"Thank you for your recent application for our credit card. Unfortunately, the bank is unable to approve your request for the reason[s] noted below: Unable to verify identity in accordance with the USA Patriot Act." It sounds like the beginning of a suspense movie, but I received a letter with this exact statement at the beginning of the school year. As it turned out, my identity couldn't be verified because I filled out the credit card application with my Brandeis address, which had never been occupied before. However, this should make one wonder how far-reaching the Patriot Act is and what its future holds.

Under a particular provision in the Patriot Act, third parties, such as libraries and Internet service providers, can receive "National Security Letters" which force them to reveal information about specific subscribers or clients and puts them under a "gag order," preventing the person receiving the letter to discuss it with anyone.

Before the Patriot Act, the U.S. government was required to get a warrant from a federal court or through a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court order to then subpoena personal records and information. This provision within the Patriot Act voids the need for these warrants, and the government surveillance agencies can send National Security Letters without judicial oversight.

This particular section of the act is of little importance on its own merit, but has significance because it is the most recent aspect of the act to be deemed unconstitutional. In September, a district court judge in New York ruled against this provision within the act.

The future of the Patriot Act, and indirectly the country, hang in the balance as the supporters and opponents of the act each make strides to reach their goal. Those who are opposed to the Patriot Act have been working toward rulings like the one in New York and have been supporting state and local governments who pass laws voiding the act within their jurisdiction. This has been done in 355 cities and municipalities in: Alaska, Hawaii, Maine and Vermont.

The Patriot Act was passed shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 but now that the national mindset has changed, legislatures are tending to be less supportive of such a comprehensive and invasive intelligence act. Opposition to the act has also become stronger because the public has had time to learn what it includes.

However, despite growing opposition, the possibility of the act passing when it is voted on again, always exists. But unless another attack happens, it appears the bill's opposition will outweigh its proponents. The Bush administration and many of its Republican allies continue to stand by the act and new possible additions, but Democrats, and even some Republicans, too, are now speaking out against the laws infringements on civil liberties and its possible unconstitutionality.

There are many important issues involved in this upcoming election, and while it is debatable that there are more important topics of interest than the Patriot Act; the act's fate will lie highly on who is elected into Congress or as president. If the act does remain or if the new one is imposed, the upcoming president will likely have the opportunity to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court who may ultimately decide the constitutionality of the Patriot Act.

At this point in history, fear of another horrific attack is ever present. The Patriot Act, passed on Oct. 11, 2001, did not allow much time for the legislatures to have processed the past month's events, let alone the ramifications of the legislation they were passing. Only one member of the Senate questioned the constitutionality of the act that day, but many have now come out against it and how it has been put to use.

I fear what it would mean for this country if the Patriot Act were not repealed and a more stringent act was put into effect. Under the new act the government wishes to pass, citizenship could be revoked if a person was deemed to be in collaboration with a foreign enemy. In doing so, this would give the government more leeway in the tactics available for investigation and interrogation.

Something so basic as citizenship is crucial to the American system of government, and it is incomprehensible how the government could take away something so fundamental to a person's being.

There is a fine line between protecting national security and infringing on inalienable rights. Important decisions are approaching that will affect all citizens. Whether one supports the dominance of security leeway or protecting personal privacy, the ramifications are dire if either side has too much control. Government is a balancing act which must protect its citizens, but still find the ways to allow personal freedom.