Jan Paul Miller and Bob Barr played before a packed crowd Thursday afternoon as they debated the Patriot Act in front of both students and faculty in the law auditorium.

Miller, the current U.S. attorney for the central district of Illinois, and Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia, provided the pros and cons of the Patriot Act, respectively. The University chapter of the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society co-sponsored the event.

Miller opened discussions by stressing that the act protects citizens, one of government’s most important functions.

“It is the single-most talked about piece of legislation I’ve ever seen,” Miller said. “Also the most misunderstood … act I’ve ever seen.”

Miller made distinctions between the act and other issues relating to terrorism, such as enemy combatant laws and Guantanamo Bay.

He then broke down his argument into three main points. The first focused on coordinating information in investigations, which was nonexistent prior to the act, according to Miller.

“It is designed to break down the wall between criminal investigations on one side and intelligence investigations on the other side,” Miller said.

The act also brings the law up to date with modern technology, Miller said. The government always had the power to tap telephone lines if it went through all the necessary steps. But cable companies, which now offer telephone service, were protected from taps by the Cable Act.

“Telephone records may (now) be obtained regardless of the telephone services used,” Miller said.

Terrorism was not a reason that could be cited for obtaining a wiretap prior to the act, Miller said in his final point. Section 215 of the act amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow for that.

Barr opened his rebuttal by alluding to his weekly radio show, Laws of the Universe.

“One of the laws of the universe is if the law is not on your side, argue the facts,” Barr said. “If the facts are not on your side, argue the law. If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, wear a wild necktie. … I think the facts are on my side.”

Barr’s argument focused on individual privacy, the limited power of government and the need for an informed public debate on the act.

“How much power do we want the government to have?” Barr asked. “Should you not have an expectation that before the government invades your privacy … it show some linkage between the (suspect) and an agent of a foreign power?”

While Miller defended Section 215, Barr attacked it, saying, “It allows government to obtain personal, private information.”

Barr did not advocate for completely stripping the government of its security powers.

“There are circumstances where the government needs to do that,” he said, referring to powers laid out in the act. “The times that government can use these powers should be limited.”

Barr also stressed that the act is not a partisan issue. He pointed out he is a member of the American Conservative Union and advises the American Civil Liberties Union.

“They find common ground in trying to maintain a little bit of our privacy, a little bit of our civil liberties,” Barr said.

Jennifer Liebman, the chapter president of the American Constitution Society, agreed with this sentiment.

“The Patriot Act is not a partisan issue,” she said.

Tim Bell, the president of the Federalist Society, was pleased with the debate.

“I think it was a great turnout,” Bell said. “It was fun to watch two conservative Republicans debate such an important act as the Patriot Act.”

Although the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society disagree on the way the law should be handled in the United States, both groups said they often co-sponsor events.

“We both have a goal of having a vigorous policy debate,” Liebman said.