Shahid Buttar is the executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, a grassroots organization that defends the rights and freedoms challenged by national security and counter-terrorism policies. Buttar responds to the four-year extension to the PATRIOT Act, signed into law by President Obama last week.
President Obama was quoted as saying, “It’s an important tool for us to continue dealing with an ongoing terrorist threat,” of the PATRIOT Act. Does this surprise you?
It doesn’t surprise me only because I’ve unfortunately grown to expect this from President Obama. Change we can believe in hasn’t come to pass. President Obama has expanded executive power, and the PATRIOT Act is a cornerstone of that foundation. In the national security arena – what little we do know because so much is secret – abuses constitutional rights.
Do you think President Obama’s stance on these types of policies has changed over the years?
Without a doubt. Until about a week ago, we had a YouTube clip of the president speaking about the Bush administration and the PATRIOT Act in 2008. The clip is diametrically opposed to what he’s doing now. He spoke of restoring liberty and security, and this idea that we didn’t have to trade liberties for security.
His statement now about how it’s an important tool in dealing with ongoing terrorism threats suggests that we must give things up to ensure security. Even if it were true, it would still be an indefensible statement to make.
What concerns you the most about this extension?
There’s never been a debate about this law. No one has ever really read it and no one has ever debated it. It was passed the first time in a rush, so no one had time to read the act as it’s thousands of pages long.
But since then, it’s been reauthorized numerous times, and there’s a very tepid – not at all exploratory – process around it. The kind of stuff that Congress is supposed to do is never done when it comes to the PATRIOT Act.
What do you think has created that type of climate?
Congress – just party dynamic, the speed of media cycle – few people will still be talking about this in a week. Americans don’t always have historic memories. The fears put forth by the Bush and Obama administrations that it keeps us safe.
I think the name of the PATRIOT Act itself plays a role, like you’re unpatriotic if you don’t support it. And Obama said as much when he was running, which is why it’s so mystifying.
There are political factors – he doesn’t want to be the president to let 9/11 happen again. It does reflect a failure of the president to implement the mandate he spoke of and promised.
Do you think any of the wiretapping and search capabilities allowed by the PATRIOT Act have kept the U.S. safe since 9/11?
No. It’s actually counterproductive. Information overload is a problem. In particular, the idea is that there are legit tips that get lost in the haystack.
The underwear-bomber was flagged by his own dad, but somehow that slipped through the cracks. And in the first of Mumbai attacks, he was flagged by his wife to American authorities. But he still shows up and hundreds of people die.
If the intelligence community wasn’t inundated by all of this information, tips like that would’ve been able to make it through.
Do you think Osama bin Laden’s death made it easier to pass an extension of the PATRIOT Act?
I fear that it would’ve happened anyways. Why did we adopt it in the first place? It was this figure of bin Laden being out there and we had to find him. But since then, the network has been shattered. So can we have our Fourth Amendment back please? Apparently not. And bin Laden had not yet been found in February when this passed through Congress, so I fear it would’ve happened if he was found or not.
