The Law Professor: Ed Husted
Watching CNN consultants banter back and forth has turned Ed Husted off from a lot of issues. But as the 66-year-old paralegal professor adjusted his radio on the drive home one Thursday evening, he found himself drawn to the voices and to the debate playing out in front of the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly. The testimony was over the Patriot Act, and the assembly was weighing in on a resolution opposing it.
"I was so interested I sat in the garage with the radio on and listened," Husted says. "People were impassioned about it."
The assembly ended up voting the resolution down, but Husted's interest was piqued. Like a number of Fairbanksans, Husted knows the Patriot Act by name only.
"I haven't read it," he says. "I'm certainly aware of it. And if certainly if something comes on the evening news while I'm eating supper, I listen."
With a number of Americans voicing concerns over the act--and similar legislation like the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, or Patriot II on the horizon--Husted will probably add the discussion to his syllabus next semester. He teaches Mass Media Law to journalism students each year.
"I always struggle to find very contemporary constitutional problems," he says. "This will certainly be something of great significance."
From a brief glance at an analysis of the act, Husted doesn't personally see anything wrong with it. But he says that a large issue with the act is the question of whether America is at war, and whether individual freedoms are expendable in such times.
Husted isn't referring to America's military action in Iraq, but to the war initiated in the weeks following Sept. 11, 2001. "If we are at war," Husted says, "and this so-called War on Terror exists, and is valid--and I tend to think it is--then I'm not so sure that the balance between individual rights and the community won't tip a little more in favor of the community."
In times of war, Husted says, personal liberties often are outweighed by the survival of the population at large. "That's the only justification of it," Husted says, "that it's in the interest of national security."
In terms of infringing on civil liberties, Husted says the Patriot Act just doesn't strike him that way. He reiterates that his is not a legal opinion, as he hasn't read the act yet.
"I'm concerned about the future of the nation," he says. "I really am. I really do see it as a time of great need for national security. It really just doesn't bother me."
Having lived through World War II, McCarthyism and the Cold War, Husted thinks that terrorism is a more immediate threat to U.S. citizens than ever before. Before flying to California just a few weeks ago, Husted and his wife rewrote their wills on the chance they might not arrive safely at their destination.
"I accept the fact that we're at war or at least under some threat," says Husted, "and as a result I'm willing to give up some of my individual rights. Mostly because I don't do anything that I think would upset the FBI or anybody who's snooping around looking at me."
But the fact that federal investigators can in fact "snoop" on citizens is what has critics of the legislation worried.
"We're talking about the same powers the government has always had," says Husted, "they're just more expansive now. Instead of going to court and getting a search warrant now, they have the authority to do a little 'sneak and peek' on their own."
By "sneak and peek," Husted means Section 213 of the Patriot Act, which delays notice to a home or computer owner of a search by federal investigators. The Congressional Research Service's section-by-section analysis of the legislation reads: "A sneak and peek warrant is one that authorizes officers to secretly enter (either physically or electronically), conduct a search, observe, take measurements, conduct examinations, smell, take pictures, copy documents, download or transmit computer files, and the like; and depart without taking any tangible evidence or leaving notice of their presence."
Husted notes that citizens do have the right to contest an infringement of their rights in court, or so the act implies. A few sections in the act note that civil claims may be entered against the government in the event of a government miscalculation resulting in an unlawful arrest or other action.
"Only time will tell if that right really has any meat to it," he says.
The concept of time is another question mark for Husted. When, he wonders, will the War on Terror end? And in ending, will the Patriot Act die with it?
"Once we get it, how are we going to get rid of it?" he asks. "That's the problem."
Questions? Comments? Contact fynewsy@uaf.edu | Back to Extreme Alaska