Patriot Act stops terror

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the government has taken monumental steps in improving our nation's defenses against terrorism. For every new measure enacted, we hear a chorus of critics condemning it for either going too far, or not far enough. Case in point: the Patriot Act.

To hear some tell it, John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act have transformed the country into an Orwellian police state, with G-men ready to haul you away for criticizing the government or checking out certain library books. I think it's time to set the record straight. I've actually read the Patriot Act - all 342 pages. Here's what it does:

First, the act takes several laws already on the books, which have been successfully used to fight organized crime and drug trafficking, and applies them to counter-terrorism investigations. The delayed notification of the use of a search warrant is one example. Another is the roving wiretap, which is especially useful in pursuing terrorists who are often trained to thwart surveillance by changing locations and swapping cell phones. These measures still, however, require authorization by a federal judge.

Despite claims by the ACLU that the FBI has the power to "spy on a person because they don't like the book she reads," the Patriot Act cannot be used against someone simply exercising their right to free speech. The act explicitly states repeatedly that it can only be used "for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution."

Second, the Patriot Act allows law enforcement and foreign intelligence agencies - the FBI and CIA for example - to share information, so the next time an attack like Sept. 11 is in the making, we can connect the dots in time to stop it. This part of the act has led to the breakup of terror cells in Buffalo, Detroit, Seattle and Portland. It was also used to indict Florida college professor Sami al-Arian on 50 terrorism-related charges, stemming from his alleged role as leader of the U.S. chapter of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Finally, the Patriot Act mandates tougher penalties for those convicted of terrorism crimes and brings existing surveillance laws up-to-date with modern technology. Terrorists involved in the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl were located using high-tech surveillance methods authorized by the act.

But what about the alleged widespread abuses of the Patriot Act? Short answer: They simply don't exist.

The DOJ's Office of Inspector General is required by law to file a semi-annual report on Patriot Act-related civil rights abuses. His last report, released two weeks ago, states that in the previous six months there were 1,266 reported abuses. Seven hundred and twenty were, however, dismissed as "unrelated" complaints. These included "complaints that the government is broadcasting harmful electronic signals to individuals, claims that the government is intercepting dreams, and allegations that the government is using subliminal messages to force people to engage in certain acts."

Of those remaining, 162 were within the jurisdiction of the OIG, and 17 warranted a closer investigation. In the end, they found nothing: "None of the 162 matters involved complaints alleging misconduct by DOJ employees related to their use of a substantive provision in the Patriot Act."

So it seems that John Ashcroft hasn't been trampling the Bill of Rights after all.

Moreover, the actual architect of the Act wasn't even Ashcroft. It was Vietnamese refugee and Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh. After Sept. 11, he was asked "to do a top-to-bottom review of how we approach the task of counter-terrorism and recommend changes." The Patriot Act was the result.

Now, if there are legitimate arguments against specific anti-terror policies, then by all means let's hear them. But critics who soberly compare our country to 1930s Germany are guilty of either gross exaggeration, or an astounding ignorance of history. And their vicious personal attacks on administration officials are an irresponsible and unjust assault on common decency.

The bottom line is this - the only people truly endangered by John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act are the terrorists, and I say let 'em have it.

Keith Platfoot is a senior in computer science and engineering. He can be reached for comment at platfoot.5@osu.edu.