Writing over 150 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville noted that Americans "are always ready to jettison liberty in the slightest storm." The tragic events of 9/11 provided that storm. On Oct. 26, 2001, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, relying on the rhetoric of "patriotism" to silence opposition virtually without debate. The sole dissenting voter in the Senate received death threats. The justification offered for this Act, which stood in explicit violation of constitutional principles, was the "state of war" resulting from the attacks. Even disregarding the lack of precedent for construing an act of terrorism as an act of war, the claim becomes increasingly dubious with temporal distance. President Bush has done everything in his power to keep Americans in a constant state of fear in order to legitimize the continued violation of basic civil liberties. The "terror alert" system, which serves no ostensible public purpose outside of terrorizing the American populace, is one such mechanism; dichotomizing political rhetoric is another. In his recent State of the Union Address, Bush continued his fear-mongering trend, remarking, "It is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting-and false." Gee, George, thanks for the comforting words.

Ironically, however, it was within this very speech that President Bush undermined the already tenuous constitutional ground on which the PATRIOT Act supposedly stood. By demanding that Congress make the Act's provisions permanent, he exposed the fallacy of their justification as necessary for the "emergencies of war." We should be very wary of granting Mr. Bush carte blanche with our civil liberties by condoning a permanent state of war. If Americans have learned anything from the disastrous War on Drugs and the equally laughable War on Poverty, it is that declaring war on abstract phenomena is a self-defeating endeavor. The War on Terror will never end. It is for this reason that Americans need to be particularly vigilant about their civil liberties, and intensely skeptical of "national security."

Inscribed in the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty are Benjamin Franklin's words: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Americans would like to believe that their government is looking out for their best interests. The actions of the current administration render that hope increasingly naïve. Power's perpetual tendency towards despotism renders the government particularly disposed to the violation of civil liberties. Hence, Justice Jackson's observations, "It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the governmen from falling into error."

On April 24, 2002, the Town of Amherst passed a resolution opposing the USA PATRIOT Act, affirming Amherst's commitment to the protection of civil liberties. It became the third community nationwide to pass such a resolution. In the intervening two years, resolutions have been passed in 257 communities in 38 states, including three statewide resolutions. Both Los Angeles and New York City have recently joined the list of those in opposition. Taken together, these communities represent approximately 43.5 million people. In the face of this overwhelming opposition, you might expect the Bush administration to react by reconciling the most egregious provisions of the Act with the judicious strictures of the Constitution. Far from it.

Last February, Attorney General John Ashcroft introduced a draft for legislation that has since been dubbed "PATRIOT II." This beauty, instead of seeking to reign in the vast overstepping of Constitutional boundaries perpetrated in the original Act, actually attempts to entrench many of the most insidious sections while proceeding of its own accord to violate still more civil liberties. Section 501, for example, would grant the government unprecedented power to revoke the citizenship of American citizens, if they give even financial support to an organization the State Department arbitrarly labels "terrorist."

Americans should be deeply resistant to any effort to abridge their freedoms, but particularly so given the attitude of the current regime. Thus far the Bush administration's track record on truth falls something short of reassuring. The evidence of illegitimacy tainting the Iraq campaign militates against placing trust in official claims. Hence, one should not be surprised to find the PATRIOT Act being employed in the prosecution of crimes bearing no relation to terrorism. Despite promises to the contrary, federal agents are again infiltrating protest groups and monitoring peaceful protests in a way eerily reminiscent of the days of COINTELPRO and the Red Scare.

You might ask yourself, do they really expect to get away with this? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. The Bush administration depends on the repression of dissent. Remember Ari Fleischer's disconcerting response to Bill Maher: "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that. There never is." In defending the PATRIOT Act against detractors concerned about its sweeping provisions, Ashcroft did not debate the merit of their claims, instead choosing to label them terrorists. "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid the terrorists."

Now is the time for Amherst College to descend from its privileged perch at the top of the hill and unite with the greater community. We need to reclaim patriotism from those who call it obedience. Come to the Amherst College Community Forum on the USA PATRIOT Act, today at 7:30pm in the Red Room. The discussion will be moderated by Professors Barry O'Connell and Martha Umphrey.