Thou[disjointed]ghts

I should be writing a paper.

It's due tomorrow, after all. I haven't even started.

My printer isn't working quite right, I downloaded three different drivers. I finally figured it out; I didn't have the USB plugged into the printer itself. I feel like a jackass.

Which isn't all that unusual.

Smashing Pumpkins. Don't ask.

I should call the parents and inform them that I may need to use their printer. But my phone's in the car. And, I mean, I could go to the car and get it. But if I do, one thing will lead to another, and I'll be chowing down on a Big Mac feeling like I'm going to die.

Probably choking down tears.

Though I could always use their bathroom. Clog someone else's toilet for a change. Too much detail? Meh.

I mean, what can I say? I got 99 problems, but a bitch ain't one. No disrespect intended.

Instead, I cope with the world-shattering loneliness and self-defeating isolation that plagues so many members of the Internet culture, wherein personal contact is devalued in favor of electronic dialog.

Also, the cap on my toothpaste is off, so what's left is probably crusty.

I'm so cheap that I try to figure out how to get that last bit of paste out, even though it's shaped wrong at the end and won't squeeze right.

Perfect time to say: That's what she said. I am the master of recycled zingers.

I swear, my mind is like a river. The River Styx, maybe. Damn, now I have "Come Sail Away" stuck in my head.

Why am I writing this? Moreover, why are you reading this?

Oh, paper, right. The more I write here, the less I have to think about it. Literature isn't so bad, and neither is this assignment. I'm just lazy.

Which brings me back to the phone. What if someone calls? Nobody calls. Why are you answering your own questions? It's in italics, so that denotes a separate voice. Consider me your first-person narrator, just not of my thoughts. Of a character who just happens to be me.

I don't think this is supposed to be funny. Which is good, since it probably isn't... And my leg is numb.

Have you ever felt guilty about not wearing pants in your own room? Me neither.

"Wishful Thinking"

The following is a short story written in my "Red Valor" universe. Enjoy.

---

“It’s mine! Mine, mine, mine!” Isaac Renvalli shouted. The short but lithe young man shook his head furiously, his unkempt blond hair flying wildly.

“No it’s not. I found it,” replied his companion, a darker, taller man with a lean face and a wiry frame. The scar that ran across his left eye rippled as he growled viscerally at his counterpart. “As my apprentice, you’re not technically entitled to anything.”

“Oh, what a load of troll dung!” Isaac spat furiously. “I’m no more your apprentice than you are the King of Ketta, Atrus!”

The duo were drifters, a pair of forlorn travelers who seemed to always find some niche to fill. Boundaries and governments couldn’t contain them. Of course, some would say—and certainly had said in the past—they were “thieves,” “scoundrels,” “ne’er-do-wells,” and a host of other exasperating titles, but as Atrus was fond of saying, “You can only be a thief if you accept the idea of ownership."

Atrus rolled his eyes. “Ketta doesn’t have a king, Isaac.” His voice was calm and cool, carrying the weight of authority. “They have an emperor. This is why I’m your mentor.” He lifted the object in question, a rather unremarkable flask made of cheap tin, high in the air, grinning broadly as Isaac jumped at it unsuccessfully.

Isaac’s ears were turning red. “I found it, therefore I should be the one to open it! I told you, it’s mine!”

Atrus looked around the crusty old tomb, replete with sand, dust, and poorly-maintained stonemasonry, attempting to find a distraction. “Fine. I’ll let you have it if you can find some drinkable water in this place.”

Isaac’s eyes narrowed. “You’re lying,” he growled. “I’ve been doing this for long enough to know when you’re trying to distract a mark.”

Atrus put his hand up to his chest, clenching the tattered shirt he was wearing. “Your words are venom to my heart, my friend! I would never regard you as such.” A look of agony crossed his visage.

Isaac gave him a bored glare. “Another lie.” Stomping his foot in frustration against the stone crypt floor, he turned away. “Have it your way then.” Giving a sharp look over his shoulder, his voice lowered dangerously. “But I get the second turn.”

Atrus offered a deep bow. “I am indebted to your kindness, dear fellow.” He lowered the flask cautiously, one eye on Isaac and the other looking over a strange inscription across its metal. “Curious.”

Isaac jumped at the taller man, knocking him to the ground and taking the flask. Rolling to the side, he kicked sand into Atrus’s eyes, eying the flask greedily. Despite the assault, when Atrus stood, his hands rubbing at his eyes, his voice remained calm. “That was low.”

Isaac shrugged. “What can I say, I learned from the best...” He squinted at the flask. “What’s this say? I think it’s in Dontorran...”

Atrus shut and opened his eyes repeatedly. “Even if I had my vision at the moment, I can’t read Common, much less Dontorran. So be careful with it.”

Isaac mimed Atrus’s words mockingly before responding. “It’s just a piece of cheap metal.”

“If you believed that, you wouldn’t have been so adamant to have it,” Atrus grumbled.

Isaac arched an eyebrow at his visually-impaired ‘mentor.’ “You really don’t know me in the least, do you?” Returning his gaze to the flask, he groaned. “Now it’s covered in sand, too.”

The first hint of annoyance crept into Atrus’s voice. “If you had honored our agreement, perhaps...”

Isaac couldn’t contain a laugh. “Honor? You are lecturing me about honor?”

Atrus’s response was delivered almost half-heartedly. “Haven’t you ever heard of honor amongst thieves?”

Isaac turned his attention back to Atrus for the moment. “A thief with honor is like a king with morals. Both have their place, but only in the tales mothers tell their sons.” Swiveling back to regard the flask, Isaac stretched his arm forward. “I’ll just clean it off...” Bunching the rough burlap of his sleeve, he rubbed the sand away from the flask.

Isaac yelped in surprise as the inscription began to glow, the flask levitating out of his hands. A rumbling noise seemed to permeate the chamber even as the cap on the flask began to shake violently. Atrus, his vision finally restored, gave first the tin container and then his companion a disapproving look. “Now look what you’ve done,” came the older man’s taunt.

Isaac opened his mouth to respond, but was cut short. The cap flew off the flask and ricocheted off the wall, striking Atrus squarely in the forehead, apparently with enough force to cause him to reel in pain. An orange smoke filled Isaac’s lungs, though it did not hurt, and a gout of flame spewed forth from the opened flagon. A thunderous voice, belonging to a bronze-skinned humanoid who the clouds parted to reveal, echoed powerfully in the cramped tomb. “I am the mighty Alarin su-Sural, Genie Lord of the Third Kingdom! For my peoples’ crimes, I was bound to this container, forced to serve whomsoever releases me with three wishes.” The being’s eyes were pools of orange-red energy.

Though normally frightened by the supernatural, Isaac instead was intrigued by this mystic creature’s offer. His eyes lit with avarice as his voice trembled with excitement. “A genie, huh? I knew it was something important...”

Atrus frowned, rubbing his forehead. “Lucky guess.” The dark-haired man lifted the cap that had struck him from the sandy floor of the chamber, his calculating hazel eyes sizing up the genie. “If that’s the case, wish some water for us. I’m thirsty.”

Isaac looked at his companion incredulously. “Are you kidding? Why would I wish for that?”

The genie grinned widely, his sharp teeth an unsettling omen. “You ‘wish for that,’ then? Very well.” Waving his hand, the genie said a brief incantation, and before Isaac could protest, Isaac, Atrus, the genie, and the unopened bottle were in the ocean.

Isaac took a deep lungful of water, thrashing and screaming about. “I... ca...n’t... swim!”

Atrus scowled at genie, who was cackling madly. “Then wish us somewhere else!”

Isaac nodded. “I wi... sh... that we...”

“Be careful what you say!” Atrus screamed.

Managing to breathe air, Isaac started again as he kicked about. “I wish that we were in the Kettan Royal Treasury!”

The genie waved his ring-covered hand, but stopped, staring at Isaac blankly. “I cannot comply with your command, Master.”

Atrus became angry. “Imperial Treasury! Ketta is an Empire, boy!”

“Fine!” Isaac rasped. “I wish that we were in the Kettan Imperial Treasury!”

The genie nodded, holding his hand out again. “Very well, Master.” The being stretched an arm out and Isaac felt his stomach roll as the scenery morphed around him again.

Isaac rubbed his eyes as they adjusted to the torchlight. “That was cruel,” he spat venomously.

An unfamiliar voice resounded from behind them. “Not half as cruel as where you’re going.”

Isaac twirled around, seeing a squadron of heavily-armed, heavier-armored soldiers. “How did I not see that coming?”

Atrus didn’t wait to act. Springing forward, he placed the cap on the flask, the smoky form of the genie dissipating. As the soldiers aimed their crossbows, Atrus rubbed the lamp, and the orange smoke billowed in all directions. Lifting both the bottle and Isaac’s collar, he ran in the opposite direction, the smoke and the emerging genie providing ample cover. “I am the mighty Alarin su-Sural, Genie Lord of the Third Kingdom! For my peoples’ crimes...”

“I’ve heard it already!” Atrus shouted. Rounding a corner, another approaching squad raised their spears, an alarm sounding. Atrus looked both ways as Isaac wrestled out of his grasp, formulating a plan. Confidently, Atrus stated, “I wish that time would stop for everyone but myself, you, and Isaac, for a period no longer nor shorter than from this point until I say a command word of my choosing for the second time, that word being ‘Asparagus.’”

The genie pondered for a moment. One of the guards approaching from the rear lifted his crossbow, firing it at Atrus; the tip of the bolt was dripping with poison. The genie waved his hand, his booming voice filled with disappointment. “Your wish is granted.”

Atrus’s emerging grin was cut short by the crossbow bolt burrowing into his shoulder. Spinning around, he screamed angrily, “I told you to stop time!”

The genie’s sharp-toothed grin reappeared. “For everyone, not everything.” Angrily, Atrus slammed the cap back onto the bottle, the genie’s form vanishing once again.

Isaac looked to his companion with a hint of worry. “That looks poisoned. You might want to wish for a cure.”

Atrus glared at him. “Oh no.” He could feel his blood already beginning to slow through his veins. “No, I wasted one wish already, to get us out of this mess you caused.” Sweat began to from on his brow as he held the flask to Isaac. “Your wish.”

Isaac took it angrily. “Fine.” He removed the cap, watching the genie’s smoke furl forth. The genie stared imperiously toward him, but Isaac was unperturbed. “I wish that the events of the last few minutes could be undone, up until the point where I made my first wish.”

The genie put a hand up in objection. “If this is your wish, it will not undo the amount of wishes you have used. You will no longer have any wishes left.”

Isaac counted on his fingers and grumbled. Taking one long look at Atrus, he debated whether he should amend his wish—after all, he was already in the Royal Treasury—or if he should help his only ‘friend.’ “Oh, by the Nine Hells,” Atrus growled, falling to one knee. “Time can’t be returned to normal if I’m dead.”

The smaller man nodded reluctantly. “Yes, my wish still stands.”

The genie nodded, waving his hand. “Your wish is granted.”

As quickly as it had started, they found themselves in the crypt. “Great, now we’re back on Dontorr,” Isaac moaned, “And I don’t have any wishes left.” His brow furrowed as he faced the genie. “Wait, how do I remember that? If time was turned back...”

The bronze-skinned being shrugged. “When it comes to time travel, sometimes it is best not to ask such questions.”

“Asparagus.” Atrus snickered as he snatched the flask from Isaac’s hands. “All right then, I still have two wishes left.” He tapped his foot impatiently. “But what to wish for? Hmm.”

Isaac rolled his eyes. “You should wish to be the Emperor of Vestin or something.”

Atrus gave him a dull look. “No, Vestin doesn’t have an Emperor, it’s a democracy.”

Isaac threw his arms upward. “That’s what makes it so brilliant!”

Atrus looked away, indignant. “Your definition of ‘brilliant’ is sorely lacking...” The genie growled fiercely, and Atrus took the hint. “Fine, fine. I wish...” He snickered. “I wish to have the sacred blade, Red Valor.”

Isaac’s face brightened. “Ooooh, good one.”

The genie stretched a hand out, his trademark grin causing a knot to form in Atrus’s stomach. “Very well. Your wish is granted.”

A bolt of lightning slammed into the crypt, causing a portion of the ceiling to collapse around them. Standing before them was a man with short-cropped blond hair, golden robes with black trim, and a confused look etched onto his face. His golden eyes narrowed as he lifted his sword, which gleamed with magic. Atrus recognized both the sword for its scarlet hilt and its owner, a legendary swordsman, and mumbled, “I wish I hadn’t done that...”

The genie laughed. “Your wish is granted.”

As another bolt of lightning carried the man away, Atrus kicked the flask angrily. “Oh, come on! That one counted?”

The genie nodded. “Yes.” The genie sighed deeply. “Now, my duties here are done. Replace the cap to return me to my prison.”

Atrus looked to Isaac. “Go on, do it.”

Isaac’s eyes widened. “Wait, what? I thought you had it.”

Atrus checked his bag nervously. “No, you took it off last when you made that wish...”

The genie’s malevolent grin broadened even more. “Perhaps you left it in the Imperial Treasury.”

Isaac looked to the entity, slack-jawed. “I told you to put everything back!”

The genie shook his head. “No, you said that you wished that ‘the events of the last few minutes could be undone,’ there was nothing specific. I simply chose certain events to undo.”

Atrus looked to the bottle and then the genie. “Does this mean that you’re free? For all intents and purposes?”

The genie nodded, a blazing falchion materializing in his hands. “For all intents and purposes.”

Neither Atrus nor Isaac had ever ran for so long or far than on that hot desert afternoon.

USA PATRIOT Act: An Examination

(The following is a research paper I completed for an English Composition course, reproduced in its entirety.)

USA PATRIOT Act: An Examination

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, a wave of homeland security and anti-terrorism legislation was passed by Congress. Among these was HR 3162 RS, more commonly known by the cognomen of the USA PATRIOT Act. The USA PATRIOT Act, simplified hereafter as the Patriot Act, is one of the most controversial pieces of federal legislation in recent years, due in part to the extensions it provides to executive authority. Among these extended authorities are the ability of executive branch to search personal records held by third parties, the power to conduct searches in secrecy, as well as an expansion to previous wiretapping methods.

These expansions could be characterized as contrary to the spirit and letter of the Bill of Rights, particularly the Fourth Amendment. This Amendment, which guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” is the foundation for the American sensibility regarding the rights of the accused. The potential illegality of the Patriot Act’s provisions is therefore all the more grave, and makes the necessity of either revision or repeal all the more urgent.

The primary argument supporting the Patriot Act is its vital role in the defense of America against future terrorism. The proponents of the Act assert that the increased surveillance powers granted to the executive branch are vital to the defense of the United States. According to an article titled, “The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty,” published on a government website designed to support the position of the Patriot Act, the Act aided in “[t]he government’s success in preventing another catastrophic attack on the American homeland since September 11, 2001.” Due to the secret nature of these investigations, it is impossible to verify this claim of increased security. Even as an open democracy, there are some documents and findings that must understandably remain secret to ensure the safety of our country. However, to claim that the Patriot Act and related legislation is helping in this process without providing concrete support and real examples in which it was successfully applied is erroneous and unverifiable. As such, it is the prospect of supporters of the Patriot Act to accept the word of the government without actual proof, something most citizens are not likely to concede in a modern nation.

The first source of the problem within the Patriot Act revolves around the ability of the executive branch to search personal records. According to Section 215 of the Act, this expanded power permits government officials to “make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items),” which must in turn be confirmed by a special court. This access to personal documents allows investigators to gain warrants to find out what we read, what we watch on television, who we talk to, and how we live our everyday lives. Although likely intended in the best interest of pursuing potential terrorists, the razor-thin line between such enhanced measures and an Orwellian police state draws ever closer. Although a judicial check is placed upon this power, the lack of accountability of such federal “special courts” to the general public could potentially negate this otherwise mitigating factor to executive control.

For example, in the article “Gag Order on 'John Doe' Lifted,” published in Library Journal, a prominent trade publication for librarians, a troubling implementation of this power is described by journalist Norman Oder; four Connecticut librarians were issued a gag order in response to a federal investigation. This group, known to the public and media at large simply as “John Doe,” succeeded in defeating the gag order in court, although the residing judge allowed for appeals from the federal government. According to Oder, a revision in the PATRIOT Act that occurred in 2004 now allows for individuals who have received gag orders “to challenge such National security Letters [sic], but they would have to wait a year, and the FBI would have discretion to dismiss the challenge for national security reasons.” That executive control over judicial processes remains in effect even after a revision in the Act is somewhat odd; the new ability to dismiss challenges outright makes the revision seem somewhat superficial.

In a follow-up report published in the Library Journal on April 1, 2007 titled “Criticism Over Patriot Act Use,” Oder describes a broader trend that seems to color the Section 215 document seizures; in the article, he states that “the FBI began using Section 215 authority more widely in 2006, and it's unknown how often [National Security Letters] have been used to gather information from libraries.” This lack of accountability is worrisome in an open democracy. Public knowledge is an important preventative measure to administrative abuse, and an entirely independent executive power has the appearance of impropriety.

It has been argued by supporters of this provision that the gag orders are justifiable. The article “The FBI's Secret Scrutiny” in the November 6, 2005 issue of The Washington Post includes a response to the arguments for public knowledge. Michael Mason, then Assistant FBI Director in the Washington Field Office (he has now been promoted to Executive Assistant Director), was quoted as saying, “I don't necessarily want somebody knowing what videos I rent or the fact that I like cartoons... But if those records are never used against a person, if they're never used to put him in jail, or deprive him of a vote, et cetera, then what is the argument?”

Assistant Director Mason's penchant for cartoons aside, this lax attitude of the insignificance of personal freedoms is perhaps fallible. That the records are “never used against a person” begs the question of why they are seized at all; if the process is as inconsequential as Mason expresses, the invasion of personal freedom can easily take precedence over investigations that have no admissibility in court. Although Mason may be willing to surrender his personal liberties for the benefit of investigations, not everyone has personal assurance as to how that information is handled.

To suggest that these gag orders and the contents of these searches be immediately made available is perhaps naive, but moderation between complete secrecy and absolute frankness could be struck. Perhaps the FBI and other agencies should be required to at least provide the quantity of gag orders applied for each year, and be supervised more carefully by the judiciary. If it is discovered that the matter being investigated is unrelated to national security, it is within reason to ask that the Justice Department be obligated to release the exact information regarding the National Security Letters, gag orders, and other executive authorities it exercised.

In addition, the Patriot Act has endowed executive branch officials with the ability to perform searches in secrecy. According to a study titled “Surveillance under the USA PATRIOT Act” by the American Civil Liberties Union, these new provisions allow for the government to “enter a house, apartment, or office with a search warrant when the occupants are away, search through their property, take photographs, and in some cases even seize property – and not tell
them until later.”

Such an allowance undermines the fundamental right of an accused party to face their accusers; the article goes on to highlight that this provision “has nothing to do with fighting terrorism,” a troubling fact. When normal police investigations can utilize this bypass to uncover evidence and only inform the accused party after the fact, the potential for further encroachment and abuse is more significant than otherwise. If the provision was limited to terrorism related investigations, it would perhaps be a more acceptable premise. As it stands, the “sneak and peek” investigation model could shake the foundation of the American justice system.

A notable abuse of the “sneak and peek” search was described by David Sarasohn in his article “The Patriot Act on Trial,” found in September 26, 2007 issue of the oldest continuously-published weekly magazine in the United States, The Nation. Apparently, during the course of a terrorism-related investigation, the FBI misled a federal judge to obtain a “sneak and peek” search warrant for Brandon Mayfield, a recent convert to Islam and a trial lawyer. Mayfield, a lawyer, had previously represented a person later convicted of terrorism-related charges in a custody case; he was also under initial suspicion from the government of Spain for connections to the March 2004 terrorist attacks in Madrid. Although the Spanish government eventually decided that Mayfield was not connected due to a mistake in fingerprinting, the FBI disregarded the report and claimed Mayfield's fingerprint was a “100 percent match.”

Soon after, Mayfield was detained as a “material witness” and kept under tight surveillance. After three weeks and an eventual match by Spanish investigators to an Algerian man, the FBI released Mayfield. However, this would not be the end of legal troubles for Mayfield; apparently, during his detention as a material witness, the FBI had secretly searched his home. According to a Justice Department report cited in the article, the following notification was eventually given to Mayfield:

Mr. Mayfield is hereby notified that the following property was seized, altered or reproduced during [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] searches of his residence: three hard drives of three desktop computers and one loose hard drive were copied; several documents in the residence were digitally photographed; ten DNA samples were taken and preserved on cotton swabs and six cigarette butts were seized for DNA analysis; and approximately 335 digital photographs were taken of the residence and the property therein.... Mr. Mayfield is also hereby notified that he was the target of electronic surveillance and other physical searches authorized pursuant to FISA.

That such extensive measures were taken against a man who was entirely unconnected to the incident that he was detained for, and that the connection had already been refuted by the Spanish government, highlights the disturbing potential that the expanded FISA powers grant federal investigators. Understandably, Mayfield launched lawsuits against the federal government in response to the searches, though it will likely take several years, many appeals, and an inordinate amount of money before any clear resolution is reached.

The expansion of wiretapping abilities provided by the Patriot Act has also come under particular scrutiny. Although an existing exception to wiretapping laws existed to allow investigators to monitor foreign communication in the defense of the United States, the Patriot Act expanded this authority to allow these sorts of investigations to be applicable to domestic cases, according to the ACLU. Although these wiretaps are legally mandated to be approved by yet another special court, the lack of accountability and public record produced by this institution make it appear to be more of a hollow nicety than an impartial arbitrator.

According to the text of § 1803, subchapter I, Chapter 36, Title 50 of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act, the courts that monitor these communications are even one step further removed from public scrutiny and accountability. These special courts are to “be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice in consultation with the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence,” combining judicial and executive duties in an effort to preserve national security. However, outside of the general issuance of a warrant in conjunction with the FISA court, there is little other responsibility or oversight from the judicial branch. Unlike typical warrants, those granted through a Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court do not require a list of objects or information taken during the investigation to be submitted afterward, a fact that essentially grants investigators free reign.

A technique that has come under particular scrutiny regarding the expansion of wiretapping authority is data mining. As defined by Joe W. Pitts of The Washington Spectator in his March 17, 2007 article titled “The End of Illegal Domestic Spying? Don't Count on It,” data mining is the “automated review of significant quantities of data to discern patterns and predict and influence behavior.” Pitts goes on to state that such information searches operate under the assumption that information related to terrorist communications would be easily distinguishable from the bulk of information that such automated reviews would inherently draw.

A criticism of data mining can be drawn from this. The collection of bulks of information from citizens, even if it is inadmissible in court and is to be sorted by an automated system, once again positions the investigators into a precarious position. As a broad interpretation of the FISA Act and the expanded powers granted by the Patriot Act, data mining collects information from private citizens and analyzes it, something that could be perceived as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, the data gained through data mining is noted by Pitts to be unreliable, as “mission creep (e.g., from counter-terrorism to tax collection or fighting crime generally), human errors in interpretation, terrorist-incident data sets too small to be useful as valid predictive models, false positives, and privacy concerns” all decrease the value and justifiability of this technique.

Even outside of data mining, wiretapping as allowed through the Patriot Act is controversial. In the 2006 renewal of the Patriot Act, a new proviso allows investigators to wiretap businesses suspected of monopolistic behaviors, according the article “Boardrooms Crawling with Bugs?,” published in the magazine BusinessWeek. Obviously outside the scope of the original intentions of the law, the application of measures related directly to national security to civilian matters are precisely the type of “power creep” that some opponents of the Patriot Act have warned about. As the BusinessWeek article notes, these wiretaps could potentially pose a serious threat to the practices of corporations, allowing trade secrets and corporate information to be placed into public record.

In times of crisis, it is understandable for a government to act in haste in order to provide a sense of security and safety to its people. The Patriot Act is a prime example of a quickly conceived and hastily passed piece of legislation, but its effects were neither temporary nor entirely reassuring. That the Patriot Act has been renewed and extended past its deadline repeatedly by Congress, and that it has been expanded to further encroach upon the freedom of speech, the right to face an accusing party, and the right to privacy, is all the more troubling.

When private phone calls, personal property, and corporate board meetings (all of which belong to innocent individuals) become part and parcel to the operating procedures of federal agencies such as the FBI and the NSA, it becomes all the more evident that the ramifications of the Patriot Act and its hazy interpretations and implementation have not been fully evaluated by either lawmakers or the American public.

As such, there are a number of solutions that could be implemented by lawmakers to reconcile the infractions on personal freedoms imposed by the Patriot Act. Absolute and immediate repeal, although the simplest method of negating the Act, is also the most unlikely to occur. A more reasonable solution would be for Congress to allow the provisions of the Act to expire, rather than continuously renewing them. Furthermore, the further expansion of Patriot Act powers, notably the application of previous methods to corporate practices, fragment the argument of the Act's necessity and limitations.

In this nation, people are considered to be innocent until proven guilty. This fundamental aspect of our legal system is placed in jeopardy by the Patriot Act's provisions. If the government is allowed to circumvent the Bill of Rights in order to secure questionable evidence, even in the interest of national security, then there is no practical preventative measure to protect the people from the actions of the government. The accountability of elected officials to the populace is the key safeguard in keeping the government honest, and as such gag orders, NSLs, and “sneak and peek” searches all threaten the foundations of the democratic process.

Moreover, if the American people as a whole are to accept that the Patriot Act is designed to protect against terrorist attacks, intelligence agencies should release information proving such under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Administration officials would likely win more support for the Patriot Act and its other programs in the “War on Terror” if it provided concrete proof of its past successes; since it is clear that the methods proscribed in the Patriot Act have been enacted, should not the positive results be presented to justify its measures?

In short, although the goals of the Patriot Act were deeply rooted in the troubling times surrounding the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the lag in the War on Terror and the slow creep of executive powers granted by the Patriot Act have raised serious questions about the relevance and necessity of the Act. As the Patriot Act prevents, in many ways, the release of proof that justifies its perpetuation, the American people are expected simply to rely on the honesty of their government in lieu of actual accountability. What is perhaps more troubling is the general undertones of the “ends justifying the means,” both within the Administration's handling of the Patriot Act powers and with its response to global terrorism; should we stoop to that distorted vision of morality? Is our rationalization and methodology worth the loss of our autonomy?

Where in the Constitution do the Founding Fathers describe shadowy courts that idly approve domestic spying? Where does it provide for the executive branch to suspend the rights of the accused, to override judicial authority, and to conceal from the American people their activities? How does the spirit of fear, secrecy, executive oversight, and the loss of personal freedom contribute to a safer nation? Every American who makes a phone call overseas, checks a potentially controversial book out of the library, or a myriad other everyday activities would heed well the advice of Founding Fathers. In the often-misquoted words of Benjamin Franklin (as clarified by researcher Gary Frost), “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”


-----
Works Cited

American Civil Liberties Union, "Surveillance under the USA PATRIOT Act". Elements of Argument. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2006.

Franklin Quoted by Minsky. Gary Frost. March 30, 2004. futureofthebookd.com. April 27, 2006.
http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605

Gellman, Barton. "The FBI's Secret Scrutiny." The Washington Post 06 Nov 2005 A01. 12 Apr 2007.

Goldberg, Bernard. "Connecting the Dots... to Terrorism". Elements of Argument. 194-201. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2006.

Oder, Norman. "Criticism Over Patriot Act Use.” Library Journal 1 Apr. 2007: 14-13. Research Library Core. ProQuest. 11 Apr. 2007

Oder, Norman. “Gag Order on 'John Doe' Lifted” Library Journa1 May 2006: 22. Research Library Core. ProQuest. 11 Apr. 2007

Pitts, Joe W. "The End of Illegal Domestic Spying? Don't Count on It." The Washington Spectator 15 Mar. 2007. ProQuest. Illinois Central College. 12 Apr. 2007 .

Sarasohn, David. "The Patriot Act on Trial." The Nation 26 Sep. 2005 28-29. Research Library
Core. ProQuest. 12 Apr. 2007 "The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty". United States Department of Justice. April 11, 2007 .

United States Cong. Senate. 107th Congress, 1st Session. H. R. 3162, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 [introduced in the U.S. Senate, 24 October 2001].

Woellert, Lorraine. “Boardrooms Crawling With Bugs?” Business Week 8 May 2006: 14. Research Library Core. ProQuest. 13 Apr. 2007