tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/patriot-act-13659/articlesPatriot Act – The Conversation2021-09-07T20:10:09Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1661022021-09-07T20:10:09Z2021-09-07T20:10:09Z‘Fortress USA’: How 9/11 produced a military industrial juggernaut<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/419686/original/file-20210907-21-ahq1vn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=77%2C2%2C1757%2C1338&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">SAMIR MEZBAN/AP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since the September 11 terror attacks, there has been no hiding from the increased militarisation of the United States. Everyday life is suffused with policing and surveillance. This ranges from the inconvenient, such as removing shoes at the airport, to the dystopian, such as local police departments equipped with <a href="https://coloradosun.com/2020/07/07/colorado-police-military-equipment-protests/">decommissioned tanks too big</a> to use on regular roads.</p>
<p>This process of militarisation did not begin with 9/11. The American state has always relied on force combined with the de-personalisation of its victims. </p>
<p>The army, after all, dispossessed First Nations peoples of their land as <a href="https://nationalcowboymuseum.org/explore/served-u-s-army-frontier/">settlers pushed westward</a>. Expanding the American empire to places such as <a href="https://uncpress.org/book/9780807847428/the-war-of-1898/">Cuba</a>, <a href="https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/christopher-capozzola/bound-by-war/9781541618268/">the Philippines</a>, and <a href="https://uncpress.org/book/9780807849385/taking-haiti/">Haiti</a> also relied on force, based on racist justifications.</p>
<p>The military also ensured American supremacy in the wake of the second world war. As historian Nikhil Pal Singh writes, about <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520318304/race-and-americas-long-war">8 million people were killed in US-led or -sponsored wars</a> from 1945–2019 — and this is a conservative estimate. </p>
<p>When Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican and former military general, left the presidency in 1961, he famously <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg-jvHynP9Y">warned</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/26/eisenhower-called-it-military-industrial-complex-its-vastly-bigger-now/">against</a> the growing “military-industrial complex” in the US. His warning went unheeded and the protracted conflict in Vietnam was the result.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="General Dwight D. Eisenhower in second world war." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/419689/original/file-20210907-29-11c869q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/419689/original/file-20210907-29-11c869q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419689/original/file-20210907-29-11c869q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419689/original/file-20210907-29-11c869q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419689/original/file-20210907-29-11c869q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=586&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419689/original/file-20210907-29-11c869q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=586&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419689/original/file-20210907-29-11c869q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=586&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">General Dwight D. Eisenhower addresses American paratroopers prior to D-Day in the second world war.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia Commons</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The 9/11 attacks then intensified US militarisation, both at home and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/25/opinion/declaration-war-president-Congress.html">abroad</a>. George W. Bush was elected in late 2000 after campaigning to <a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-sep-13-mn-20152-story.html">reduce US foreign interventions</a>. The new president discovered, however, that by adopting the persona of a tough, pro-military leader, he could sweep away lingering doubts about the <a href="https://www.history.com/news/2000-election-bush-gore-votes-supreme-court">legitimacy of his election</a>.</p>
<p>Waging war on Afghanistan within a month of the twin towers falling, Bush’s popularity <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7814441.stm">soared to 90%</a>. War in Iraq, based on the dubious assertion of Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction”, soon followed.</p>
<h2>The military industrial juggernaut</h2>
<p>Investment in the military state is immense. 9/11 ushered in the federal, cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, with an <a href="https://www.stimson.org/sites/default/files/file-attachments/CT_Spending_Report_0.pdf">initial budget</a> in 2001-02 of US$16 billion. Annual budgets for the agency peaked at US$74 billion in 2009-10 and is now around <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/fy_2021_dhs_bib_web_version.pdf">US$50 billion</a>.</p>
<p>This super-department vacuumed up bureaucracies previously managed by a range of other agencies, including justice, transportation, energy, agriculture, and health and human services. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-is-it-so-difficult-to-fight-domestic-terrorism-6-experts-share-their-thoughts-165054">Why is it so difficult to fight domestic terrorism? 6 experts share their thoughts</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Centralising services under the banner of security has enabled gross miscarriages of justice. These include the separation of tens of thousands of children from parents at the nation’s southern border, done in the guise of protecting the country from so-called illegal immigrants. <a href="https://thehill.com/latino/567497-officials-still-looking-for-parents-of-337-separated-children-court-filing-says">More than 300</a> of the some 1,000 children taken from parents during the Trump administration have still not been reunited with family.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Detainees in a holding cell at the US-Mexico border." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/419690/original/file-20210907-17-aii3q0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/419690/original/file-20210907-17-aii3q0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419690/original/file-20210907-17-aii3q0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419690/original/file-20210907-17-aii3q0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419690/original/file-20210907-17-aii3q0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419690/original/file-20210907-17-aii3q0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419690/original/file-20210907-17-aii3q0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Detainees sleep in a holding cell where mostly Central American immigrant children are being processed at the US-Mexico border.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ross D. Franklin/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The post-9/11 Patriot Act also gave spying agencies <a href="https://www.vox.com/2015/6/2/8701499/patriot-act-explain">paramilitary powers</a>. The act reduced barriers between the CIA, FBI, and the National Security Agency (NSA) to permit the acquiring and sharing of Americans’ private communications. These ranged from telephone records to web searches. All of this was justified in an atmosphere of <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26841&LangID=E">near-hysterical</a> and enduring anti-Muslim fervour.</p>
<p>Only in 2013 did most Americans realise the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/edward-snowden-after-months-of-nsa-revelations-says-his-missions-accomplished/2013/12/23/49fc36de-6c1c-11e3-a523-fe73f0ff6b8d_story.html">extent</a> of this surveillance network. Edward Snowden, a contractor working at the NSA, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/black-budget-summary-details-us-spy-networks-successes-failures-and-objectives/2013/08/29/7e57bb78-10ab-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html">leaked documents</a> that revealed a secret US$52 billion budget for 16 spying agencies and over 100,000 employees.</p>
<h2>Normalisation of the security state</h2>
<p>Despite the long objections of civil liberties groups and disquiet among many private citizens, especially after Snowden’s leaks, it has proven difficult to wind back the industrialised security state. </p>
<p>This is for two reasons: the extent of the investment, and because its targets, both domestically and internationally, are usually not white and not powerful.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/calculating-the-costs-of-the-afghanistan-war-in-lives-dollars-and-years-164588">Calculating the costs of the Afghanistan War in lives, dollars and years</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Domestically, the <a href="https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/a-breakdown-of-the-patriot-act-freedom-act-and-fisa/">2015 Freedom Act</a> renewed almost all of the Patriot Act’s provisions. Legislation in 2020 that might have <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2020/05/usa-freedom-reauthorization-act-fisa-reform-surveillance-amicus-curiae.html">stemmed</a> some of these powers stalled in Congress. </p>
<p>And recent <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/biden-creating-worst-conditions-thousands-105100641.html">reports</a> suggest President Joe Biden’s election has done little to alter the detention of children at the border.</p>
<p>Militarisation is now so commonplace that local police departments and sheriff’s offices have received some US$7 billion worth of military gear (including grenade launchers and armoured vehicles) since 1997, <a href="https://www.marketplace.org/2020/06/12/police-departments-1033-military-equipment-weapons/">underwritten</a> by <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/pentagon-hand-me-downs-militarize-police-1033-program/">federal government programs</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Atlanta police in riot gear." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/419691/original/file-20210907-19-y2f5f8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/419691/original/file-20210907-19-y2f5f8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419691/original/file-20210907-19-y2f5f8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419691/original/file-20210907-19-y2f5f8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419691/original/file-20210907-19-y2f5f8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419691/original/file-20210907-19-y2f5f8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419691/original/file-20210907-19-y2f5f8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Atlanta police line up in riot gear before a protest in 2014.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Curtis Compton/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Militarised police kill civilians at a <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053168017712885">high rate</a> — and the <a href="https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/">targets</a> for all aspects of policing and incarceration are disproportionately people of colour. And yet, while the sight of excessively armed police forces during last year’s Black Lives Matter protests shocked many Americans, it will take a phenomenal effort to reverse this trend.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/police-with-lots-of-military-gear-kill-civilians-more-often-than-less-militarized-officers-141421">Police with lots of military gear kill civilians more often than less-militarized officers</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The heavy cost of the war on terror</h2>
<p>The juggernaut of the militarised state keeps the United States at war abroad, no matter if Republicans or Democrats are in power. </p>
<p>Since 9/11, the US “war on terror” has cost more than <a href="https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/BudgetaryCosts">US$8 trillion</a> and led to the loss of up to <a href="https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/WarDeathToll">929,000 lives</a>. </p>
<p>The effects on countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Pakistan have been devastating, and with the US involvement in Somalia, Libya, the Philippines, Mali, and Kenya included, these conflicts have resulted in the displacement of some <a href="https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2021/Costs%20of%20War_Vine%20et%20al_Displacement%20Update%20August%202021.pdf">38 million people</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1434124722879582219"}"></div></p>
<p>These wars have become self-perpetuating, spawning new terror threats such as the Islamic State and now perhaps ISIS-K. </p>
<p>Those who serve in the US forces have <a href="https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/veterans">suffered greatly</a>. Roughly <a href="https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2021/Costs%20of%20War_Bilmes_Long-Term%20Costs%20of%20Care%20for%20Vets_Aug%202021.pdf">2.9 million living veterans</a> served in post-9/11 conflicts abroad. Of the some 2 million deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, perhaps 36% are experiencing PTSD.</p>
<p>Training can be <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/inside-the-rash-of-unexplained-deaths-at-fort-hood">utterly brutal</a>. The military may still offer opportunities, but the lives of those who serve remain expendable.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Fighter jet in the Persian Gulf" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/419688/original/file-20210907-27-ne5ofe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/419688/original/file-20210907-27-ne5ofe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=439&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419688/original/file-20210907-27-ne5ofe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=439&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419688/original/file-20210907-27-ne5ofe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=439&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419688/original/file-20210907-27-ne5ofe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419688/original/file-20210907-27-ne5ofe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419688/original/file-20210907-27-ne5ofe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sailor cleaning a fighter jet during aboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf in 2010.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Hasan Jamali/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Life must be precious</h2>
<p>Towards the end of his life, Robert McNamara, the hard-nosed Ford Motor Company president and architect of the United States’ disastrous military efforts in Vietnam, came to regret deeply his part in the military-industrial juggernaut.</p>
<p>In his <a href="https://time.com/6052980/vietnam-robert-mcnamara-memoir/">1995 memoir</a>, he judged his own conduct to be morally repugnant. He wrote, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In <a href="https://www.npr.org/transcripts/106304285">interviews with the filmmaker Errol Morris</a>, McNamara <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/">admitted</a>, obliquely, to losing sight of the simple fact the victims of the militarised American state were, in fact, human beings. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KqJGoyZBa4g?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>As McNamara realised far too late, the solution to reversing American militarisation is straightforward. We must recognise, in the words of activist and scholar <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/magazine/prison-abolition-ruth-wilson-gilmore.html">Ruth Wilson Gilmore</a>, that “life is precious”. That simple philosophy also underlies the call to acknowledge Black Lives Matter.</p>
<p>The best chance to reverse the militarisation of the US state is policy guided by the radical proposal that life — regardless of race, gender, status, sexuality, nationality, location or age — is indeed precious.</p>
<p>As we reflect on how the United States has changed since 9/11, it is clear the country has moved further away from this basic premise, not closer to it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/166102/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clare Corbould has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a member of the Australian Greens.</span></em></p>The rise of the US military state since 9/11 has cost billions of dollars and resulted in the loss of nearly 1 million lives in wars abroad.Clare Corbould, Associate Professor, Contemporary Histories Research Group, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1468542020-10-27T04:05:18Z2020-10-27T04:05:18ZWho will Muslim Americans vote for in the US elections?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/365383/original/file-20201026-19-1anyf8l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Muslims are a small minority in the United States, but they may have a significant influence on the US elections. Muslim Americans, however, are often torn between the anti-Muslim rhetoric and xenophobia of President Donald Trump and the perception that Democrats undermine <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cros.12416">public morality</a> on social issues.</p>
<p>According to a 2017 <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/03/new-estimates-show-u-s-muslim-population-continues-to-grow/">estimate by Pew Research Center</a>, 3.45 million Muslims reside in the US, which is 1.1% of the total population. While this may seem small, Pew estimates Muslims will surpass the Jewish population by 2040 to become the second-largest religious bloc after Christians. </p>
<p>Muslim Americans mainly live in large cities. About 58% <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/03/new-estimates-show-u-s-muslim-population-continues-to-grow/">were born overseas</a>. Another 18% were born in America to one or more parents who are first-generation migrants. About a quarter (24%) of Muslim Americans are considered native to the US. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.pewforum.org/2017/07/26/demographic-portrait-of-muslim-americans/">Muslim Americans</a> are one of the most ethnically and racially diverse groups in the United States. A large segment (41%) of Muslims identify as white, almost one-third (28%) are Asian (including South Asian), one-fifth (20%) are Black and about 8% are Hispanic.</p>
<h2>Muslim voters face a conundrum on policies</h2>
<p>The demographic diversity of Muslim Americans translates to a unique profile when it comes to policies. On moral and social issues, Muslims are closer to the conservative Republican Party, but on matters of cultural and religious diversity they are more in tune with the more liberal Democratic Party.</p>
<p>According to a <a href="https://religionunplugged.com/news/2020/9/14/understanding-the-american-muslim-vote">congressional electoral survey</a>, 18% of Muslim Americans identified themselves as conservative, 51% as moderate and the remaining 31% as liberal. </p>
<p>The same survey found 88% of Muslims support tighter controls on guns compared to 96% for Democrat voters as a whole.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://religionnews.com/2020/10/01/poll-muslim-american-support-for-trump-rises-but-most-plan-to-vote-for-biden/">March 2020 poll</a> by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) showed 65% of Muslims support the Black Lives Matter movement, the highest support of all religious groups in US. </p>
<p>The same poll found almost half of Muslim voters supported alliances with religious liberty advocates. <a href="https://www.voanews.com/2020-usa-votes/muslim-americans-could-determine-whether-trump-or-biden-wins-michigan">Muslim Americans also expect</a> to be treated with respect and be accepted as part and parcel of American nation. The Democratic Party is more likely to meet this expectation.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/365438/original/file-20201026-15-1d1tzzo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/365438/original/file-20201026-15-1d1tzzo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/365438/original/file-20201026-15-1d1tzzo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/365438/original/file-20201026-15-1d1tzzo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/365438/original/file-20201026-15-1d1tzzo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/365438/original/file-20201026-15-1d1tzzo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/365438/original/file-20201026-15-1d1tzzo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Like the rest of the population, Muslim Americans expect to be treated with respect by the country’s leaders.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On the other hand, <a href="https://religionnews.com/2020/10/01/poll-muslim-american-support-for-trump-rises-but-most-plan-to-vote-for-biden/">Muslim Americans</a> do not support LGBTQ activism (55%) and are more likely than Jews and Catholics to support alliances with opponents of abortion. Muslims also see Trump as a better prospect for the economy.</p>
<p>So, Muslims view Republicans as hostile to Muslims on racial grounds, but see Democrats as hostile to Islamic morality and family <a href="https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/cros.12416">values</a>. </p>
<p>Such a position causes electoral dissonance in Muslim voters. This conundrum is partly responsible for the lower electoral registration and turnout among Muslim Americans. </p>
<p>As of <a href="https://religionnews.com/2020/10/01/poll-muslim-american-support-for-trump-rises-but-most-plan-to-vote-for-biden/">March 2020</a>, 78% of Muslims eligible for voting were registered to vote. Of those who are registered, 81% said they would show up on the election day. This is significantly lower than for other religious groups, such as evangelicals (92%) and Catholics (91%).</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-has-changed-america-by-making-everything-about-politics-and-politics-all-about-himself-146839">Trump has changed America by making everything about politics, and politics all about himself</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Shifting patterns in Muslim voting</h2>
<p>Over the past 20 years, Muslim Americans’ party preferences have shifted markedly. Prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, an estimated 80% of non-African-American Muslims were Republican voters, while the majority of African-American Muslims <a href="https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/cros.12416">voted for the Democratic candidate Al Gore</a>.</p>
<p>This voting pattern changed in the post-September 11 era, when George W. Bush’s administration and the Republican Party spearheaded the “<a href="https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/war-on-terror-timeline">war on terror</a>”. </p>
<p>The rhetoric of the war on terror, intrusive surveillance of Muslims under the <a href="https://www.ispu.org/the-usa-patriot-act-impact-on-the-arab-and-muslim-american-community/">Patriot Act</a> and military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq have created a noticeable anti-Muslim atmosphere in the US. Muslims perceived the war on terror to be a war on Islam and Muslims. As a consequence, the Muslim American <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cros.12416">vote for Bush</a> plummeted to a mere 7% in the 2004 elections. </p>
<p>A significant shift by Muslim voters to the Democrats culminated in the support for Barack Obama in the 2008 elections. The same trend continued with <a href="https://religionunplugged.com/news/2020/9/14/understanding-the-american-muslim-vote">Muslims overwhelmingly voting</a> for Democrats in the 2016 elections, with 82% of votes going to Hillary Clinton. By <a href="https://religionunplugged.com/news/2020/9/14/understanding-the-american-muslim-vote">2018</a>, Muslim support for the Republican Party was only 10%. </p>
<p>The March 2020 <a href="https://religionnews.com/2020/10/01/poll-muslim-american-support-for-trump-rises-but-most-plan-to-vote-for-biden/">ISPU poll</a>, however, found Muslim American voter support for Trump had increased to 30%, as Muslim voters believed Trump to be a good manager of the economy and unwilling to take part in Middle East wars.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the same ISPU poll showed 31% of white Muslims supported Trump as opposed to 8% of Black and Arab Muslims and 6% of Asian Muslims.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/365684/original/file-20201027-23-36c0fm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/365684/original/file-20201027-23-36c0fm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/365684/original/file-20201027-23-36c0fm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/365684/original/file-20201027-23-36c0fm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/365684/original/file-20201027-23-36c0fm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/365684/original/file-20201027-23-36c0fm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/365684/original/file-20201027-23-36c0fm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Muslim American support for the Republican Party plummeted after the ‘war on terror’ began.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is unclear if Trump’s poor handling of the pandemic has caused a decline in Muslim support for Trump. But two other actions of his still concern Muslim voters.</p>
<p>The first is the 2017 <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states-2/">Executive Order 13769</a> that banned Muslims from seven countries – Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Yemen, Libya and Somalia – from entering the United States on grounds that these states were supporting terrorism. The order also indefinitely suspended entry to the US for all Syrian refugees.</p>
<p>The executive order came to be known as the “<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38781302">Muslim ban</a>” and was criticised for targeting Muslims “because of their faith”. The ban had a huge impact on the freedom of travel for many Muslim Americans who were not citizens. </p>
<p>The second was the 2018 <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-israel-diplomacy-jerusalem-explai-idUSKBN1I811N">move of the US embassy</a> in Israel to Jerusalem, in effect recognising Jerusalem as a Jewish capital. This infuriated Palestinians and Muslims around the world. </p>
<p>Yet Joe Biden is not a default choice for Muslim voters either. <a href="https://www.voanews.com/2020-usa-votes/muslim-americans-could-determine-whether-trump-or-biden-wins-michigan">Muslim Americans expect</a> Biden to make promises to review the “the watchlist” if elected. This is the US government’s terrorist screening database, which contains the names of individuals barred from boarding commercial flights. Many Muslims feel the policy unfairly targets innocent Muslims. While George Bush introduced the policy, it was extensively applied under the Obama-Biden administration.</p>
<p>Avoidance by both candidates of <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/voices/us-presidential-race-biden-trump-debate-middle-east-b1307876.html?utm_content=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1603620942">Middle East issues</a> in the current campaign and in the presidential debates is another concerning factor for Muslim voters. They have been left unclear where the candidates stand on important foreign policy matters.</p>
<p>These concerns are likely to lead to a significant “<a href="https://www.voanews.com/2020-usa-votes/muslim-americans-could-determine-whether-trump-or-biden-wins-michigan">Biden or no vote</a>” or choice of a third-party candidate among Muslims voters. </p>
<p>This is important as the Muslim turnout could determine the outcomes in the marginal swing states of Florida, Ohio, Virginia and particularly <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pennsylvania-michigan-and-wisconsin-still-hold-the-keys-to-2020/2020/10/24/328358d2-1612-11eb-ba42-ec6a580836ed_story.html">Michigan</a>. The estimated <a href="https://religionunplugged.com/news/2020/9/14/understanding-the-american-muslim-vote">Muslim population in Michigan</a> is 3%. This margin is enough to determine the result for the state where Trump edged Hillary Clinton by 0.23% of the vote in 2016. </p>
<p>A large Muslim turnout and support for Joe Biden may be enough to switch the colour of swing states such as Michigan to blue and hand the White House to the Democrats in the 2020 presidential election.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-might-a-trump-presidency-mean-for-muslims-and-the-muslim-world-68662">What might a Trump presidency mean for Muslims and the Muslim world?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/146854/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mehmet Ozalp is affiliated with Islamic Sciences and Research Academy of Australia. </span></em></p>A large voter turnout among Muslim Americans may be enough to turn some of the swing states to the Democratic candidate in the 2020 election.Mehmet Ozalp, Associate Professor in Islamic Studies, Director of The Centre for Islamic Studies and Civilisation and Executive Member of Public and Contextual Theology, Charles Sturt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/914412018-02-08T11:20:38Z2018-02-08T11:20:38ZIs full transparency good for democracy?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205399/original/file-20180207-74501-eg1kl9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With the approval of President Donald Trump, the House of Representatives released the so-called “<a href="https://static01.nyt.com/packages/pdf/20180202_memo/HMTG-115-IG00-20180129-SD001.pdf">Nunes memo</a>” on Feb. 2. </p>
<p>In it, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes describes alleged abuses of surveillance practices by the FBI in the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Democratic members of that committee are now pressing for the release of <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/05/politics/democratic-memo-release-house-intelligence/index.html">their own version</a> of the events in question.</p>
<p>The Nunes memo was made public <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/31/politics/nunes-memo-law-enforcement/index.html">despite strong objections</a> from the FBI and the Justice Department. Leaders who <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/05/releasethememo-wasnt-about-transparency-216939">opposed its release</a>, including <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/02/mccain-nunes-memo-putin-385547">Sen. John McCain</a> and FBI Director <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/372088-wray-tells-fbi-talk-is-cheap-after-memo-release">Christopher Wray</a>, said that the information it contained was cherry-picked and revealed secret information that endangered national security.</p>
<p>Vice President Mike Pence <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mike-pence-on-the-nunes-memo-ive-always-believed-in-the-publics-right-to-know/article/2647779">responded by claiming</a> that the release of the memo would respect, what he called, the “public’s right to know.” White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders <a href="http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1802/01/cnr.18.html">simply said</a>, “We want full transparency in this process.”</p>
<p>My teaching and writing about <a href="http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=16809">secrecy in U.S. government and law</a> suggest that these simple rhetorical appeals do not do justice to the complex interplay of transparency and secrecy in American politics.</p>
<p>Are the vice president and Sanders right – does the public have a right to “full transparency” about what its government does? Or are there reasonable limits?</p>
<h2>Publicity and its limits</h2>
<p>Public knowledge about what government officials do is essential in a representative democracy. Without such knowledge, citizens cannot make informed choices about who they want to represent them or hold public officials accountable.</p>
<p>Political theorists have <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1404157">traced arguments</a> about publicity and democracy back to ancient Greece and Rome. Those arguments subsequently flowered in the middle of the 19th century.</p>
<p>For example, writing about British parliamentary democracy, the famous philosopher Jeremy Bentham urged that legislative deliberation be carried out in public. Public deliberation, in his view, would be an important factor in “constraining the members of the assembly to perform their duty” and in securing “the confidence of the people.”</p>
<p>Moreover, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=AusJAAAAIAAJ&q=%5C%22Secresy+is+an+instrument+of+conspiracy+it+ought+not+therefore+to+be+the+system+of+a+regular+government%5C%22&pg=PA315#v=onepage&q=%5C%22Secresy%20is%20an%20instrument%20of%20conspiracy%20it%20ought%20not%20therefore%20to%20be%20the%20system%20of%20a%20regular%20government%5C%22&f=false">Bentham noted</a> that “suspicion always attaches to mystery.” </p>
<p>Even so, Bentham did not think the public had an unqualified “right to know.” As he put it, “It is not proper to make the law of publicity absolute.” Bentham acknowledged that publicity “ought to be suspended” when informing the public would “favor the projects of an enemy.”</p>
<p>Well into the 20th century, the U.S. and other <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Blacked_Out.html?id=FtmydcQkMx0C">democracies existed</a> with far less public transparency than Bentham advocated. </p>
<h2>Push for transparency</h2>
<p>The authors of a 2016 U.S. Congressional report on <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/97-71.pdf">access to government information</a> observed that, “Throughout the first 150 years of the federal government, access to government information does not appear to have been a major issue for the federal branches or the public.” In short, the public generally did not demand more information than the government provided. </p>
<p>In 1946, Congress passed the Administrative Procedures Act in reaction to the growth of regulatory agencies under the New Deal. It required agencies to publish notice of any new rules in the Federal Register and provide opportunities for the public to comment on them. In effect, the law increased <a href="https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2999&context=uclrev">public access</a> to governmental information to a degree that would have been unthinkable earlier. </p>
<p>Further efforts to move government operations out of the shadows took place after a Congressional investigation revealed misuses of the nation’s system for classifying information as secret in the late 1950s and in the run up to the Vietnam War. </p>
<p>The most important of those efforts culminated in the passage of the <a href="https://www.foia.gov/about.html">Freedom of Information Act</a>. That act granted access to federal agency records on any topic to any person. But, echoing Bentham’s concerns, the FOIA contained exceptions. It recognized areas in which the government was not required to provide information to the public. The most significant of those areas is <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40712195?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">national security</a>.</p>
<p>In response to challenges to FOIA’s exceptions, courts have found that there is <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1046947.html">no constitutional or common law basis</a> for a general public right to know of the kind that Vice President Pence asserted.</p>
<h2>Finding a balance</h2>
<p>For at least the last 50 years, American legal and political institutions have tried to find a balance between publicity and secrecy. The courts have identified limits to claims of <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/418/683.html">executive privilege</a> like those made by President Nixon during Watergate. Watergate also led Congress in 1978 to pass the <a href="https://it.ojp.gov/PrivacyLiberty/authorities/statutes/1286">Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act</a>, or <a href="https://theconversation.com/3-questions-about-the-fisa-court-answered-91208">FISA</a>. That act created a special court, whose procedures were highlighted in the Nunes memo. The FISA court authorizes collection of intelligence information between foreign powers and “agents of foreign powers.”</p>
<p>Finding the proper balance between making information public in order to foster accountability and the government’s concern for national security is not easy. Just look to the heated debates that accompanied passage of the <a href="https://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html">Patriot Act</a> and what WikiLeaks did in 2010 <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/the-impact-of-the-wikileaks-war-logs/343703/">when it published</a> more than 300,000 classified U.S. Army field reports.</p>
<p>Americans can make little progress in resolving such debates until they can get beyond the cynical, partisan use of slogans like “the public’s right to know” and “full transparency” by President Trump’s loyalists. Now more than ever, Americans must understand how and when transparency contributes to the strength and vitality of our democratic institutions and how and when the invocation of the public’s right to know is being used to erode them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91441/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Austin Sarat does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An expert on secrecy in government explains the downsides and limits of transparency.Austin Sarat, Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science, Amherst CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/554312016-04-07T09:50:36Z2016-04-07T09:50:36ZFour questions Belgians should ask about the Patriot Act<p>In March, three <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brussels-attacks">bombings in Brussels</a> claimed 32 lives and injured more than 300. The Islamic State, or ISIS, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/world/europe/brussels-airport-explosions.html">claimed responsibility</a> for the attacks. </p>
<p>These events are disturbingly similar to the November 2015 <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/europe-terror/">terror attacks</a> in Paris that claimed 130 lives – and for which ISIS also claimed responsibility. </p>
<p>The attacks added a sense of urgency to <a href="http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/politiek/1.2514280">calls for</a> Belgium to enact its own counterterrorism bill. </p>
<p>It is a call the French government has already answered. After the attacks against Charlie Hebdo last <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-magazine-attack/paris-massacre-suspects-killed-dramatic-hostage-raids-n282766">January</a>, France passed a <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-look-at-frances-new-surveillance-laws-in-the-wake-of-the-paris-attacks">surveillance law</a> giving the government greater authority in counterterrorism investigations. Valérie Pécresse, a minister under former president Nicolas Sarkozy, described the pending legislation as a <a href="https://news.vice.com/article/is-france-about-to-get-its-own-patriot-act">“French Patriot Act</a>,” suggesting that France looked to the U.S. law, which was passed just 45 days after September 11, 2001, as a model. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112999/original/image-20160226-18076-9ei7cw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112999/original/image-20160226-18076-9ei7cw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112999/original/image-20160226-18076-9ei7cw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112999/original/image-20160226-18076-9ei7cw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112999/original/image-20160226-18076-9ei7cw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112999/original/image-20160226-18076-9ei7cw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112999/original/image-20160226-18076-9ei7cw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112999/original/image-20160226-18076-9ei7cw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">New Yorkers protest the Patriot Act in 2006.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/crazbabe21/2303197115">https://www.flickr.com/photos/crazbabe21/2303197115</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Increased use of surveillance is a worldwide trend. According to a <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/10/03/governments-worldwide-increase-online-surveillance-report-shows">2013 study</a>, 35 of 60 countries examined have increased regulation and monitoring of online activity. Several human rights groups, including <a href="http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/security-and-human-rights/mass-surveillance">Amnesty International</a>, have criticized these measures as a violation of privacy and free expression. </p>
<p>I have been studying how the U.S. media is covering the French surveillance law, and how this derivative law compares to the U.S. Patriot Act.</p>
<p>If Belgium decides to pass similar legislation, what questions should Belgians ask about these existing laws?</p>
<h2>1. What powers do the laws grant?</h2>
<p>Under the French <a href="http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/english/homepage.14.html">surveillance law</a>, investigators can now monitor phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists without a court order. Officials only have to obtain permission from an administrative committee, the National Commission for the Control of Intelligence Techniques. This <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/24/france-big-brother-surveillance-powers">committee</a> is managed by French Prime Minister Manuel Valls and consists of magistrates, members of parliament and senators. </p>
<p>In the U.S., it is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or <a href="http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/courts_special_fisc.html">FISA court</a>, that serves this purpose. </p>
<p>Unlike a traditional courtroom, the FISA court is closed to the public. Hearings include only the judge, attorneys licensed to practice in front of the U.S. government and other government officials. The secrecy is designed to prevent the exposure of classified information. For this reason, the FISA courts have sometimes been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/us/politics/fisa-surveillance-court-rules-nsa-can-resume-bulk-data-collection.html">criticized</a> as a “rubber stamp” for the National Security Administration.</p>
<p>In the U.S., the final decision on whether to grant a surveillance warrant is in the hands of a federal judge. In France, by contrast, only a few of the surveillance committee members are judges. The rest are politicians. In theory, this means that the French surveillance committee may be more vulnerable to political manipulation. Given recent <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/us/politics/fisa-surveillance-court-rules-nsa-can-resume-bulk-data-collection.html">criticisms</a> of the FISA court, however, this may not be the case in practice. According to one <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/fisa-court_n_4102599.html">source</a>, the court accepts at least 75 percent of government requested warrants without modification. </p>
<p>There are cases in which the U.S. Patriot Act authorizes warrantless searches, but these can be used only to <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL33332.pdf">obtain records</a> of phone numbers dialed, materials accessed and so on, not the content of phone calls or communications.</p>
<h2>2. Online activities watched, too</h2>
<p>Another major element of the French surveillance law is the requirement that Internet service providers permit the French government to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/05/france-passes-new-surveillance-law-in-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-attack">routinely monitor</a> suspicious online behavior. </p>
<p>French intelligence services have the right to place recording devices, cameras and keylogger technology that keep track of all keystrokes in real time. The recordings can be stored for a month. </p>
<p>Metadata can be kept for five years. Metadata is information about a consumer’s phone or Internet use. Phone metadata can include all the information surrounding a phone call, such as the caller’s number and the receiver’s number, time and location of the call, and how long the call lasts. However, metadata does not include the content of the phone call itself. Internet metadata can include information such as websites visited, TV shows streamed or emails sent.</p>
<p>The Patriot Act also allows for the NSA to collect <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/22/politics/patriot-act-debate-explainer-nsa">metadata</a>. If the government feels there is threat, a petition can be made to the FISA court for a warrant. This warrant allows the government to force phone companies to hand over private information on certain customers. In June 2013, Edward Snowden, a government contractor, revealed the NSA had a program called <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/12/heres-everything-we-know-about-prism-to-date/">PRISM</a>. The program uses extensive data mining efforts to collect Internet communication data and analyze it for patterns of terrorist or other potential criminal activity. </p>
<p>After the Snowden leaks, legislators pushed for Patriot Act reform, largely to end bulk data collection. In 2015, the U.S. passed the <a href="http://lifehacker.com/the-patriot-act-is-changing-heres-what-that-means-for-1708418382">Freedom Act</a>, which now requires a public advocate at FISA court hearings to argue for protection of private data. The Freedom Act also prevents the U.S. government from collecting phone record data. Instead, companies like Verizon are required to collect this information and maintain records that the government can search on request. </p>
<h2>3. How has the public reacted?</h2>
<p>An opinion <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/poll-majority-americans-want-patriot-act-reformed-332991">poll</a> conducted in May 2015 found that 60 percent of Americans believe the Patriot Act should be reformed. Just 34 percent said the government should keep the act in its current form. </p>
<p>In contrast, an opinion <a href="http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5703/france-surveillance-law">poll</a> conducted in April 2015 found that about two-thirds of French citizens were in favor of restricting civil liberties to support counterterrorism. Just after the November 2015 terror attacks, <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/20/9768274/paris-attacks-surveillance-state-of-emergency">this number jumped</a> to more than 80 percent. </p>
<p>While public support for measures like these is usually high after a terrorist attack, these poll results indicate that support decreases as attention to a terrorist attack fades, and as challenges with implementation, controversial cases and related issues surface in the mass media. </p>
<h2>4. Are these laws effective?</h2>
<p>Of course, the French surveillance law didn’t stop the attacks in November 2015. Understanding why may help Belgium lawmakers craft a more potent law.</p>
<p>One identifiable shortcoming is limited <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/19/how-french-intelligence-agencies-failed-before-the-paris-attacks">resources</a>. According to the Guardian, the French intelligence agencies have roughly 500 to 600 employees, while there are about 11,000 people on their watch lists, including more than <a href="http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/france-mass-surveillance-law-news/">1,000 citizens</a> who have recently traveled to <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/frances-surveillance-law-amid-terror-created-by-the-french-republic/5449522">Iraq or Syria</a>. </p>
<p>Another problem: The French intelligence agencies are reluctant to share communications between each other due to the fear of leaked information. </p>
<p>When the agencies do communicate, the process is slow. This creates even more strain. </p>
<p>The Patriot Act has also not been as effective as some had hoped. </p>
<p>In 2015, Inspector General Michael E. <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/21/fbi-admits-patriot-act-snooping-powers-didnt-crack/?page=all">Horowitz stated</a> that bulk data collection had not resulted in any major case developments. This was partially due to the amount of information collected about ordinary citizens. It took several years for U.S. officials to find ways to improve data collection. </p>
<p>The Heritage Organization claims that about 30 terrorist attacks were <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/04/30-terrorist-plots-foiled-how-the-system-worked">prevented</a> between 2001 and 2010 through measures provided by the Patriot Act. However, 30 states and Washington, D.C. have experienced terrorist attacks <a href="http://www.start.umd.edu/sites/default/files/files/announcements/BackgroundReport_10YearsSince9_11.pdf">since 2001</a>. </p>
<p>There is no guarantee that even with the most sophisticated surveillance technology out there today, passing a bill or law to collect private information on citizens will protect us from terrorist threats and violence. </p>
<p>Even more vexing: the nature of intelligence gathering means we may never know how exactly how many attacks have been prevented by the Patriot Act, the French surveillance law – or a similar law that Belgium may soon pass. </p>
<p><em>Ashley Boyer, a masters student of public administration at Pennsylvania State University, contributed to this article.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55431/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lacey Wallace does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The U.S. and France responded to terrorist acts by passing surveillance laws. What could Belgium learn from their example?Lacey Wallace, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/427712015-06-03T21:28:13Z2015-06-03T21:28:13ZUS government clips NSA wings, but snooping is a global effort<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83878/original/image-20150603-2963-v88oy1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The NSA has eyes and ears around the globe.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/cyzen/9695981482/in/photolist-fLNruw-fLNrb7-fLvZLH-fLvVFe-fLNsR7-fLNC7Q-fLvRGi-fLw4PP-fLvUWc-fLvdDX-fLNwvj-fLNvNC-fLNx7A-fLNBwj-fLvFiz-fLvWWc-fLvVor-fLNAUm-fLNvbq-fLvEUH-fLND6q-fLNw9y-fLvMEp-fLNsaq-fLvGX2-fLNCNb-fLNyEs-fLw228-fLNrQ9-fLvSpk-fLvJmM-fLNssd-fLvR4p-fLNA15-fLvZ66-fLNzgd-fLvNr8-fLNBef-fLNAj5-fLvUDg-fLX2Zx-fLNbWL-fLwfHa-fLMVXS-fLvtPv-fLN25N-fLvkGB-fLMR8s-fLN4nW-fLNjmQ">Mike Herbst</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Agencies such as the NSA and the FBI will no longer be permitted to arbitrarily access the logs of phone calls, emails and internet use. Congress has passed the <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/2/nsa-phone-program-nixed-senate-oks-usa-freedom-act/">USA Freedom Act of 2015</a>, which limits the power of government intelligence organisations to access the communications records of US citizens.</p>
<p>Rather than intercepting data and retaining it in case it’s needed for an investigation, intelligence agencies will now have to access the data from the private companies that collect it. And they will only be able to do so in specific and justified cases. </p>
<p>This is being hailed as an important amendment to intelligence practices, as well as <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/02/congress-surveillance-reform-edward-snowden">vindication</a> for Edward Snowden, who revealed the extent of the surveillance that was going on after the September 11 attacks in 2001.</p>
<p>Many argue that there is still a long way to go. The <a href="https://www.eff.org/">Electronic Frontier Foundation</a> actually withdrew its support for the Freedom Act in an effort to push politicians to go further with it. And ironically, the transition period for the implementation of the bill means the NSA will actually restart its data gathering program, having <a href="https://theconversation.com/patriot-act-meltdown-surveillance-politics-and-rand-paul-42670">suspended it</a> in May due to legal uncertainty. Once the Act comes into force, the NSA will have six months to adapt to the new requirements.</p>
<p>And while the changes may come as welcome news to US citizens, not a great deal has actually changed for everyone else in the world.</p>
<p>The USA Freedom Act only applies to US citizens, which means the NSA is still free to gather meta data on citizens of other nations. Meanwhile, other governments are moving to hand greater powers to their intelligence services.</p>
<h2>Watching you around the world</h2>
<p>In the UK, for example, GCHQ operates a similar program to the NSA. In early 2015, a consortium of civil rights organisations took GCHQ before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal – a British court set up to hear complaints against the security services. The consortium argued that GCHQ’s mass surveillance program – as well sharing the results of that program with the NSA – was an abuse of human rights law. The tribunal <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/05/uk-mass-surveillance-laws-human-rights-tribunal-gchq">found in favour of GCHQ</a> but the case is expected to proceed to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg later this year.</p>
<p>Left as it is, GCHQ can help to alleviate problems that the NSA will face in collecting data on US citizens. As part of the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24715168">“Five Eyes”</a> intelligence sharing arrangement that includes the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, GCHQ is perfectly positioned to collect and pass on communications data on US citizens that the NSA may be prevented from collecting itself.</p>
<p>What’s more, in the wake of the British election, the UK government is seeking once again to implement a law known as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/return-of-the-snoopers-charter-reflects-a-worldwide-move-towards-greater-surveillance-42504">Snooper’s Charter</a>. This is essentially a data retention bill that would require telecommunications companies and internet service providers to hold onto the meta data (but not content) from their customers’ emails, phone calls, texts and internet browsing for 12 months.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, in the weeks following the <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/charlie-hebdo-attack">Charlie Hebdo</a> attacks in Paris, France moved to introduce significantly strengthened data retention laws. Echoing the US response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls suggested that an “<a href="http://ambafrance-us.org/spip.php?article6435">extraordinary situation calls for extraordinary measures</a>”. This has implications for European negotiations over data protection laws which have been implemented to shield EU citizens from the NSA surveillance program.</p>
<p>Questions about the balance between privacy and security are ongoing and to some extent, they define the times. With increasing intensity, organisations have been racing to take advantage of personal data trail that we now generate online. There can be little doubt that this provides opportunities for use in law enforcement and intelligence.</p>
<p>It’s worth remembering, though, that mass surveillance is not carried out by the NSA or the FBI or even GCHQ. It’s carried out by private corporations such as Google and Facebook. Adequate oversight of the way intelligence agencies access and use that data is extremely important but we have remarkably little oversight of the way private companies deal with our data. And in many cases, they operate with very little transparency themselves. </p>
<p>In February 2015, the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/15/facebook-must-stop-tracking-users-non-users-legal-action">Belgian Privacy Commission</a> found that Facebook is acting in violation of European law. A few months later, Apple CEO <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/apple-boss-tim-cook-slams-google-and-facebook-for-selling-their-users-data-10295158.html">Tim Cook</a> launched an attack against the collection and monetisation of personal data saying that Silicon Valley businesses are “lulling their customers into complacency about their personal information”.</p>
<p>And as for telcos and ISPs, those that don’t already retain our data aren’t acting out of ethical concerns – they don’t keep the information because the expense of storage currently outweighs the commercial value of the data.</p>
<p>So while US citizens have reasons to celebrate about the USA Freedom Act, they should remember that the NSA has allies around the world who continue to collect data on both their own citizens – and those in the US.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42771/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Madeline Carr does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>US intelligence agencies can no longer collect and store the telecommunications data of US citizens but other countries are strengthening their efforts.Madeline Carr, Senior Lecturer in International Politics and the Cyber Dimension , Aberystwyth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/426702015-06-02T03:38:26Z2015-06-02T03:38:26ZPatriot Act meltdown: surveillance, politics and Rand Paul<p><em><strong>Editor’s note</strong>: On Sunday at midnight, three key provisions of the Patriot Act, including section 215 (the law the government uses to collect phone and other business records in bulk) <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/31/411044789/live-blog-facing-midnight-deadline-the-senate-debates-parts-of-the-patriot-act">expired</a>. The man at the center of the political drama on Capitol Hill was Kentucky Republican Senator – and presidential candidate – Rand Paul. But just how instrumental was Paul in the demise of the Patriot Act? And what will be the impact of the expiry of the infamous section 215? As we wait to see what the Senate does next, we asked a panel of scholars to look at these questions and more.</em></p>
<h2>Senate leadership has a lot to answer for</h2>
<p><strong>Gregory Koger, University of Miami</strong></p>
<p>Senator Rand Paul’s actions have exasperated the <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/rand-paul-nsa-spying-campaign-patriot-act-deadline-national-security-obama-20150526">White House</a> and the rest of the <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/243575-patriot-act-expires-as-paul-blocks-final-vote-on-NSA-reform">Senate Republican conference</a>, who insinuate he is grandstanding to attract attention and donations for his presidential campaign.</p>
<p>The Republicans’ anger probably stems from a combination of sincere belief that federal authorities need these enhanced powers and concern that Rand Paul’s actions diminish the Republican “brand name” <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/175727/republicans-expand-edge-better-party-against-terrorism.aspx">advantage on security issues</a>. </p>
<p>Security, both at home and abroad, was a key issue in the 2014 campaign and could be a Republican talking point again in 2016…unless a prominent Republican candidate confuses the debate by forcing the expiration of Patriot Act provisions. </p>
<p>But let’s step back: how was a single senator able to block the passage of a full re-authorization of the Patriot Act (Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell’s preference), a House bill that limited bulk data collection as well as a short term extension of the Act’s existing authority? </p>
<p>The simple answer is that Senate rules allow a single senator to slow the passage of any bill. </p>
<p>Paul had the right to debate and offer amendments: the Senate’s <a href="http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Cloture_vrd.htm">“cloture”</a> process for limiting these rights require a supermajority of 60 votes and, critically, several days to implement. </p>
<p>When the Senate reconvened to debate just eight hours before the deadline, it put the issue at the mercy of Rand Paul – or indeed of any other senator.</p>
<p>The obvious strategy for Mitch McConnell, then, was to bring up Patriot Act Reauthorization with plenty of time to overcome Rand Paul’s delaying tactics. </p>
<p>The deadline was no mystery: McConnell has known that June 1 was the date since May 26, 2011, when the last extension passed. All he had to do was to schedule a full debate on the Patriot Act <em>anytime during the first five months</em> of the 114th Congress. </p>
<p>After all, so far the Senate has found time to take four weeks off from legislating, to debate a doomed Keystone XL pipeline bill for three weeks, and to spend three weeks deciding if and how to fund the Homeland Security department this year. </p>
<p>It appears, though, that McConnell <em>does not want</em> a full Senate debate on the tension between security and liberty. </p>
<p>A similar pattern played out in 2011. Patriot Act re-authorization four years ago did not come to the Senate floor until the <em>very last day</em> before the expiration of the controversial provisions. </p>
<p>By waiting until the eleventh hour, McConnell (and his predecessor, Harry Reid (D-NV)) have dared other senators to block the legislation and take the blame for exposing the nation to increased risk of terrorism. Back in 2011, Paul, for one, agreed to let the bill pass as long as the Senate voted on two of his proposed amendments. </p>
<p>This time around, McConnell waited to bring up Patriot Act extension until May 21 -— right before senators were planning to leave town for Memorial Day. </p>
<p>McConnell also hoped to block the House’s <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2048">compromise legislation</a> so that Congress would be forced to choose between adopting a <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1357">full extension</a> of the expiring powers and a full expiration of the Patriot Act. His gambit failed when a majority of senators <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00195">rejected full extension</a>, 45-54. </p>
<p>Rand Paul is now taking the blame for demanding a full debate on an issue that is central to his political principles and career, but at least some of the blame lies with Senate leaders who have tried to circumvent real public discussion and votes on domestic security.</p>
<h2>Still lots of ways for the feds to collect data</h2>
<p><strong>Benjamin Dean, Columbia University</strong></p>
<p>Expiration of <a href="http://apps.americanbar.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/act-section-215">section 215</a> of the Patriot Act is a symbolic victory for the privacy and civil liberties advocacy groups that have fought against its renewal. However, its expiration does very little to reduce the capabilities of the NSA or FBI to collect communications and metadata (the data about data).</p>
<p>Firstly, the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3361">USA Freedom Act</a> is still under debate. In its current form, this act will allow the phone metadata activities previously run under section 215 of the Patriot Act to continue <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/01/nsa-us-surveillance-patriot-act-guide">with several restrictions</a>. </p>
<p>Agencies still have to receive approval from the <a href="http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/">Foreign Intelligence Surveillance</a>(FISA) court for access to phone records. The changes are that phone companies will now hold the metadata, not the NSA. There will also be added transparency provisions such as when the FISA court attempts to significantly reinterpret elements of the USA Freedom Act. </p>
<p>Secondly, even if the USA Freedom Act weren’t to pass, there are still many other legal avenues available to the NSA to collect phone metadata. </p>
<p>The Cato Institute’s <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dont-just-let-the-sun-go-down-on-patriot-powers">Julian Sanchez</a> has pointed out that a “grand father clause” in section 215 allows for phone metadata to, “remain available for investigations already open at the time of sunset, as well as new investigations into offenses committed before the sunset”. </p>
<p><a href="https://asunews.asu.edu/20140902-the-future-of-war">Arizona State University/New America</a> fellow <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/31/zombie-patriot-act-will-keep-u-s-spying-even-if-the-original-dies.html">Shane Harris</a> observes that national security letters could still be used to, “collect phone, Internet, and financial records”. </p>
<p>Thirdly, the expiration of section 215 does not curtail the bulk collection of Internet and other online communication data and metadata. Moreover, for non-US persons, the expiration of section 215 will have no impact on the collection of their phone or Internet records by US agencies. All these programs will continue given that they are justified under other authorities including section 214 of the Patriot Act, which is still in place, Executive Order 12333 (for non-US persons) and section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act (also for non-US persons). </p>
<p>That the renewal of section 215 was not rubber-stamped is significant in and of itself. It indicates that there is a debate happening where, before, there wasn’t. </p>
<p>Instead, the Senate voted to advance the USA Freedom Act (<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/01/nsa-us-surveillance-patriot-act-guide">termed “on cloture on the motion to proceed”</a>), which is the first move to limit NSA activities since the 1970s. However, there is a long road ahead for those who wish for greater oversight of the bulk data collection activities of intelligence and law enforcement agencies both in the US and globally.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42670/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The expiry at midnight, Sunday of three key provisions of the Patriot Act has thrown Washington into turmoil and halted surveillance programs – a panel of scholars gives their verdicts.Benjamin Dean, Fellow for Internet Governance and Cyber-security, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia UniversityGregory Koger, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of MiamiLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/365802015-01-21T21:49:47Z2015-01-21T21:49:47ZCan the French teach us a basic civics lesson about handling terrorism?<p>We have now had time to digest the tragic events in Paris. </p>
<p>The press has made its predictable set of news cycles in the last two weeks. They have covered the actual events themselves. Then, in America, we moved to the historic rallies in the aftermath of the attack - and the issue of President Obama’s absence. </p>
<p>What the American press clearly missed in that discussion was that nobody in France particularly cared about Obama’s absence. What they loved was that John Kerry made a condolence speech directed to them in French. </p>
<p>This was quickly followed by the news of the escape of some of those who were involved, then the antiterrorism raids in Belgium, the publication of the latest edition of Charlie Hebdo and, more recently, the summit meetings intended to improve coordination and the arrest of possible collaborators.</p>
<p>What is particularly notable in the reporting, debates and discussion is the strikingly different tone on each side of the Atlantic. I was in Paris in those early days and witnessed some events first-hand. But I have been following the discussion in the media in France and the US since I returned to the US. </p>
<p>Frankly, we in the US don’t look very good in this comparison. </p>
<h2>Unity in being French</h2>
<p>From day one, the French, despite their heightened anxiety, have stressed the importance of unity. Their politicians from the two main political parties have gone to great lengths to emphasize that “being French” is all that matters, regardless of whether you are a Muslim, a Jew or a subversive, secular cartoonist. </p>
<p>Invoking what is perennially called their “assimilationist” model of integration, France’s Socialist President, Francois Hollande, vowed that his country will protect all religions, <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30829733">saying</a> that Muslims are the main victims of fanaticism. France’s police and military forces have been assigned to protect its synagogues, but also its mosques. </p>
<p>Having marched in solidarity in the Place de la Republique, Hollande was quick to give a speech at the Renaissance Forum of the Arab World Institute to demonstrate he stood behind what he said about national unity.</p>
<p>Prime Minister <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30794973">Manuel Valls</a> has actively supported Hollande’s message of unity. Valls suggested France simply cannot be France without its Jews. So the government must do everything it can to ensure they are – and they feel – safe. Yet in an even handed approach, he was <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30794973">quick to stress</a> that that France is at war with terrorism, not with Islam. But the response is not just greater security. Much of the onus has been on education and urban development in the poorer sections of France’s Muslim community. </p>
<p>The governing socialist party has not been alone in advancing the theme of unity, or of civil liberties. </p>
<p>When leading Conservative UMP (Union Pour Un Mouvement Populaire) politician Dominique de Villepin was asked what he thought of introducing Patriot Act style legislation, he responded that he didn’t think it was a good idea. <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/France-Patriot-Act-terror-attacks/2015/01/17/id/619215/">He feared</a> it would endanger France’s “moral compass.” </p>
<p>This spirit of unity is probably best personified by Lassana Bathily, the Muslim Malian national who worked at the kosher supermarket that was attacked. </p>
<p>Bathily hid shoppers during the attack, was universally lauded, and then awarded French citizenship in a fast-track process. When interviewed, <a href="http://abonnes.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/01/16/lassana-bathily-sera-naturalise-francais_4557681_3224.html">he told reporters</a> that the Jewish staff there would kid him, asking when he was going to find a nice Jewish girlfriend.</p>
<p>Likewise, million of French of all shades and religions have marched in solidarity over the last two weeks. This included in Marseille, the city with the largest number of Muslims, where <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30769681">thousands</a> took to the streets to voice their rejection of fanaticism. </p>
<p>Sure, Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s National Front Party, has opportunistically used these events <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/opinion/marine-le-pen-france-was-attacked-by-islamic-fundamentalism.html?_r=0">to call </a>for a more strident foreign policy against Jihadists abroad and the re-imposition of border controls at home. </p>
<p>But what has been notable has been the way her views, and her party, have been sidelined.<a href="http://example.com/"> A recent opinion poll</a> had the Socialists ahead (30%) of the National Front (28%) for the first time since September : Le Pen has not enjoyed the popular wave of nationalist support that many anticipated. France’s political moderates, from the left and the right, have endorsed a greater public show of security, but defied all calls for sectarianism.</p>
<h2>Plus ca change: polarized in the US</h2>
<p>In contrast, the American media has continued to emphasize the politics of division, the politics of identity, the politics of “us versus them.” </p>
<p>Some of this supposed reporting has been astoundingly inaccurate, inept and divisive. Steve Emerson, identified on Fox News as a terrorism expert, told the host Sean Hannity that, “there are no-go zones” throughout Europe ruled by Muslims. This is patently false and the news station had to retract and apologize for repeating the claim. </p>
<p>Indeed, Fox News have made such fools of themselves that they have had to issue a public apology. Meanwhile, the French have caricatured them on <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/20/world/europe/fox-news-becomes-unwilling-star-of-french-tv-show.html?src=me">Le Petit Journal</a>, their equivalent of Jon Stewart’s Daily Show. </p>
<p>But even the far more subtle and sophisticated <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/world/europe/new-charlie-hebdo-has-muhammad-cartoon.html?action=click&contentCollection=US%20Open&region=Article&module=Promotron">New York Times</a> has published an endless stream of articles focusing on the theme of potential divisions between Muslims and the rest of France rather than the theme of solidarity. </p>
<p>What is so curious about this is that we Americans pride ourselves on being a “melting pot” for people of all races, religions and countries. Our politicians constantly tell us that America is a model. It is a shining light for the rest of the world. But you don’t have to be a fan of France to recognize a sober reality. The French are handling their equivalent of 9/11 a lot differently – and some would argue better – then we have. </p>
<p>In the aftermath of 9/11 we constricted civil liberties at home. We rounded up and incarcerated Muslims. And we instituted surveillance programs. American Muslims were treated as the enemy of this country, as were people who supposedly looked like Muslims. It is easy now to recall the misplaced horror with which critics reacted to the idea of a mosque being located near the twin towers in New York. Those critics included respectable politicians who should have been a voice of moderation. </p>
<p>We also, of course, tortured foreign suspects, imprisoned them in Guantanamo (and still do) and prosecuted two wars. Some of these things have clearly changed. Some have improved. Many Americans regret some of our activities during this period, putting it down to some kind of national psychosis. </p>
<p>But the hangover from that period is clearly still with us. We see the events in France through the lens of our own experience. We focus on what we think should divide the French. We are, it would seem, incredulous that they don’t share our propensity to look for a widespread subversive enemy within. That they prefer to treat this as a criminal, policing issue rather than the basis for a foreign war.</p>
<p>Of course, all this internal strife may yet come to pass. </p>
<p>The French have stepped up their military involvement in Iraq and Syria. And the moderating efforts of the center may not hold against the forces of division. But today, as things stand, it looks like the French can clearly teach us a thing or two about “standing together or falling apart.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36580/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
We have now had time to digest the tragic events in Paris. The press has made its predictable set of news cycles in the last two weeks. They have covered the actual events themselves. Then, in America…Simon Reich, Professor in The Division of Global Affairs and The Department of Political Science, Rutgers UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/345452014-11-24T19:37:24Z2014-11-24T19:37:24ZFreedom Act denied … so what happens when Patriot expires?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65350/original/image-20141124-19608-dq1rzr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">When the sun sets on Patriot, what will spy agencies do?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/rovingeye365/14305987996">Roving Eye 365/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last week a proposal called the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3361">Freedom Act</a> was <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/18/usa-freedom-act-republicans-block-bill">defeated</a> in the US Senate. The Freedom Act was to restrict whole-of-population collection of communications data which is currently permitted under the <a href="http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm">Patriot Act</a>, which was enacted after 9/11, until June 2015.</p>
<p>The Freedom Act, were it passed, would have extended the data gathering aspect of the Patriot Act to the end of 2017. So what will happen to mass data collection when the Patriot Act expires in six months – and will there be any effects in Australia? </p>
<h2>Patriot Act 101</h2>
<p>The Patriot Act is a forbiddingly long, opaque statute. The name is an acronym (or, strictly speaking, a <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/backronym">backronym</a>) for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. Those tools are provided to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Security Agency (NSA; counterpart to the Australian Signals Directorate). </p>
<p>They are also provided to bodies such as the Department of Homeland Security (the apparent <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-homeland-security-super-ministry-perhaps-not-as-good-an-idea-as-it-sounds-32232">model</a> for Immigration Minister Scott Morrison’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-22/moral-burden-will-not-impede-border-policies-morrison/5687820">controversial</a> Department of Immigration & Border Protection).</p>
<p>Patriot is very broad. It has attracted global attention as a mechanism for comprehensive official access, typically on an undisclosed basis, to electronic information. That information might relate to financial transactions, email, internet records, library records or even the essays of Australian university students whose institutions rely on US-based anti-plagiarism services. It also encompasses detention of aliens and undisclosed searches of residential and business premises. </p>
<p>It is a foundation of contemporary US national security law, and is borne in mind by Australian security agencies. It has been contested in US courts, with <a href="https://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/">occasional success</a>, but overall has been strongly embraced by Republicans and Democrats. </p>
<p>That’s echoed in Australia, where neither the government nor the opposition has been willing to deprive federal policing agencies of an early Christmas present in the form of new national security <a href="https://law.anu.edu.au/sites/all/files/events/does_australia_need_new_anti-terror_laws-final.pdf">hyperlegislation</a>. Aspects of Patriot have been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/09/07/do-we-still-need-the-patriot-act/the-patriot-act-gives-too-much-power-to-law-enforcement">damned</a> by independent experts as neither necessary nor effective, in much the same way that parts of Australian security legislation are redundant or unusable.</p>
<h2>Post-June activities</h2>
<p>Patriot is a <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sunset+law">sunset statute</a> and is scheduled to end mid-2015. The proposed Freedom Act was a messy compromise, bringing together politicians who want to restrict some electronic data gathering/ analysis and those such as <a href="http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-to-oppose-weak-nsa-reform-bill/">Senator Rand Paul</a> who thought Patriot was too weak. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"533676265715560448"}"></div></p>
<p>Defeat of the Freedom Bill is unsurprising and isn’t a major step for strengthening civil liberties. With the Republicans set to <a href="https://theconversation.com/republicans-take-senate-what-midterm-wins-mean-for-obama-congress-and-america-33808">control both chambers</a> of the national legislature at the beginning of 2015 we can expect that Patriot will be repackaged before it expires, probably with a new expiry date of 2020 or 2025. </p>
<p>The NSA and FBI will keep on doing what they’ve been doing, unfussed by noises from the <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2013/12/18/white-house-releases-nsa-surveillance-report/">White House</a> and not greatly inconvenienced by <a href="http://rt.com/usa/us-nsa-snowden-study-intelligence-527/">congressional inquiries</a> or action in the courts. </p>
<p>The alleged need “not to know” means that the public have little sense of whether there are abuses and whether implementation of Patriot is grossly inefficient.</p>
<h2>The view from here</h2>
<p>In Australia we might be asking similar hard questions and not endorsing every statement that’s wrapped in a flag or rhetoric about sacrificing liberties as the cost of fighting a <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/well-fight-radical-islam-for-100-years-says-exarmy-head-peter-leahy/story-e6frg8yo-1227018630297">100-year war</a> on terror. </p>
<p>That cost, of course, might be the demise of the official accountability and public freedoms that differentiate Australia from totalitarian states such as China and Russia or terrorist groups such as ISIS.</p>
<p>The government appears headed towards mandatory <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-metadata-does-the-government-want-about-you-31003">comprehensive collection</a> and easy access – by law enforcement entities – of Australian communications data. We have <a href="https://www.humanrights.gov.au/how-are-human-rights-protected-australian-law">no protection</a> through a Bill of Rights. The Inspector General of Intelligence & Security is <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/intelligence-watchdogs-oversight-called-weak-as-new-powers-granted-to-spy-agencies-20141014-115qfr.html">underfunded</a>. </p>
<p>The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner is <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-australian-public-cares-about-privacy-do-politicians-19033">moribund</a>, with fundamental uncertainties about the effectiveness of a national Privacy Commissioner that may – or may not – end up as a “<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommsen%2Ff2c98445-24ea-4600-8f9a-4f3f9ef27717%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommsen%2Ff2c98445-24ea-4600-8f9a-4f3f9ef27717%2F0000%22">bubble</a>” within the Human Rights Commission. </p>
<p>Given that Parliamentary committees have recently allowed a mere week for public consultation about far-reaching and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-editorial/time-to-revisit-flawed-security-laws-20141104-11gsdf.html">chilling</a> national security statutes, we might hope that the opposition stands with Senator Scott Ludlam in <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/consumer-security/scott-ludlam-raps-about-fascist-data-retention-laws-20141024-11bc35.html">questioning</a> the necessity and form of our latest national security legislation. </p>
<p>That’s one thing that separates deliberative democracy from rubber stamp.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34545/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bruce Baer Arnold does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Last week a proposal called the Freedom Act was defeated in the US Senate. The Freedom Act was to restrict whole-of-population collection of communications data which is currently permitted under the Patriot…Bruce Baer Arnold, Assistant Professor, School of Law, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.