I can see why there would be people against the Patriot Act — any act that increases the ability of the government to watch people should be looked at with scrutiny, to say the least — but the bulk of the argument against the Patriot Act is filled with what I lovingly call “myths.”

For example, the ACLU stated in a fund-raising letter that a provision of the Patriot Act may “allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as ‘domestic terrorism.'” In reality, only people or groups who commit criminal acts endangering human life would fall under the Patriot Act. The Washington, D.C. sniper, for example, would fall under this provision — not Greenpeace.

Another myth is the whole library book fiasco. What groups like the ACLU don’t tell you is the provision stated isn’t specifically about library books, but rather “business records” that would document a terrorist enterprise. So, for example, if a couple of terrorists were to check out “The Turner Diaries” (such as Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh did before he blew up a federal building), and the FBI were to put that together with credit card records for explosives, they might have what they would call a lead. Not to mention that even before investigators can go to get these records they have to go to a federal court to get permission. There are still judicial checks and balances.

All the Patriot Act really does is take already-existing laws allowing for expanded law enforcement powers and extend them to terrorist acts.

For example, before Sept. 11, 2001, we could use many of the Patriot Act’s powers against drug traffickers but not against al-Qaida. We could use a “roving wiretap” against the Mafia, but not against a terrorist cell that moved around. Because of the Patriot Act, we can now share intelligence gathered from court cases with intelligence agencies to prevent terrorist acts. It increased the penalties on terrorists and those who help or conspire with terrorists.

The Patriot Act also made aliens to our country register and let the government know where they were. If anything, that sounds like common sense. When I visit someone’s house, I don’t randomly walk around in it without permission — why should our country be any less prudent?

Despite being passed not long after Sept. 11, it was a well-crafted bill that didn’t infringe on rights. As a matter of fact, there has not yet been a successful legal challenge to the Patriot Act.

I challenge you to find someone who has had their rights violated by the Patriot Act and is unable to do anything about it.

Find someone who can’t go to a Greenpeace rally because John Ashcroft said so.

Louis Kishkunas is a sophomore in political science from Glenwood. He is vice-chairman of the ISU College Republicans.