[ Website Home | List of Articles ]
Category: Constitutional Rights
Content:
Runaway Train: The True Story of the U.S. Patriot Act
By Martha Lynn, AlterNet. Posted September 27, 2004.
A new film, 'Unconstitutional,' sheds some needed light on the law
that went out of control.
While many people have heard of the Patriot Act, very few - including
the congresspeople who voted for it – have any idea what it actually says.
Is the Act a reasonable and logical application of the law to protect us
from terrorism, as Colorado Governor Bill Owens said in a recent ACLU debate,
or it an excessive and arbitrary curtailing of our civil liberties? A new film, "Unconstitutional: The War on Our Civil Liberties" – executive
produced by Robert Greenwald ("Outfoxed" and "Uncovered") and written,
produced and directed by Nonny de la Peña – jumps into the debate,
providing the viewer with a detailed on-the-ground exploration of the
ramifications of the notorious act.
Passed in the panicked aftermath of September 11, 2001, the Patriot Act w
as quickly fast-tracked through Congress at the urging of
Attorney General John Ashcroft. The film explains that while there was
a similar bipartisan anti-terrorism bill that Congress unanimously supported,
a handful of the government's “top men” switched the bill at the eleventh hour,
leaving Congress members with virtually no time to read the 342 page document
before hastily passing the bill into law.
Following the Patriot Act's history, the film highlights the many draconian ways
that the law invites infringement of the very civil liberties that set the
United States apart from other nations. The film views the Patriot Act
as a runaway train: unexpected, terrifying, and completely out of control. I
n between personal testimonies, legal explanations, and evidence of the act's misapplication, the film packs a large amount of information into one hour,
leaving at least this viewer dizzy from the intensity.
The narration of "Unconstitutional" continually brings the viewer back
to the actual language of the Bill of Rights and emphasizes how the
Patriot Act places many of those rights in jeopardy. While the film
strongly contrasts the chasm between the dejure language of the Constitution
and the defacto post 9/11 political reality, it does so by also idealizing
the intentions of the Constitution's original framers. Throughout the film,
patriotic montages of the founding fathers and the Statue of Liberty accompany
sweeping orchestrated music and excerpts of the actual Constitution.
Presumably, the intention is to emphasize the spirit of democracy, freedom,
and equality with which the founding fathers framed US law. This harkening
back to the “good ol' days” over idealized the framers' intentions-forgetting the institutions of slavery, women as property, and class divisions these
documents were based on. This is an understandable political strategy, but
in simplifying the complexity of the original constitution and bill of rights,
the film loses a small bit of its credibility.
Perhaps in deference to the importance of election year politics, George W. Bush,
Dick Cheney, and John Ashcroft are depicted as the primary group determined
to overrun the rights of US American citizens. While there may be more than
a grain of truth to this, pitting these “evil men” against the “valiant”
Congress and the US public not only romanticizes the latter two, but also
fails to take into account the increasingly extremist tendencies of the
US Republican party as a whole.
Yet these oversimplifications don't overshadow the film's compelling argument:
the Patriot Act was indeed ushered into law before Congress could carefully
consider its consequences and without any mechanisms for public intervention.
The result is that while the US is no safer than it was before September 11th,
this legislation has enacted legal changes that not only target possible
“terrorists” but also criminalize almost any U.S. citizen who dissents.
The many personal narratives in the film add a rich texture to these
bare bone facts about the Patriot Act and illustrate who really pays for
this reactionary and discriminatory legislation: immigrants, people of color,
and potentially every single US citizen.
Overall, "Unconstitutional" presents a long overdue and detailed-not just
topical-examination of the actual text and ramifications of the law, something
that has been largely missing from mainstream media, and even other recent
political documentaries. At a time when the “Patriot Act 2” is being quietly
reintroduced in Congress, "Unconstitutional" is a desperately needed tool
that can educate the US public about the real and often hidden consequences
of the Patriot Act.
Martha Lynn is a freelance writer and Production Editor of Parallax Press.
She did her graduate work on media representation of the Patriot Act.