The Patriot Act is completely unconstitutional and should be repealed immediately!

The title "Patriot Act" itself seems to be an oxymoron for the Patriot Act decimates many of our civil liberties and our precious system of checks and balances. The most egregious results of this legislation are the attacks on civil disobedience, denial of due process of law, and the near eradication of the protection from illegal searches and seizures. The Act has considerably broadened the definition of terrorism and now harshly punishes acts that were originally considered minor crimes. The new bill states that someone commits terrorism if they engage in any crime dangerous to human life aimed at influencing the policy of a government. By this new standard, if you were to engage in acts of civil disobedience, such as disrupting a meeting or stopping the procession of vehicles to bring attention to an unwanted policy, formerly minor offenses, you would now be committing an act of terrorism and subject to all the punishments that are associated with that offense. The government has, without doubt, strengthened the punishment for acts of civil disobedience and limited the avenues of public dissent. Civil disobedience is perhaps our most powerful weapon against injustice; therefore, we must not let the government limit it in any way. Due process of law has been denied to many suspects by this legislation. In 2001 Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen, was labeled as an enemy combatant having been alleged to be affiliated with the Taliban. Hamdi was then confined in a Navy Brig until a Supreme Court ruling in 2004 forced the Justice Department to either charge or release him, subsequently liberating him from prison due to an extreme lack of evidence. During his incarceration he was not permitted a lawyer or access to a speedy trial which used to be part of the civil right known as due process of law. In November 2001 over 1200 legal aliens and residents of Middle Eastern origin were detained and over 600 were deported due to misdemeanors and small visa violations after closed trials. The Justice Department has henceforth refused to release any information as to their names, the exact number detained, or the names of their representative counsel. Therefore, many assume they weren't granted any, which is not an unsafe assumption in these times. Due process of law ensures protection to every person in this country regardless of origin or citizenship status, to withhold this right is a direct attack on each of our civil liberties. The most prevalent part of the Patriot Act that flies in the face of the Bill of Rights, more specifically the protection from illegal searches and seizures, is the section that allows the FBI to issue subpoenas called National Security Letters. These subpoenas allow searches and seizures of documents, of phone records, of websites viewed, and of e-mails without any judicial oversight. These powers permit seizures of information on reading habits at book stores and libraries. These warrants authorize access to records of religious and political organizations, often obtained by surreptitious means. Furthermore, these National Security Letters are accompanied with a gag order which forbids the person who turned over information from informing anyone, including a judge, that information was requested. The only requirement to issue a National Security Letter, in fact, is that the sought-after information is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation, replacing the former standard of probable cause. As a result these so-called National Security Letters side-step the system of checks and balances and allow the executive branch to be both judge and executor of the procurement of information. These powers greatly contrast the former law and give the government an Orwellian reach that has not been awarded to it since the McCarthy era. Proponents of the bill and subsequently the restriction of civil liberties argue that changes are necessary in times of war. I agree that freedom must be defended but never, never at the cost of civil liberties, to do so would be as absurd as killing to defend the cause of non-violence. One of the most notable and beloved of our founding fathers Benjamin Franklin put it this way, "Those who are willing to trade essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."