International Journal of the Humanities Volume 2, 2004 Article: HC04-0074-2004

Analysis of the Act and Assessmenan

Jim Cornehls, Professor, School of Urban and P

Sara Hudson, Graduate Research Assistant, SchThe

Edith J. Barrett, Professor, School of Urban an

Proceedin

Edited by Tom

The USA Patriot Act

t of Academic, Attorneyd Police Chief Opinionsublic Affairs, The University of

Texas at Arlington

ool of Urban and Public Affairs,University of Texas at Arlington

d Public Affairs, The Universityof Texas at Arlington

gs of the Humanities Conference

Nairn and Mary Kalan

2004

tzis

International Journal of the Humanities Volume 2

www.HumanitiesConference.com www.CommonGroundGroup.com

This paper is published at www.Humanities-Journal.com a series imprint of the UniversityPress.com

First published in Australia in 2004/2005 by Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd at www.Humanities-Journal.com

Selection and editorial matter copyright © Common Ground 2004/2005 Individual papers copyright © individual contributors 2004/2005

All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part of this book may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher.

ISSN 1447-9508 (Print) ISSN 1447-9559 (Online)

The International Journal of the Humanities is a peer-refereed journal published annually. Full papers submitted for publication are refereed by the Associate Editors through an anonymous referee process.

Papers presented at the Second International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities, Monash University Centre in Prato, Italy, 20-23 July 2004.

Editors Tom Nairn, The Globalism Institute, RMIT University, Australia. Mary Kalantzis, Dean, Education, Language and Community Services,

RMIT University, Melbourne.

Editorial Advisory Board of the International Journal of the Humanities Juliet Mitchell, Cambridge University, UK. Paul James, Globalism Institute, RMIT University, Australia. Krishan Kumar, University of Virginia, USA. David Christian, San Diego State University, California, USA. Giorgos Tsiakalos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Columbia University, USA. Mick Dodson, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Jeffrey T. Schnapp, Stanford Humanities Laboratory, Stanford University, USA. Nikos Papastergiadis, The Australian Centre, University of Melbourne, Australia. Bill Kent, Monash Centre, Prato, Italy. Felicity Rawlings-Sanaei, Global Movements Centre, Monash University,

Australia. Chris Ziguras, The Globalism Institute, RMIT University, Australia. Eleni Karantzola, Department of Mediterranean Studies, University of the

Aegean, Greece. Bill Cope, Common Ground, Australia.

International Journal of the Humanities, Volume 2 • www.Humanities-Journal.com Copyright © Common Ground • ISSN 1447-9508 (Print) • ISSN 1447-9559 (Online) Paper presented at the Second International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities, Monash University Centre in Prato, Italy, 20-23 July 2004 • wwwHumanitiesConference.com

The USA Patriot Act

Analysis of the Act and Assessment of Academic, Attorney and Police Chief Opinions Jim Cornehls, Professor, School of Urban and Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Arlington

Sara Hudson, Graduate Research Assistant, School of Urban and Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Arlington

Edith J. Barrett, Professor, School of Urban and Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Arlington

Abstract The USA Patriot Act was passed by the United States of America in October, 2001, about six weeks after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The Act contains many controversial features and spawned an ongoing public debate. Opponents of the Act argue that it has severely restricted many traditional, constitutional civil liberties in the U.S. Supporters of the Act contend the Act is necessary to be able to effectively combat modern terrorist threats and that sufficient safeguards still exist to protect the civil rights of U.S. citizens and residents. This paper examines the Act, its main controversial features, government efforts to enlarge the scope of the Act, professional opinions about the Act, and the growing public and political resistance to the Act. It reports the results of two electronic surveys of U.S. professionals, conducted in March, 2003 and June, 2004. Both surveys asked respondents about their awareness of the Act and about its main features, to determine their opinions about various provisions of the Act and their effects on civil liberties. Factor analysis of the responses revealed several consistent themes. There was strong concern about the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment effects of the Act’s provisions. There was concern about the secret search and seizure and prosecution of individuals permitted by the Act. There was general agreement that U.S. courts would find constitutional defects in the Act. Academics and attorneys generally were more strongly opposed to many provisions of the Act, while police chiefs tended to be less concerned about First Amendment violations.

Keywords: USA Patriot Act, Civil Rights, Terrorism, Survey of U.S. Professionals

Introduction The idea for this study originated in late 2001, during a graduate seminar on civil rights. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, took place during the first weeks of the semester. On October 26, 2001, the USA Patriot Act was signed into law

In early December students in the seminar were asked if they had ever heard of the USA Patriot Act. No one had. Other instances of casual empiricism revealed the same general ignorance of the Act among diverse groups.

In late summer of 2002, we decided to conduct a survey of political science-public administration scholars, and lawyers, to determine how many of them knew about the Act, and if so, how much they knew and what they thought about it.

Our reasons for selecting these two groups were because the Act has special relevance for lawyers and for academics in the political science-public administration areas. These are the two professional groups who will be called upon to analyse and

interpret the Act or to defend clients charged with violations under the Act. By training and practice they are the professionals most well prepared to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Act. They also are most familiar with the impact of law on individuals and society.

By learning what professionals with particular expertise in the subject matter knew about the Act and what their opinions were about some of its main features, we hoped to be better able to inform policy decisions by determining what major provisions of the Act were more problematical and what features were of less concern to those with a broader understanding of both security and civil rights issues. (For further elaboration see the section on methodology below.)

Our original goal was to complete the survey close to the first anniversary of the Act’s passage. But “unforeseen circumstances” intervened and the survey could not be sent until late March 2003.

A second, similar survey was sent in June, 2004, this time including a selection of police chiefs. We decided to include police chiefs because they and

International Journal of the Humanities, Volume 2

626

their departments were involved on the front lines in implementing various features of the Act.

Background and Genesis of the Patriot Act The devastating terrorist attacks on landmark buildings inside the United States on September 11, 2001, were a great shock to all Americans. The reality of terrorist acts by foreign extremists had come to two of the United States’ major cities. The loss of lives and the horror of the event were indelibly imprinted on the mind of the nation. They evoked a growing realization, and fear, that Americans too were now vulnerable to terrorism. They also evoked a flood of patriotic fervor.

Against this backdrop, both the executive and the legislative branches of the U.S. government were eager to demonstrate a quick response. They rushed to enact measures intended to counteract terrorism or terrorist threats. One of the principal results was the act titled “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,” popularly known as the USA Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act is arguably one of the most sweeping acts in modern American history. It gave much greater power to law enforcement to pursue terrorists and suspected terrorists. It had huge potential impact on the civil liberties of U.S. citizens and non U.S. citizens residing in the United States. The Senate voted for the Act 98-to-1 and the House 356-to-66. Doyle (2002); Michaels (2002); Chang (2001)

First Impressions of the Act The Act is complicated because of its multiple references to and incorporation of other foreign intelligence acts, principally the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It effectively amended some 12 other acts.

Congressional hearings were minimal and not accompanied by a committee or a conference report. In the truncated hearing that did occur, the Act was vigorously opposed by civil rights groups, especially the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). CCR (2002); ACLU (2002); Michaels (2002)

One of the most significant features of the Act is the new, broader definition given to terrorism. That definition now also includes “domestic,” as contrasted with international terrorism. (Section 802). USA Patriot Act (2001); ACLU (2002a)

The definition is broad enough to encompass the activities of many activist organizations such as Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, and Environmental Liberation Front. Disrupting a meeting or procession of vehicles as a means of drawing attention to or attempting to influence an unwanted

governmental policy all could be considered acts of domestic terrorism. (Cornehls, 2003)

Opponents of the Act argue it potentially impacts at least six of the ten original Bill of Rights: the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments to the United States Constitution, and possibly the 13th and 14th Amendments. It grants broad new powers to law enforcement and permits officials to side step entirely many traditional controls on the surveillance, investigation, arrest, and prosecution of civilians residing in the United States.

Implementing the Patriot Act Uses of the act that have garnered the most attention are Section 213, which provides for the so-called “sneak and peak” searches of individual homes and businesses; and Section 215, which provides for the FBI’s use of subpoenas to obtain the reading records of individuals from public libraries and booksellers; and subpoenas that allow the FBI to secretly question co-workers and obtain records from them. These subpoenas can be obtained from a secret court, without the knowledge of those being investigated and without a showing of probable cause. Doyle (2002)

A second use of the act also drew immediate attention. The Justice Department quickly moved to arrest and detain more than 1200 persons, mainly of Arabic descent, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. These individuals were held in secret locations, without access to family or friends and often without access to a lawyer.

The government refused to disclose both the number of people arrested, their names, their lawyers, the reasons for their arrest, and other information related to their whereabouts and circumstances.” Memorandum Opinion (2002); Liptak (2002); Holland (2002) The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately upheld the government’s refusal to release the names of more than 700 people jailed. Some 600 of them were deported, in secret proceedings.

Another issue raised by opponents of the Act is the increased use of a secret court, created in 1978, coincident with the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The original purpose of the court was to review and approve government wiretaps in foreign intelligence investigations. All hearings and decisions of the court are conducted in secret.

Now, under the Patriot Act’s new definition of foreign intelligence investigations, the role of the court has been expanded to include domestic investigations that the government claims are related to foreign intelligence. The Supreme Court, in its first decision on an issue related to the Patriot Act, refused to review the secret court’s secret decision. ACLU (2003)

Another feature of the Patriot Act that has become controversial and is being challenged in court is the

The USA Patriot Act

627

FBI’s use of National Security Letters (NSLs). The letters can be issued directly by FBI agents, without any court supervision and without any showing of probable cause, pursuant to Section 505 of the Patriot Act. They are administrative subpoenas but warn of criminal consequences if not obeyed.

NSLs are being used to demand information about an individual’s private internet communications from their Internet Service Provider (ISP), web mail provider or other communications service provider. Those whose records are searched by the FBI are not notified of the searches. The letters also contain a gag order that prohibits the letter’s recipient from ever revealing its existence. EFF (2004)

Enemy Combatants Another, indirect result of the Act has been to spawn other, civil rights infringements, not directly dependent on the Act itself. The most important and well publicized of these is the President’s use of his war powers to declare U.S. citizens enemy combatants and to keep them incarcerated, indefinitely, without charges being filed and without access to a lawyer.

The cases of two of these individuals, Yasser Hamdi and José Padilla reached the U.S. Supreme Court, on June 28, 2004. The Court held that the administration lacked the authority to declare a U.S. citizen to be an enemy combatant and detain them indefinitely, without access to U.S. courts. Gearan (2004)

In a related opinion, handed down the same day, the Supreme Court also held that foreign nationals seized by the U.S. as potential terrorists can challenge their detention and treatment in U.S. courts. This ruling applies to those individuals held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Gearan (2004)

In a surprise development, it recently was reported that the Justice Department now is negotiating with Mr. Hamdi’s attorneys for his release from confinement. Mr. Hamdi would be required to renounce his U.S. citizenship, move to Saudi Arabia, accept certain travel restrictions and possibly agree not to file a civil rights suit against the U.S. government. Cohen (2004)

First Amendment Implications of the Act The chilling effect of the Patriot Act on free speech and political dissent quickly became apparent. Individuals were questioned by the FBI about their political beliefs for being openly critical of a possible war against Iraq, and for having a poster in their home critical of President Bush’s position on capital punishment while Governor of Texas. Axtman (2002)

The government used Section 215 of the Act to subpoena the reading records of individuals from public libraries. One early estimate placed the number of such library visits by law enforcement in

the hundreds, within the first year following passage of the Act. It is not known for certain how many of these visits were made pursuant to Section 215 warrants because of their secrecy. Estabrook (2002)

The Justice Department initially denied the Act was used for these purposes, though it did not deny it had such authority. Subsequently, it conceded the point publicly, offering widely varying accounts of the number of such instances. It is hard to know exactly how many such demands were made because librarians were warned at the time of the subpoenas not to divulge such information under penalty of prosecution themselves.

Since 9/11 there has been a sharp increase in the number of secret surveillance warrants to track suspected spies or terrorists. From 934 such warrants in 2001, the number swelled to 1227 by 2002 and to 1727 in 2003. The speed of the increase has been so rapid that it has outpaced the FBI’s ability to process them. Anderson (2004); McCaffrey (2004)

Support for the Patriot Act The Patriot Act also has its supporters. The Department of Justice has been vigorous in its defense of the Act. It has pointed out that there have been no subsequent terrorist attacks in the U.S. since passage of the Act. The Justice Department also insists that the civil rights violations claimed by some groups have not occurred. U.S. DOJ (2004)

In a recent report provided to the U.S. Congress, the Justice Department outlined what Attorney General John Ashcroft termed“mountain of evidence” of the law’s benefits in successfully combating terrorist activities. According to the report, in the 32 months following the Act’s passage it had been instrumental in many of the cases that resulted in charges against 310 people, 179 of whom were convicted or pleaded guilty. It also cited 35 examples of how the law was used to prosecute alleged terror cells in New York, Oregon, Virginia and elsewhere. Anderson (2004)

A U.S. District Court Judge has pointed out that in times of national crises the U.S. has suspended civil liberties on several occasions. Posner (2001) These include Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War; the arrest, interrogation and forced confessions of 10,000 resident aliens during World War I; President Roosevelt’s internment of 110,000 persons of Japanese ancestry during World War II; and the communist witch hunts of the later 1940s and early 1950s.

Posner argues that greater balance between civil liberties and security will return once the crisis has past. He and others urge the use of cost-benefit analysis to determine the trade-off between security and loss of civil rights.

International Journal of the Humanities, Volume 2

628

Efforts to Expand the Patriot Act There are several new bills prepared by the administration and the Congress that would give law enforcement additional investigative and spying powers beyond those already provided by the Patriot Act. The most important of these is the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, dubbed Patriot II.

The proposed new act would expand the authority of law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies; reduce or eliminate entirely judicial oversight of surveillance; and permit wiretapping of Americans - without court order - for 15 days if the executive branch determines there is a national emergency. It would authorize secret arrests; create a DNA data bank; create new offenses punishable with the death penalty; and seek to strip Americans of their citizenship if they belong to or support disfavored political organizations. Lewis (2003); ACLU (2003a); PBS Frontline (2003)

Growing Resistance to the Act In one of the most significant grass roots movements in U.S. history, as of August 10, 2004, 341 local governments and four states, representing more than 53 million people, had passed resolutions opposing numerous features of the Act. BORDC (2004); Schabner (2003)

There is growing resistance in Congress to some of the most troublesome provisions of the Patriot Act. Most prominent among these are the so-called “sneak and peak” searches of homes under Section 213 of the Act and the use of Section 215 to demand the reading records of U.S. residents from libraries and book sellers.

An amendment to the Joint Intelligence Authorization Act last fall would have barred funding for the sneak and peak searches. It passed the House on a bi-partisan vote of 309 to 118 last year but subsequently was deleted from a Joint Funding Bill in December.

Other proposed measures to curtail features of the Patriot Act are the Freedom to Read Protection Act; the Patriot Oversight Restoration Act, which would extend the current sunset provisions of the Act to cover other parts of the Act; and the Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act, requiring law enforcement to obtain a court order prior to conducting electronic surveillance.

On July 9, 2004, the Freedom to Read Protection Act was attached as an amendment to a $39.8 billion appropriations bill for the Justice, Commerce and State Departments. It appeared headed for passage by a margin of 219-201 votes until nine previous supporters, eight of whom were Republicans, suddenly switched sides to force a 210 to 210 tie vote, causing the measure to fail. Lichtblau (2004); Center for American Progress (2004); AP (2004)

Public Awareness In a poll conducted by Fox News Network, in July, 2003, more than 90% of registered voters in the U.S. did not believe they had given up important constitutional rights as a result of the Patriot Act.

Since then inroads have been made in this perception of the Act. The major news media began giving more play to the issue and the Department of Justice was put on the defensive. In a more recent poll conducted by CBS News 42% of Americans who read a lot or some about the Act now think it represents a threat to civil liberties. CBS (2004); Hentoff (2004). This represents a significant shift. Our own surveys corroborate these findings.

USA Patriot Act Surveys Two nationwide surveys were conducted to measure agreement or disagreement with key provisions of the USA Patriot Act among attorneys, academics and police chiefs. These provisions were captured in survey items that were grouped into 8 categories, namely: First Amendment; Fifth Amendment; civil rights; detention; probable cause; search and seizure; surveillance; and expansion of government powers.

Results of Kruskal-Wallis tests show significant differences in the ranked data in all categories. Results of descriptive statistics and frequency testing demonstrate general disagreement by academics and attorneys with most of the Act’s provisions while police chiefs disagree primarily with those provisions that relax probable cause standards. Results of a content analysis suggest that these professionals are most concerned about the Act’s search and seizure provisions.1

The results of an exploratory factor analysis suggest that opinions regarding guaranteed rights; rights implied by these fundamental rights (“penumbra” rights); and judicial tolerance are common underlying themes.

Methods

Sample In March 2003, an electronic survey was sent to 192 individuals, about one-half lawyers, and one-half academics. Seventy-three responses were received. However, because the original questionnaire asked only demographic questions for those who indicated they had never heard of the Act, the sample was reduced to 43 respondents. Because of the small sample size, the results provided only limited data. Subsequently, in June 2004, another survey was sent to a random sample of 1,181 respondents: 585 attorneys listed in the Martindale-Hubbell Law

1 Results of Kruskal-Wallis tests, descriptive statistics and frequency testing, and content analysis are available on request to: Cornehls@uta.edu

The USA Patriot Act

629

Directory; 470 academicians listed in the American Political Science Association Centennial Biographical Directory; and 126 police chiefs listed in State and Local Governments on the Net Directory.

Survey The survey contained 46 items, 24 of which measured levels of agreement or disagreement with key provisions of the Act on a 6-item Likert scale (1=Strongly Agree; 2=Somewhat Agree; 3=Neutral; 4=Somewhat Disagree; 5=Strongly Disagree; 6=Uncertain). “Uncertain” responses were recoded as missing to retain the integrity of the ordinal scale for exploratory factor analysis. For classification purposes, the final section of the survey collected demographic and background information. Hyperlinks were used to direct academics, attorneys and police chiefs to relevant items. The questionnaire was reviewed and revised for content, face and construct validity. Procedures for administering the questionnaire electronically conformed to Human Subjects protocol.

Response Rate A large number of surveys were returned as undelivered mail, which reduced the effective sample size to 490 recipients. A total of 136 responses were received after two mailings and follow-up reminders. Two cases were determined to be duplicates and deleted. The 134 usable responses represent an effective response rate of 27.3%. No systematic patterns of missing data were encountered. No significant differences were found between early and late respondents. Based on these findings, response bias was confidently ruled out.

Results

Sample Characteristics Demographic data show that more than 53 percent of respondents are academics, nearly 34 percent attorneys, and about 13 percent police chiefs. Most of the academics reside in Midwestern or Plains states in communities ranging from 50,000 to 250,000 citizens; attorneys in Western states in communities of 50,000 to 250,000 or greater than one million; and police chiefs in Southern states in communities with fewer than 50,000. The majorities of academics and attorneys reported that they were Democrats while police chiefs reported no party affiliation or Republican. Male respondents outnumbered females by two to one in the 2003 survey and three to one in 2004. In 2004 all respondents reported that they had heard of the Act. In 2003, only 59% reported they had heard of it.

Factor Analysis A principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization yielded four factors with Eigenvalues greater than one. The first factor contains 10 items with factor loadings greater than 0.50 and accounts for more than 53% of the variance; the second, 8; the third, 4; and the fourth, 2. The mean score of each factor was calculated, creating four new variables (CivRights, Penumbra, Judiciary, and Legislative). Cronbach’s alphas showed internal consistency for three of the four factors (.957; .911; .704; and .155). Because of its low internal consistency, the legislative factor was dropped from further analysis. Table 1 summarizes the items that load into each factor. One-way ANOVA showed significant group differences in Civil Rights F(2,131)=32.2, p<.001; Penumbra F(2,131)=16.6, p<.000; and Judiciary F(2,131)=11.9, p<.001. Tukey-b post-hoc tests showed that the police chief’s opinions on all factors differ significantly from academics and attorneys.

Table 1 Items by Area of Inquiry that Load into Each of the Three Factors Factor Item by Area of Inquiry Civil Rights 1st Amendment: secrecy of federal inquiries

1st Amendment: silence political dissidents Surveillance: Sharing of grand jury testimony and records 1st Amendment: freedom of speech Civil Rights: threat to U.S. citizens Civil Rights: threat to non-U.S. citizens Government Expansion: AG’s designation of domestic terrorist groups Search and Seizure: 4th Amendment probable cause Should Act be renewed December 31, 2005? 5th Amendment: due process

Penumbral Rights Probable Cause: Warrants

International Journal of the Humanities, Volume 2

630

Search and Seizure: Entry to private homes Detention: Indefinite incarceration without trial Search and Seizure: Federal access to records Government Expansion: Designation of enemy combatants Surveillance: Records, transactions, conversations Detention: Indefinite incarceration Detention: Incarceration of immigrant deportees

Judicial Tolerance Likelihood US Courts will find serious problems with Act Likelihood US Supreme Court will invalidate Act’s provisions 1st Amendment: speech of political protestors Civil Rights: right to a speedy and public trial

Discussion

Civil Rights The first factor consists of a group of variables which can loosely be described as concerns over law enforcement’s ability to secretly demand information about an individual, using subpoenas issued by a secret court. The subpoenas can be obtained on mere governmental assertion that the information is sought in connection with a terrorist investigation. These subpoenas demand secrecy on the part of the persons or entities receiving the demands for information. The subpoena recipients themselves are under penalty of prosecution if they reveal the contact or information sought.

These concerns implicate the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. First, is the prior restraint of speech of those served with subpoenas. Second is the absence of probable cause standards in order to obtain such subpoenas. Third is the probable violation of the 5th Amendment’s guarantee of due process. Due process generally means the right to confront one’s accusers, to examine the evidence against one, to be afforded an impartial hearing, and to have the opportunity to cross examine witnesses.

Of the 10 items loading on this factor, academics and attorneys disagreed with the Act’s search and seizure, 1st and 5th Amendment, surveillance, and government expansion provisions, while police chiefs agreed. Academics and attorneys agreed that the Act is a threat to U.S. and non-U.S. citizens’ civil rights, while police chiefs disagreed. Academics and attorneys disagreed that the Act should be renewed when parts of it expire in December 2005, while police chiefs agreed.

Penumbral Rights The second factor is a cluster of variables which focus on two somewhat distinct but related dimensions of the Patriot Act: invasion of privacy/relaxation of probable cause standards, and detention/incarceration. These in turn center on the 4th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

These two dimensions might appear unrelated on first impression. On reflection it is easier access to information about which there formerly existed a reasonable expectation of privacy, as afforded by the 4th Amendment and a prior showing of probable cause, and the likely use of such information as the basis for incarceration, which may account for the strong associational nature of these variables.

The items fit because some evidence of culpability generally must be shown to incarcerate a person. It is not considered acceptable for law enforcement to arrest someone without some minimal showing of evidence of a crime or intention to commit a crime.

This also could be tapping into the broader “rights” assumed by most Americans, the “penumbra” of unspecified rights emanating from the Constitution as identified by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).

The indefinite incarceration, without charges or access to legal counsel, of persons of Arabic descent, arrested for minor infractions such as overstaying a visa; and the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens designated as enemy combatants by the President, based on minimal, undisclosed information, on the claim of national security, offend these basic notions of right to privacy and a showing of probable cause, prior to detention.

Of the 8 items loading on this factor, all professional groups disagreed with the Act’s provisions that relax probable cause standards. However, police chiefs agreed with the detention provisions while academics and attorneys disagreed. All professional groups disagreed with the President’s ability to designate a U.S. citizen an “enemy combatant.”

Judicial Tolerance The third factor centers on free speech, the right to a speedy, public trial, and the likelihood that U.S. courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, will find serious problems with some of the Act’s main provisions and/or invalidate one or more of its provisions.

The right to a speedy, public trial and the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of free speech without prior restraint are two of the bedrock principles of the Bill

The USA Patriot Act

631

of Rights and judicial decisions interpreting them. These two Amendments perhaps have received the most assiduous protection by courts. Their violation is seen as more likely to invite judicial scrutiny.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the second of these principles in one of the enemy combatant cases, that of Yassir Hamdi. Lower courts also vigorously defend First Amendment rights and right to trial.

Of the 4 items loading on this factor, all professional groups disagreed with the Attorney General’s ability to curtail the speech of political protestors. Attorneys and academics agreed that the Act violates the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to a speedy and public trial, while police chiefs disagreed. All professional groups agreed that U.S. courts will find serious problems with some of the provisions of the Act and that the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to invalidate one or more of the Act’s provisions.

Implications The understanding and opinions of these three professional groups, who by training and occupation are most likely to be aware of the Patriot Act and its effects, are important in informing public debate about the Act. These are the individuals who see the Act in practice; are most likely to fully comprehend its complex features; and must work with its

implications for and mandates imposed on their organizations.

That there is significant opposition to or dissatisfaction with key features of the Act within these groups, such as its effects on free speech; right to access to courts and representation by counsel; secret searches and seizures; diminishment of probable cause standards; and secrecy should give pause to public officials charged with its implementation and charged with its continuation or amendment.

Popular opinion is more easily swayed by emphasizing only the so-called good effects of the Act. The recent delivery to Congress by the Attorney General of a 29 page memorandum detailing 36 selected examples of how the Patriot Act has been used to prosecute terrorists and other criminals exemplifies the effort to sway Congress and the public. The report did not mention all the other controversial uses to which the Act has been put. Anderson (2004)

When combined with the 341 local governments and four states, representing almost 53 million Americans, which are on record as opposing many provisions of the Act, a powerful message is being sent to U.S. leaders. The federal government has been forced to back down on several key initiatives, and at least one federal official has acknowledged that the Department of Justice is losing the war on the USA Patriot Act.

Bibliography American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (2002) “The USA Patriot Act: A Civil Liberties Briefing,” November

19. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (2002a) “How the USA Patriot Act Redefines “Domestic Terrorism,”

December 6. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (2003) “After High Court Denies Appeal on Ashcroft Spy Powers,

ACLU Urges Oversight in Courts and Congress,” March 24. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (2003a) “New Ashcroft Bill Erodes Checks and Balances on

Presidential Power,” February 12. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (2004) “The ACLU in the Courts Since 9/11,”

www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Safeand FreeMain.cfm. (Viewed June 11, 2004) Anderson, Curt (2004) “Agencies Struggling to Handle Increase in Secret Surveillance,” Fort Worth Star-

Telegram, April 16, 2004. Anderson, Curt (2004) “Justice Department Details Patriot Act Cases,” Associated Press,

http://www.comcast.net/news/XML/1152_Cabinet/7fdc9df2-2d15-4 (Viewed July 13, 2004) AP (2004) “Bush Wins; House Leaves Patriot Act As Is” http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-

Congress-Patriot-Act.html Axtman, Kris (2002) “Political Dissent Can Bring Agents to the Door,” Christian Science Monitor, January 8. Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) (2004) http://www.bordc.org/index.html (Viewed July 14, 2004) Cassel, Elaine (2004) “A Defeat in Disguise”, Alternet News, www.alternet.org/story/19097 (Viewed July 2,

2004) Cassel, Elaine (2004a) http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/ecassel/ CBS News Poll (2004) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/12/opinion/polls/main617056.shtml (Viewed

June 2, 2004.) Center for American Progress (2004) “Trampling Democracy to Save It?

http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}/MOBILE.HTM (Viewed July 9, 2004)

Center for Constitutional Rights (2002) “The State of Civil Liberties One Year Later,” A Report by the CCR. New York.

International Journal of the Humanities, Volume 2

632

Chang, Nancy (2001) “The USA Patriot Act: What’s So Patriotic About Trampling on the Bill of Rights?” New York: Center for Constitutional Rights.

CNN News (2004) July 15. Cohen, Andrew (2004) “Crying Wolf in the War Against Terror,: The Los Angeles Times Online

www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-cohen16aug16,1,674061.story (Viewed August 17, 2004) Cornehls, Jim (2003) “The USA Patriot Act: The Assault on Civil Liberties,” Z Magazine, July-August, 2003. Doyle, Charles (2002) “The USA Patriot Act: A Sketch,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress,

April 18. EEF (2004) www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_05.php (Viewed June 12, 2004.) Estabrook, Leigh (2002) “Public Libraries and Civil Liberties, The Library Research Center, Univ. of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign http://alexia.lis.uiuc.edu/gslis/research/civil_liberties.html (Viewed September 15, 2003)

Gearan, Anne (2004) “Enemy Combatants Win Right to U.S. Courts,” www.comcast.net/news/print.jsp?fn=/apnws//XML/1154SupremeCourt. (Viewed June 28, 2004)

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) 381 U.S. 469. Hentoff, Nat (2004) “Patriot Act Besieged,” The Village Voice, May 26, 2004. Holland, Gina (2002) Associated Press Wire Report, Washington, D.C, August 3. Lewis, Charles and Adam Mayle (2003) “Justice Department Drafts Sweeping Expansion of Anti-Terrorism

Act,” Center For Public Integrity, February 7. Lichtblau, Eric, “Effort to Curb Scope of Antiterrorism Law Falls Short,” The New York Times on the Web,

July 9, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/politics/09patriot.html (Viewed July 9, 2004) Liptak, Adam et. al. (2002) “After September 11, a Legal Battle Over Limits of Civil Liberty,” The New York

Times, August 4, 1, 16. McCaffrey, Shannon (2004) “Use of Secret Surveillance Warrants Rise to Record,” Star-Telegram. Com,

5/2/2004. (Viewed 5/7/04) Memorandum Opinion (2002) Center for National Security Studies, et. al. v. United States Department of

Justice, August 2. Michaels, C. William (2002) No Greater Threat: America after September 11 and the Rise of a National Security

State, E-book, New York, Algora Publications. Miller, Leslie (2003) Associated Press Wire Report, Washington, DC, February 28. PBS Frontline World NOW, with Bill Moyers, (2003) February 7. Posner, Richard (2001) “Security Versus Civil Liberties,” The Atlantic Monthly, December. Schabner, Dean (2003) “Northern Revolt: Alaska Passes Anti-Patriot Act Resolution,” ABCNews.com, May 23.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/alaska_patriot030523.html (Viewed November 8, 2003) U.S. Department of Justice Website: http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/, 2004. USA Patriot Act (2001) http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011025_hr3162_usa_patriot_bill.html

Acknowledgement Special thanks to Trish Nickel and Richard Cole for their assistance in the early phases of this research. Phyllis Behrens made many valuable contributions. They are not responsible for any errors, omissions or opinions expressed herein.

About the Authors Dr Cornehls is Professor and Director of the Graduate Certificate Program in Law and Public Policy. He earned a Ph.D. in Economics and holds a law degree. He teaches graduate seminars in Law and in Economics in the School of Urban and Public Affairs and conducts research in economics, law, and public policy. Ms. Sara Hudson is completing her doctorate and is employed as a research assistant in the School of Urban and Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Arlington. She has taught Introduction to Urban Life and has been involved in several research projects at the School. Dr Barrett is Associate Professor and Director of the MA in Urban Affairs program. She earned a Ph.D. in Psychology. She teaches courses in social policy, statistics, and methodology. Her current research addresses issues of poverty, social welfare policy, housing policy, and political socialization.