The Rice Thresher

Location: http://the.ricethresher.org/news/2005/04/15/acluamnestyinternationalpatriotactdebate

April 15, 2005 > News > ACLU, Amnesty host debate on Patriot Act, civil liberties

ACLU, Amnesty host debate on Patriot Act, civil liberties

By Sarah Taylor | Thresher staff

About 50 students joined representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union’s Houston chapter and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in a debate Tuesday about the Patriot Act, discussing its effectiveness, constitutionality and effects on civil liberties.

Political Science Professor Richard Stoll moderated the debate between Alamdar Hamdani, a member of the ACLU-Houston board, and Abe Martinez, an assistant to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The event was sponsored by Rice’s ACLU chapter and Rice Amnesty.

Both speakers delivered 15-minute speeches and gave brief rebuttals before answering students’ questions.

Hamdani said the Patriot Act violates civil liberties in several ways. He said the government creates confidential lists that keep targeted individuals from flying, and FBI agents can perform ‘sneak-and-peek’ searches of private homes or belongings without the owners’ knowledge.

Martinez said the Patriot Act is necessary to catch the ‘bad guys.’

‘There are tools I need to build a house [and] protect the community,’ Martinez said. ‘I can’t guarantee protection without those tools.’

Hamdani said the Patriot Act actually reduces citizens’ safety. He said while the act does not cause racism, it promotes discrimination against Muslims by allowing law enforcement officials to sidestep judicial review and due process.

‘Ninety-nine point nine percent of Muslims are not the bad guy,’ Hamdani said.

Martinez said no abuses of evidence collection have occurred as a result of the Patriot Act and said judges would throw out illegally obtained evidence.

However, Hamdani said no one knows whether abuses have occurred because judges are bound by a gag order from Section 215 of the act, which also allows courts to uncover private information — such as students’ academic records and library books they checked out — secretly and without a search warrant or probable cause.

Martel College freshman Sahil Gujral said he thinks Section 215 is absurd.

‘I want to know just how — either in conviction, investigation or any part of the legal process — does the fact that I have checked out a book relate to other people’s safety?’ Gujral asked.

Martinez said Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, used library books to learn how to make bombs. Hamdani said the climate created by the Patriot Act is similar to McCarthyism. He said the act leads to unsubstantiated lists of names that serve no legitimate purpose.

Hanszen College junior Craig Fratrik asked whether supporting the Patriot Act is an all-or-nothing proposition.

‘Should we be considering the Patriot Act as, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ or should we take the good parts and change the portions that aren’t good?’ Fratrik asked. Martinez said the act should not be changed, but Hamdani said the unconstitutional sections should be amended.

The most contentious part of the debate concerned religious privacy, drawing emotional responses from both the speakers and audience. Hamdani and audience members laughed in disagreement when Martinez asked, ‘Is it really wrong [for the government] to ask what mosque you go to?’

At times, the speakers snapped at one another, and members of the audience shouted questions out-of-turn.

Lovett College senior Jeb Britt said he was disappointed by the occasional incivility of the audience, but was pleased with the turnout.

‘The large crowd spoke well of Rice students’ political consciousness,’ Britt said.

Hanszen sophomore Prasheeda Bremjit said the debate was interesting.

‘It gave me a better idea of what the Patriot Act does and made me want to find out more,’ Bremjit said.

End of article

Back to top