ACLU drops Patriot Act lawsuit
By Kelly Conniff, staff writer
Posted on November 9, 2006

The American Civil Liberties Union has given up its lawsuit that challenged provisions of the controversial Patriot Act. 

The lawsuit specifically dealt with Section 215, popularly known as the “Library Provision,” a portion of the Patriot Act that allowed the FBI to seize library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying of U.S. citizens.

Members of the ACLU found fault with this section and filed a lawsuit against it in July 2003. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of citizens all over the country who believed their belongings or information about them had been seized wrongly because of their ethnicity, religion or political associations.

Earlier this year, the law was revised in order to allow people whose records and belongings have been seized to challenge the claim against them in court.

After this addendum, the ACLU dropped the lawsuit, instead choosing to focus on other issues concerning the Patriot Act and national security.

“The ACLU has won a bona fide legal victory, but it must not become apathetic,” freshman Brandon Zach said. “I believe it should continue to challenge the Patriot Act for the sake of civil rights.”

Despite the dropping of the lawsuit, student members of the ACLU say that this does not mean that the organization considers it’s work done with the Patriot Act.

“Dropping the lawsuit is not a sign that the ACLU is going to stop challenging the Patriot Act,” senior Mike Dreyfuss said. “The dropped lawsuit was in response to specific provisions in the revised act that addressed a concern raised by the ACLU.”
 
Even though Section 215 was edited, the ACLU still finds fault with many of the issues detailed in the Patriot Act, sections that deal with wiretaps and national security letters.

  “The heart of the matter is that the Patriot Act gives the government in general and the executive in particular a virtually free hand to conduct unwarranted surveillance, search and seizure,” Dreyfuss said.

Junior Kevin Flint begs to differ.

“Overall, I think that the Patriot Act is a good idea, but it definitely can get evasive,” he said. “I think that it’s important to recognize that some of the sacrifices that we make for the Patriot Act are important in terms of what we get in turn. I’m willing to sacrifice some things in order to satisfy some things to increase national security.”

Other student members of the ACLU are slightly disheartened by the decision, wishing that they had kept fighting with the lawsuit.

“I accept the ACLU’s decision with some reservation,” Zach said. “Whereas I acknowledge that reforms have been made to the Patriot Act limiting the government’s free reign on intelligence gathering, I still vehemently oppose the Patriot Act as a whole.”

JMU’s ACLU chapter is currently in the process of being reactivated and should be a recognized JMU club in the near future.