If there is one thing I can appreciate about Monday mornings, it’s their consistency. For example, I will consistently wake up late for my 9 a.m. class, the dining hall will consistently have a terrible selection, and The Daily Free Press will consistently print another column in which Tara Stroll blatantly misconstrues a controversial political topic. Her argument is so poorly presented that it seemed more like a satire of the argument for the PATRIOT Act than a real argument (“Renewal of PATRIOT Act will benefit Americans,” page 7, Nov. 21).
First, a brief history of the PATRIOT Act: It was passed almost unanimously six weeks after 9/11, in a tumultuous frenzy of, well, patriotism. It’s easy to understand why; American citizens had just been killed on American soil, and Americans were desperate for a sense of security. Four years later, it is now possible to look back on 9/11 and the PATRIOT Act from a more objective viewpoint. Would the PATRIOT Act have prevented 9/11? Any response is merely speculation; however, the facts now show that law enforcement agencies already had the necessary information to prevent 9/11, without the PATRIOT Act. They didn’t lack the means, they lacked the competence.
To make the claim that the PATRIOT Act doesn’t allow law enforcement agencies to infringe upon civil liberties is flat-out wrong. You can sugar-coat it all you want, but the entire point of the PATRIOT Act is to allow law enforcement agents to obtain information they previously couldn’t access, with methods they previously couldn’t employ. While it would be absurd to contend that the government gets its kicks from abusing the PATRIOT Act and spying on innocent Americans, it would be equally absurd to assume that mistakes aren’t made and that innocent people aren’t victimized. A simple query on Google can bring up several such instances. For example, in 2004, Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim convert, was arrested in connection with the bombings in Madrid. He was released two weeks later, after the FBI admitted that his fingerprint had been mistakenly identified. Mayfield was later told that his home had been searched without his knowing.
On a side note, 41 percent is hardly a “vast majority.” Even if it were, I can recall several instances when the vast majority has been very, very wrong. It would be nice to see Ms. Stroll make an attempt at being political instead of just being Republican.
James Ling CAS ’08