Lady Liberty peers from behind the spotless glass of the College of Design Center’s library with a message.

One could almost walk by and never see her, or the six other black and white posters of American-icon protesters taped up among other fliers on the dark metal of contemporary bulletin boards in the atrium.

A two-dimensional bottle of Absolut Vodka holds the American flag.

Absolut Control is the text. It continues:

“The U.S. Patriot Act gives the government power to invade your privacy, imprison people without due process and punish individuals for exercising their First Amendment rights.”

The walls of the atrium hold the text of a formerly silent debate that has grown from a slight rumbling on the horizon to a storm of lawsuits filed by civil liberties groups.

Six weeks after the fall of the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 Congress passed an act known as the United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, also known as the USA Patriot Act. It took Congress one and a half hours to debate the act that now, according to many civil rights activists, has stepped on American civil liberties.

The act was enough to cause Adrian Bennett, an ordinary citizen, to become practically an expert on the Patriot Act.

Bennett, a retired history professor at Iowa State and current chairman of the board of the College for Seniors, decided to research the act himself for a class he taught, “The World Turned Upside Down,” which addressed actions taken after Sept. 11.

Bennett said the bill appeared as though the basic theories the United States was founded on had been thrown right out the window.

“They’re perfectly willing to gut the Constitution and run right over the Bill of Rights,” Bennett said.

The act was passed in an effort to give the United States Justice Department and the executive branch access to many records that were previously private.

Some examples include allowing authorities to browse through medical, financial, educational or library records without any evidence of a crime; enter and search a house without a warrant; place taps on phones and computers without probable cause; and allow access to consumer credit reports without a subpoena or a court order. Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to remove the “sneak and peek” law, found in section 213, which allows federal agents to search the homes of suspected terrorists after obtaining secret court approval. All of this can be done without notifying the suspect.

With the introduction of Patriot II in January 2003, debate over personal safety and civil liberties has become a topic of hot debate which crosses all party lines. Patriot II was designed to fill in gaps left by the first Patriot Act and currently includes provisions that allow the government to revoke the citizenship of Americans who have been found to contribute “material support” to organizations deemed by the government as terrorist organizations and allows for legal permanent residents to be deported instantaneously without evidence or charge of a crime. Patriot II is currently pending congressional vote.

The acts have left arguments among political parties.

ISU College Republican President Josh Reicks and Vice President Louis Kishkunas butt heads on the subject.

Reicks said Congress should have never let such an act pass through quickly.

“For Lord’s sake, what is their job in Congress but to question some of the things the President wants to do?” Reicks said. He said people would have “respected someone who would have stood up [to the President] rather than follow like sheep.”

Kishkunas said he supports the act and thinks people are overreacting in general.

“I think these people overreact a little because I can just see them having visions of having [Attorney General] John Ashcroft crawling through their window at night. And that’s not the case,” Kishkunas said.

Barbara Mack, associate professor in the Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication, said part of the problem with the act is there are so few checks and balances that are subject to public scrutiny.

“It becomes difficult to challenge [the government’s] abuses because you cannot find out what they have done,” Mack said. “People who assume they have any shred of privacy in this country are under an illusion.”

Matt Denner, president of the ISU Campus Greens, said the USA Patriot Act goes against the grain of their organization.

“It’s frustrating that not only would the Bush administration take advantage of a war to steal our civil liberties, but more so that the administration would do so while lying and telling citizens that it is for their own good,” Denner said.