governments Stop Hypocrisy and Stand For Egyptian Freedom.” Perhaps President Obama will surprise us and it won’t be too little too late as in the case of Iran.
If our foreign policy were not always based upon what is only good for us and we gave some attention to what is good for them also, we would not be consistently linked to the hatred they have for their abusive leaders. We would not play a part in driving them to the more extreme elements that gain power by that connection, as for example, the Muslim Brotherhood. Consequently, we would then have many real friends.
