An omnibus of powerful laws has been passed under the title of The USA Patriot Act 2001. President George W. Bush signed this act into law on October 26th. Born from the September 11 tragedy, the Act was created to unite and strengthen America by providing appropriate tools required for intercepting and obstructing terrorism.

However, among the provisions of this legislation are an increase in police surveillance powers and a concomitant use of Intelligence and Law enforcement under the authority of the President, and by proxy, his Attorney General. The Internet and all forms of electronic exchange take a big hit, leading me to wonder: have many of the basic privacy rights of U.S. citizens been wiped away by this law? It applies to every area of human concourse in the United States and includes authority for nation-wide wiretaps and electronic surveillance of cell phones.

The laws are in effect until 2005, but until then, can a police state be avoided? With state power increased, individual constitutional and personal freedoms are at risk. In the land of the free and brave, is a secret police state now possible?

The Central Intelligence Agency can now legally be utilized by law enforcement (under the control of the President of the U.S.—remember Richard Nixon?) to locate, apprehend and imprison anyone without arraignment or trial. Are these powers any different in theory than those of the KGB or the Nazi SS?

The U.S. Attorney General, a politically biased ex-Senator named John Ashcroft, has promised to apply these new powers vigorously. I have no doubt that he will do so, but should there be concern about this comment coming from a man who holds Christian prayer meetings in his federal offices and who hates liberal values with an extreme passion?

What were the Democratic Party Senators thinking when they voted for this bill? It's highly likely they were thinking of future political campaign wins. The legislation was rushed through without proper legislative process and given a title against which no one could oppose or refute in a political campaign. Who would oppose a candidate who fights terrorism?

The powers that be know they have severely compromised fundamental guarantees against unreasonable intrusion by the government. Congress has let citizens down in the most perfidious and cowardly fashion. As if already set out before them, they follow the easy path to a cushy political future, rather than to ply the difficult course laid down by the founders of this nation. Western civilization will come to regret this great moral lapse on their part.

What good can come if we save our country at the expense of our liberties?

Copyright © 2001 Robert Marcom. All Rights Reserved.

Robert Marcom is the founder and publisher of Net Author's "E2K: a journal for the new literary paradigm" and is the editor of "The Cosmic Photo Book Series" published by Stargate Electronic Library on CD ROM. E2K: http://www.netauthor.org/e2k/ Home page: http://home.houston.rr.com/netauthor/