Patriot Act Notes

PATRIOT Act In Action?

An analysis of Patriot Raid By Jason Halperin, AlterNet April 29, 2003


I agree, the PATRIOT Act is overwhelming and can be seriously abused. However, this article can be explained in ways other than as the author presents it.


For example, he states that "They had their guns drawn and were pointing them indiscriminately at the restaurant staff and at us." And "The police placed their fingers on the triggers of their guns . . . ." Anyone who knows a bit about police training, especially SWAT training as these guys probably were, knows that they do not put their finger on the trigger without a target. (The ethics of the topic notwithstanding . . .) Look at the famous photo of Elian Gonzalez being taken from the home in Miami and you will see that the ATF agent had his finger straight, next to the trigger but not on it. This is standard practice and I would bet that this policy was followed in this instance as well.


Also, he quotes the Fourth Amendment. As far as he knows, the police were acting in good faith based on information they had concerning the establishment and/or the people inside of it. I doubt they randomly picked a restaurant and decided to raid it. Thus they are not subjecting him to “unreasonable searches and seizures” since they were only trying to determine if he was the bad guy they were looking for.


The author speaks about his request to speak to a lawyer. Well, he should have been able to . . . when he had a chance at the station. There is no right to speak to a lawyer _in the middle of a raid_. What made him think it unreasonable to have to wait until the situation was more reasonably under control and he was in a place where it would be more feasible? If the agent really did say to him the line about days/weeks/months, yes, that was out of control and should not have happened. But to insist that he be able to call a lawyer during the processing of the raid is ridiculous.


As for the threat against him when he tried to leave, makes sense to me. Look, when an officer in a tense situation like that tells you to sit down and shut up, guess what? You don’t say “Hell no.” If you do, you are just begging them to get upset with you and that’s not a good idea. I am talking pragmatically here. The guy with the gun, whose job it is to protect people just like us, gets to make the rules in that situation. Does he or she get to do so in all situations at all times? No. But at this point, in the aftermath of a full on raid, I am thinking that maybe he is not in the mood to deal gently with those who say they are “just gonna leave.”


The “questioned as if I had something to hide” line is particularly amusing. As far as the officers know _he does_! They are trying to figure out if he is the bad guy they are looking for, right? Or if he knows the guy or is friends with him, right? It sounds like normal police questioning to me. Should the officers just immediately accept the first answer given by everyone they find at the location of a raid? “Oh, ok, you say you aren’t the bad guy? Ok, on your way then.” Sounds bit daft, doesn’t it.


Kicking in doors is bad during a raid? Should they have knocked instead? “Knock knooooock. It’s the cops. Any bad guys in there?”


He says, "I also understand that the freedoms afforded to all of us in the Constitution were meant specifically for times like these. Our freedoms were carved out during times of strife by people who were facing brutal injustices, and were intended specifically so that this nation would behave differently in such times. If our freedoms crumble exactly when they are needed most, then they were really never freedoms at all."


Let's look at these statements. Yes, our freedoms are even more important during times of strife. They were carved out by thoughtful men, having lived through the strife, in times of peace (confusion, yes, but still peace) after the war. A simple misstatement on his part, I expect.
I do not think that an hour and a half of detention is an outright abrogation of his rights. Was he released upon verification of his identity and circumstances? Yep, he sure was. He was even apologized to for the trouble. He speculates that the other patrons and employees were not. Not that he actually knows this, but it makes a nice tag to put on that part of the story about the evil g-men.


Apparently it was a mistake. What sort of mistake? Wrong address? Wrong people? What did the evil g-men think they were doing that evening? Just out wilding? I doubt it. I expect that they thought they were going into a place that had some connection to either some criminals or some terrorists. Anybody want to take a bet on that?


All in all, it sucks that this guy was bothered. Then again, what would he be saying if they had found a terrorist in the back of the restaurant? Would he still be upset or would he be damn glad these guys did their job that night?


The problem is we cannot have it no way at all. We have to find a way to balance an egregious need to be able to protect ourselves from people who use our freedoms against us, and to safeguard those very freedoms from being trampled in overzealous attempts to do same. I do not know how to fix it. All I know is that, while I may be pissed if this happened to me, I would eventually understand that the agents prosecuting this war on terror are not out to get me.

Unless, of course, I am doing the bad things they are trying to prevent.


Yes, it is scary. It will take wise people to finally figure it out, I expect.