Perhaps the most sweeping piece of legislation enacted in decades, the USA PATRIOT act passed almost unanimously in both houses of Congress without debate or discussion. Signed as it was just six weeks after the attacks of September 11th, most Americans saw the act as a swift response to these events, authorizing money to rebuild and to prevent similar attacks in the future.

Though the ACLU and others continue to object to the PATRIOT act on grounds it violates the first and fourth amendments of the constitution, national debate has been as limited as that in Congress. In countless publicized polls, Americans stated by wide margins that they would gladly "give up some civil liberties in exchange for security." It remains unclear, though, exactly what freedoms Americans planned to sacrifice. On the airwaves and in the public imagination, the phrase "loss of civil liberties" described little more than closer inspections at airport terminals and a requirement to show identification upon entering office buildings. Issues of due process like the weakening of lawyer-client confidentiality, and privacy violations like disclosures to the government of personal financial and even genetic information, never came up.

According to Baltimore lawyer, activist, and author C. William Michaels, misperceptions abound as to what the PATRIOT act really contains. In his new book No Greater Threat: America after September 11 and the Rise of a National Security State, Michaels debunks myths about the act and outlines its serious implications for the United States.

Michaels writes that the public sees the act as a limited set of provisions increasing security of public spaces. We're told it will "sunset" or become inactive, in 2005, an untruth which contributes to the perception of the act an emergency measure. In fact, only selected portions of one of the act's ten titles are designed to sunset at all. (In one striking example, federal powers to search and seize records are greatly expanded by the PATRIOT act, provided only that such documents have something to do with any national security investigation. This change in policy is permanent. Meanwhile, the act's clause that allows for civil liablity to reclaim damages incurred by such seizures expires in 2005.) And, contrary to popular belief, the act is extensive, granting broad surveillance, prosecutorial, and intelligence powers to federal investigators. It touches on many aspects of even everyday life in the United States and alters or amends more than a dozen of previous statutes dealing with banking, communications, national security, and trade.

Provocatively, Michaels asserts--and provides evidence in the form of citations of previous legislation--that "the Act is a 'wish list' of powers long sought by federal law enforcement and investigative agencies, chiefly the FBI and CIA." Most of the PATRIOT act was not written in direct response to the attacks, but cobbled together from proposals already in the works. It appears that the executive branch used September 11th to give itself powers it always wanted but never would have been granted otherwise. This power grab is just part of what Michaels sees as the United States' move toward becoming a national security state: a pattern that began over 20 years ago but that took a giant leap forward with the PATRIOT act and related executive orders.

The crux of No Greater Threat is a detailed, title by title explication of the entire PATRIOT act and what its provisions actually mean. While this might sound like a dry read to the general audience, in fact the analysis is fascinating and frightening. How many of us know, for example, that under the new laws any illegal alien determined to be "engaged in any...activity that endangers the United States," whatever that might mean, can be held indefinitely (in a series of renewable six-month periods) without being criminally charged? Or that a financial institution must now include, in the job references of all employees, any suspicion they might have that the employee was involved in a potentially unlawful activity?

That such provisions did not inspire controversy is near-incredible, even with members of Congress eager to throw support behind the president at all costs. One wonders whether the act would have passed so quickly had anyone bothered to read it remotely as closely as Michaels. The act's passing, Michaels writes, paves the way for the United States' emergence as a national security state. No Greater Threat lists twelve aspects of such a state, including "visible increase in uniformed security personnel," "limited accountability of law enforcement and security officers," and "increased surveillance of citizenry," and explains how, and to what degree, these are becoming features of life in the United States. The author identified the criteria by looking at governments of national security states around the world, including North Korea and Uganda. While Michaels acknowledges that the United States might never become so overt a security state as these, the extent to which it is beginning to fit the bill is obvious. Readers will easily recognize many criteria in the national culture, including media in the service of the state (media conglomeration providing constant coverage but not accurate information), a surge in patriotism leading to nationalism (ubiquity of the American flag, refusal to think critically about what might have motivated the attacks), and the continued momentum of threat (the government's repeated warnings that "another terrorist attack will undoubtably take place").

Throughout, "No Greater Threat" emphasizes that to prevent becoming a national security state Americans need to start see themselves as global citizens. Michaels writes, "in the modern era, our most fundamental and evident 'citizenship' is as a member of the global community." He notes that the United Nations called for the Taliban to produce Osama bin Laden in 1999, three years before Bush did the same thing--without acknowledging the previous demand. The United Nations has consistently issued conventions and declarations condemning all acts of terrorism as criminal and calling for measures to stop them. However, without the backing of the United States, the United Nations has had little leverage to carry out these measures.

Americans see little about the United Nations on the news, except perhaps when it votes on U.S. resolutions in the security council, Michaels writes, and Americans know even less about the International Court of Justice, or World Court. If we were better informed, we would know that if the United Nations is ineffective, as the U.S. government claims, it is primarily because the U.S. and other powerful states have withheld financial and other support.

This claim that becoming a true part of the international community is key to preventing repression is increasingly supported by events involving the United States. In just one example, when the administration declared the suspected al-Qaeda members held in Guantanamo Bay unlawful combatants, rather than prisoners of war, only international outrage finally forced the U.S. to admit these prisoners had rights to protection under the Geneva convention. Should Americans acquiesce to grant sweeping powers to an executive branch so willing to disregard what the world considers the most basic human rights, a government that calls itself the protector of freedoms but freely flouts them as soon as it feels threatened?

Perhaps the biggest danger in bestowing emergency powers upon the executive is that they are very rarely relinquished after the emergency is over (1). To be sure, the executive has no incentive to do so without extreme pressure, and people rapidly become too used to the way things are to fight for the reinstatement of liberties. But this is just what will have to happen, as Michaels writes that "whether and to what extent America will become a national security state will be decided in a very short time: within the next three, no more than five, years." No Greater Threat is an essential reference for those who will be involved in the struggle to make sure it does not.
-----------

1. Arato, Andrew. "The Bush Tribunals and the Specter of Dictatorship." Constellations volume 9, number 4 (2002). 466-467.


C. William Michaels is an attorney and writer living in Towson. Involved with social issues and organizations for more than 30 years, Michaels is a former Justice and Peace Coordinator with the Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore and hosted radio and television programs.

No Greater Threat: America after September 11 and the Rise of a National Security State is available from Algora Publishing.

For writing by Chuck Michaels on enhancements to the USA PATRIOT Act see baltimore.indymedia.org/feature/display/3141/index.php
--------------