Attorney General John Ashcroft's USA PATRIOT Act and its possible negative affect on UNM and other college students were explored in a panel discussion that included students, School of Law faculty and representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico Monday.
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 was only one of the topics, many having to do with the erosion of civil liberties since Sept. 11, explored by panelists and audience members at the UNM School of Law.
The panel discussion, sponsored by the Alliance for Justice, was conducted to mark First Monday, a nine-year-old event that examines the current condition of civil liberties in the United States. The annual event, which takes place on the first Monday of October and is mostly observed at college campuses across the country, coincides with the opening day of the U.S. Supreme Court.
A group of about 35 people attended the panel discussion, which featured Peter Simonson, executive director of the New Mexico Union of the ACLU, and Tova Indritz, a criminal defense attorney and board member of the New Mexico Union of the ACLU. Tim Canova, UNM associate professor of law, mediated the discussion.
Before the discussion, audience members viewed the documentary film "Of Rights & Wrongs: The Threat to America's Freedoms," a movie examining past and present civil rights abuses.
The film featured several personal stories and video clips of Attorney General John Ashcroft defending the USA PATRIOT Act.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Brian Egolf, a first year UNM law student and former legislative aide to Congressman Tom Udall (D-NM), spoke about his experience with the USA PATRIOT Act while working in Washington, D.C.
Egolf said the manner in which the act was passed through Congress was "a process that I believe was totally undemocratic."
The act, which was introduced to address law enforcement's problems with investigating security-related issues after Sept. 11, gives government officials a much greater authority to track and intercept communications and information for both law enforcement and foreign intelligence gathering purposes.
Egolf said that although the House Judiciary Committee approved the original bill by a unanimous vote, Ashcroft and others used a legal tactic to swap the text of the bill so it gave the Justice Department the broadest possible range of freedom in investigating terrorism. The bill was eventually approved by Congress and signed into law by President George Bush Oct. 26, 2001.
Indritz' presentation focused on some of the changes caused by the USA PATRIOT Act that could have an affect on University students across the nation.
She said a particular area of the law that should cause students concern is in section 507, where it states that the government can request education records of students without them ever knowing their private information had been obtained. Previously, she said, the system had checks on these types of searches including warrants and approval by a judge if there was a legitimate cause for concern, but now, she said, because of the act, the courts have become a rubber stamp for any government investigation.
Indritz also expressed concern for the government preventing immigrants from becoming citizens because it believes they may commit a crime in the future, which punishes an individual for a crime they have not yet committed.
Simonson, the executive director for the New Mexico Union of the ACLU, presented a different component of the loss of civil liberties since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. He discussed government's seemingly point-blank racial profiling of Muslims in America that he said has been proven not to be an effective tool of policing.
"Despite what you may hear, this is not a police technique," Simonson said.
He added that it is a technique used to suppress elements of the population that may speak out against the government.
After the panelists' presentations, audience members spoke about possible violations of the First Amendment by the federal government and asked how the USA PATRIOT Act can be removed from law.
Simonson said the act could be defeated in both the judicial courts and in society by protesting against it and by voting against the public officials that created and endorsed it.
Indritz added that public forums, such as the First Monday panel discussion, can also be used to educate Americans about abuses of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by government officials.
But, both said that it could take years for courts to declare laws unconstitutional.
Simonson and Indritz both said the imprisonment of citizens without trials and the suppression of First Amendment rights are some of the most important political concerns in the country now because those devices can prevent the entire democratic process from properly functioning.
"If you don't have democratic mechanisms for the purpose to change policy, then you are not going to be able to change policies on all the other issues," Indritz said.
Simonson added that a bill that came before the N.M. Legislature last year had similar components of the patriot act, including a broad definition of terrorism, but was not passed.
However, they said, there will be a similar bill that will be heard during the upcoming 60-day legislative session, beginning in the middle of January. Both said that citizens concerned with a New Mexico bill defining terrorism should contact their representatives to voice their opinions.
