Resolved: The Patriot Act is Necessary for National Security.

[ce...@yale.edu]

YALE POLITICAL UNION
FLOOR MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2005 - LC 102

The Speaker calls the meeting to order at 7:17 pm.

The chairmen make their announcements.

The President thanks everyone for coming despite rain. Welcomes the
night's guest, Mr. Jeff Jacoby. He has been with the Boston Globe
since 1994. Graduated from George Washington University and Boston
University. Will talk about the Patriot Act, which passed unanimously
in 2001. Is this necessary for national security? Is it worth the
rights we give up?

The President of the Yale Political Union moves the topic Resolved: The
Patriot Act is Necessary for National Security.

Mr. Jacoby says that he didn't realize that the avian flu could solve
our problems (in reference to the Progressive Party's resolution)!
Begins by talking about liberty and slippery slopes. The Patriot Act
passed 6 weeks after 9/11, nearly unanimously. Only Senator Feingold
of Wisconsin voted against it. He said he wanted to uphold
constitutional guarantees. Says that we're on a slippery slope to a
police state. During the Civil War, 13,000 civilians were arrested.
During WWII, Roosevelt ordered many people to be arrested: Japanese,
German, Italian. The Alien Sedition Act and the arrests of protestors
during the Vietnam War are other examples of ways that civil liberties
have been denied. Feingold says that the deadly temptation to
undermine civil liberties during war should be avoided. The ACLU
claims that the FBI can spy on someone for bad reasons. On 9/11,
Barlow sent an email that predicted that control freaks will dine out
on this day every year. US history proves the opposite. When
threatened, balance moves towards security, but it always goes back.
In fact, more civil liberties are given afterwards. The 13th, 14th,
and 15th Amendments made us freer than before Civil War. McCarthyism
and Vietnam War were followed by greatest expansion of civil liberties.
When this war is over, balance will be recalibrated. What's the
truth about Patriot Act? It's very long and very little is objected
to. Even the ACLU says that most of it is fine. Before 9/11,
government powers to investigate terrorists were very limited. Had the
Patriot Act been there before 9/11, it might have saved many lives.
Section 213 is about "sneak and peek". Allows searches without
notifying person being searched. Section 215 allows investigators to
get library records. Some said that it is against the privacy rights.
But, FBI can get "tangible evidence" only with judicial oversight.
Investigations conducted under this section can't be conducted solely
by activities protected under 1st Amendment. Section has been used
only 35 times and never for library records. Anyway, library records
shouldn't be off limits. They've been used to solve cases before.
The 9/11 terrorists used library computers. National security letters
are like Section 215 but without judicial oversight. The Patriot Act
could be improved. It's not perfect. Context which law was passed
is that US is at war...a real war, not a metaphor. Unless attacks are
prevented, it will happen again. Patriot Act is about prevention, not
prosecution. Full spectrum of civil liberties is not appropriate when
state is trying to prevent an attack. Greatest threat of civil
liberties is not the Patriot Act after 9/11, but the Patriot Act that
will pass after the next 9/11. When it happens again, people will
demand a crackdown on liberties. More people will want to curb the
liberties of Muslims. Yes, it restricts liberties slightly, but
we're not on a slippery slope. Enemy would wipe out all our
liberties if it gets the chance to do so.

Mr. Will Wilson brings up Section 412, which allows indefinite
detention and the suspension of habeas corpus. Problems with this?
Jacoby: there's no provision that suspends habeas corpus.
Wilson: *reads Section 4.12*
Jacoby: Explains that aliens don't have the right to habeas corpus.
Not controversial...never been invoked, it just restates existing law.

Ms. Zhang has a problem with Patriot Act's definition of
terrorist...how would Mr. Jacoby change definition of terrorist?
Jacoby: agrees that it's not clear-cut. Sometimes it's not
resolved until after Congress and courts massage it after a while.

The Chairman of the Party of the Right asks what are the risks of the
Patriot Act.
Jacoby: National Security letters are a problem. There's always a
risk of government going too far. Always possible for any law to be
abused and used for wrong purpose. Doesn't know if there are dangers
specific to Patriot Act that don't apply to other laws.

Ms. Shari Wiseman asks what the librarians are so upset about?
Librarians don't get riled up...what happened?
Jacoby: says that the former Speaker is wonderfully naïve. The
librarians that are in power are not like the librarians that we all
love.

The President of the Yale Political Union moves that we thank Mr.
Jacoby for a fine speech on the floor of the Yale Political Union.

Speaking in the negative, Ms. Elizabeth Broomfield says that it's
impossible to know how authentic the Patriot Act has been...most
information has been classified. Doesn't think that the whole Act is
unnecessary...just some parts. Just because we've been in wars in
the past and civil liberties have been taken away, doesn't mean
it's ok now. Librarians are upset because 4th Amendment is
undermined. It's very easy to get a reason for a search. Government
had authority to prosecute anyone that had probable cause to commit a
crime. According to Section 206, government can tap into computers.
For example, it can tap into a computer in a Yale library, even if
suspect isn't using it. Section 206 is unnecessary violation of our
rights. Hundreds of cases of Patriot Act being used for unrelated
things. Many will argue that we should sacrifice rights to fight
terrorism...not totally against that idea. Patriot Act goes too far.
The government took advantage of 9/11. Terrorists feed off of fear,
but our government shouldn't.

Mr. Will Britt asks how the police usually get a warrant.
Broomfield: police has to show probable cause. Court can't deny
their request as long as it is fashioned so it has to do with
terrorism.

Next in the affirmative, is Mr. Jamie Kirchick. Talks about the UOC
cult and says that he is happy with aldermanic election results. Since
9/11, 150 terrorist cells have been destroyed. 2/3 of known Al Qaeda
leaders have been captured. Many have been charged. Doesn't see us
being like a police state. Only time that it might have gone too far
was in a scene from that "fat slob's" film, Fahrenheit 9/11.
When it comes to privacy issues, you have nothing to hide. Maybe if
you're checking out the DaVinci code and are embarrassed (which you
should be), then you might have a problem with it. But, government
doesn't have the time to go look at your library records...sorry,
you're not threatening. Library records are government property
anyway.

Mr. Ben Shaffer asks about the causality and the role of military
intelligence in statistics.
Kirchick: Patriot Act aided in those arrests, but not solely because of
it. Military intelligence helped. But the first statistic is more
important. We don't have right to say that Patriot Act hasn't done
anything.

The Executive Director of Development likes to think she has nothing to
hide, but parents were affected by McCarthyism. The Patriot Act is a
step towards that and it's scary.
Kirchick: clause in Patriot Act defines terror activity as conduct that
violates law. Were your parents communists?

Mr. Dave Kasten says that in America, you should have the right to
advocate a coup as long as you don't violently do it...why should
government investigate me?
Kirchick: you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Supreme Court
has had to curtail speech in the past.

In the negative, Ms. Rachel Homer says that Patriot Act passed
unanimously because it was passed in a very short time and they
didn't have time to read it. Not fair. This war isn't like any
other war. No clear end...so Patriot Act doesn't have clear end.
Patriot Act isn't worth it. No checks and balances. Government has
right to search library records, but libraries aren't allowed to tell
you. Can't see if government is overstepping what it's supposed to
do. Don't need probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Judge
can't deny warrant...not a request, it's a formality. Police
shouldn't tell you about searches beforehand, but they should tell
you afterwards. If you're looking for a stolen car, you can look in
driveway, but not drawers. Restrictions on wire taps were lessened by
Patriot Act. We do need information sharing and should compromise some
liberties, but not to this extent.

Mr. Jay Schweikert asks Ms. Homer for horrible negative examples from
history.
Homer: McCarthyism...government used this to ruin lives of civilians.

The Floorleader of the Left asks Ms. Homer to comment on Mr.
Kirchick's speech.
Homer: as to Mr. Kirchick's statistics, how does he know that they
aren't made up? Just because a lot has happened, doesn't mean
it's because of Patriot Act. Has he heard of Guantanamo Bay. Even
if we have nothing to hide, we have a right to privacy...it's
implied. Controversial in areas like abortion, other times, it's
clear.

The Floorleader of the Right gives a short speech in the affirmative.
Apologizes for attire. Doesn't think that finding someone's library
records has been the primary evidence that has led to conviction.
It's used as a secondary thing. When we read records and find that
they're clean, should we tell them? Doesn't see why government
with an ongoing investigation should give information to the
investigated. I LOVE JAMIE KIRCHICK!!!

The President asked if there should be any check on what government can
look at?
FLR: doesn't care if government wants to look at records...they can
have them all! There's been a lot of negativity towards our
government tonight...still needs people to tell him what's so wrong.
When he sees Arabs being rounded up for reading Dr. Seuss, then he'll
have a problem.

Mr. Matt Grant asks the FLR to explain trust in government on issues of
national security, but not with taxes.
FLR: it's about the job of the government. Doesn't think job of
government is to do foolish things with taxes. Bu,t thinks security is
important and part of the job.

Closing Remarks: Mr. Jeff Jacoby
When he gets back, he'll look up Section 412 and become an expert
before he comes back. Broomfield made point that we shouldn't be
complacent. Agrees with her. But, we aren't doing that...we're
having lots of debates! Even as it was being rushed, we weren't
being complacent. Much talk about 4th amendment. Key word in it is
"unreasonable". Prohibits unreasonable searches without warrant.
Reasonable searches are allowed. There is no 4th Amendment privacy
expectation when you've included a 3rd party. You've given up your
privacy so 4th amendment doesn't apply. Exceptions are doctor,
spouse, priest in confessional, but there's no librarian patron
exception. I love Jamie Kirchick too! If you haven't done anything
to be ashamed of, you shouldn't worry. But it could be taken too
far. If another 9/11 happens, there will be a demand on a crackdown on
freedom. That's what happens when people are threatened.

In the negative, Mr. Will Wilson says that there's a reason we have a
constitution. Whether or not there have been abuses or we're aware
of them, that has nothing to do with our fussing. We're talking
about values and traditions. They're there to protect us against
ourselves. Our ancestors bled into the earth! We made constitution
difficult to change because of cowards. Doesn't object to
interdepartmental communication. Defends safeguards against abuse.
Hoover's FBI is recent. We can't forget our past. We shouldn't
wait for abuses to fuss. How often do abuses have to happen for us to
learn? We need protection against the government!

Mr. Aaron Margolis asks Mr. Wilson to talk about the other wars we're
fighting: drugs, cancer, etc.
Wilson: whenever he has seen a war with abstract clause, bad things
happen!

Mr. Schweikert says that it was worse before...why is it a problem now.
Wilson: if he had been alive in those time periods, he'd be angrier.

Speaking in the affirmative, Mr. Kasten tells the body to read
Jacoby's latest column about privacy...very good! Ms. Homer's
notion about people being pressured to vote is disturbing. It's
really bad if they couldn't stand up for what they really believed.
Why can't elected representatives stand up for what they believe?
There are unknown things out there that we don't know that we don't
know????? *brains implode* When people on the right argue that these
provisions are there already they don't mean that we already don't
care about liberties so "let's keep on rolling". It's useful
to compare this to things like drugs and mafia. Some flaws, but it's
not too bad.

The President asks how representatives can make a good decision if
they're not given time to read about it?
Kasten: Patriot Act was set of measures that was advocated for years.
Provisions have been passed around all the time. Maybe they realized
that they should change their mind. Changing situations advocate
different measures.

Wilson: do changing situations demand changing principles?
Kasten: that's an exaggeration.

The Vice President asks for brief presentation on who's fault it is
that they didn't read it?
Kasten: we all should know that congressmen don't read all of the
bills. They should take a day to make sure someone doesn't slip in a
clause to reinstate $2 bill.

The Chairman of the Conservative Party moves the previous question.
Motion fails.

The next speech in the negative is given by Mr. Silas Kulkarni. Not
going to convince people to not give up liberties. There is no end to
war on terror. Understands suspension in a normal war, but not in an
indefinite war...that changes constitution. Things that people wanted
passed for other things, were passed with Patriot Act. Patriot Act
can't be viewed outside of light of things that have happened:
citizens being held indefinitely and called enemies of the state.

The Floorleader of the Right is worried that Mr. Kulkarni implies that
government will search everyone. Why isn't it ok to have a couple of
people monitored, while most of us aren't?
Kulkarni: We need equality, not different categories of "citizen".
This isn't going to be used on just suspects. Left wing activists
have been spied on.

In the affirmative, Mr. Alexander Gregath talks about the grand jury.
It sort of has same ideology. In a grand jury, there is a closed-door
process: prosecution presents case for person that's not defended.
This has happened for centuries. Subpoenas are issued all the time.
Wanted to compare that to problems people had with Patriot Act.

Mr. William Cass asks how it follows that one abuse justifies another
abuse?
Gregath: but this isn't considered an abuse. It's a respected
legal tradition.

Mr. Allen Bristow says that since we already have provision, is Patriot
Act unnecessary?
Gregath: no...it's analogous, but not the same thing.

Mr. Wilson says that Hillary Clinton has shown her fascist
qualities...wouldn't you be scared of President Hillary Clinton with
the Patriot Act?
Gregath: just Pres. Hillary Clinton gives me hives...

The final speech of the night is in the negative and given by a
gentleman with a Malcolm X t-shirt. Completely against Mr.
Kirchick's speech. Right after 9/11, 2 or 3 thousand Arabs were
arrested and deported. A lot of it has to do with Patriot Act. There
is a massive exodus of Arabs because of Patriot Act. Abuses are
happening and will happen in the future. Constant harassment. Search
for KKK on Google. You'll find that people say that MLK cheated on
his wife with white women: it's an FBI rumor. People that went to
communist meeting were sent to jail. For a long time, it was illegal
to be gay. People were investigated for being gay. Hypothetical
situation: someone has power to find info. And that person is the VP!
Says, hmmm, this guy wrote something against my administration. Calls
up guy in CIA, Joseph Wilson...etc.

Mr. Gregath asks if deportations were of legal citizens. Doesn't see
problem with deportation of illegal immigrants.
Gentleman: but it's not fair because they just looked for illegal
Arabs.

The Chairman of the Independent Party reminds the gentleman that he
promised to mention Malcolm X.
Gentleman: If someone checks out his autobiography, does that mean the
person supports his ideas?

Mr. Will Wilson moves the previous question.

With a vote of:
Affirmative: 11
Negative: 20

The motion clearly fails.

The Chairman of the Conservative Party moves that we adjourn.

Respectfully submitted,
Maria Gabriela Orochena
Secretary of the Yale Political Union