Introduction
The United States government has the mandate of ensuring the security of the nation by developing and implementing legislations that promote the safety of all citizens. Numerous cases of insecurity experienced in the country over the last few years stretching from drug and human trafficking to terrorists have made the federal government more concerned about the future of the country regarding securing her citizens. Terrorism brings more concerns in the area of homeland security among many security threats facing U.S. The priority of the U.S. Department of Justice is to prevent future terrorist attacks in the country. September 11, 2001, terrorist attack led to the creation and passage of the Terrorism Act of 2001, also known as the USA Patriot Act (Jenks, 2001). The following paper discusses the USA Patriot Act focusing on its constitutionality, principle functions, and changes the act brought into the federal law enforcement authority.
The constitutionality of the USA PATRIOT Act
The U.S. Department of Justice's first agenda is to prevent future terrorist activities in the country. The homeland security has been on the forefront to protect the country from terrorism by conducting some activities and operations as provided in the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act comes with irresistible, bi-partisan, and effective law enforcement tools aimed at detecting and preventing terrorism. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attack took America by surprise making John Ashcroft, the then U.S. Attorney General, introduce to the Congress some recommended changes in the law to help prevent terrorism. The Congress strictly followed the Constitution when passing the act to ensure its provisions and sections adhere to the federal, state, and local government laws. However, the unity and concerns of the security of the nation made the U.S. Senate pass the act quickly in an aim to strengthen and unite Americans (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2016). Debates about the constitutionality of the Patriot Act emerged after its passage with some Congress members terming some provision as an infringement on the rights of Americans.
Section one of the USA Patriot Act offers a history of the act explaining its origin, function, and goals. Lawmakers argue the act does not consider personal liberty and allows the federal government to use its power to violate human rights, which is against the U.S. constitution. However, the Department of Justice refutes the claim arguing the Act only provides an amendment and update of current laws but never creates any new laws. In defense of the Act, Senator Leahy Patrick accepted that some amendments were unconstitutional made because they were in the hurry of creating and passing rules that would ensure no other terrorist act takes place in the country. The Senator claimed they had to set aside some time to re-read the act and remove some unconstitutional sections. Moreover, the Senator argued some sections could not be changes however much unconstitutional they appear because, in the history of the U.S.A, people have misused the individual freedom guaranteed by the constitution. The presence of these amendments ensured individuals does not take advantage of the freedom guaranteed to undertake terrorist acts (Bailie, 2012).
On the other hand, the public questions the constitutionality of Section 213 of the U.S.A Patriot Act that gives federal criminal investigators the right to search suspected terrorists including their premises. The section introduces many controversies because of the lack of continued congressional oversight. Section 213 was an amendment to the Omnibus Crime Control and State Streets Act of 1968 that allowed the authorities to delay a search warrant. Moreover, the investigating officers were required to produce a search warrant describing the place to be searched, the reason for the search, and persons or things to be searched before doing any search. The search warrant allowed only the officer mentioned to conduct the search (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten, 2015).
The Patriot Act came up with new rules that required the federal authority to search the suspect and their properties without prior notification. The section goes against the constitutional right of Americans to enjoy the security of their lives, property, and effects caused by unreasonable seizure and searches. In defense of the amendment, the Department of Justice argued giving the suspect prior notice before commencing any search jeopardizes the investigation. The move helps prevent the suspect hide evidence, or go into hiding to avoid capture (Bailie, 2012).
Despite many debates and controversies about the constitutionality of the USA PATRIOT Act, it acts as the best legislations capable of securing Americans from the terrorists. Ashcroft and other Americans in support of the Act argue the country is at war; hence, they need to implement changes that would give U.S. enemies no chance to cause more deaths and destructions in the country. The public opinion also shows continuous support of the Patriot Act. Moreover, the U.S. courts continue to review the act to establish some changes that are against the constitution.
Principle functions influenced by major elements of the USA PATRIOT Act
The USA Patriot Act introduced major changes in the American law and justice system through the creation of major elements that influence different functions and operations in the country. The main aim of the Act was uniting and strengthening America by ensuring legal systems has appropriate tools needed to seize and hinder terrorism.
One of the major elements of the UAS Patriot Act was enhancing domestic security against terrorism. The element influenced the American’s role in protecting the rights of every citizen in America by promoting hatred and discrimination among some communities. Section 106 of the Act provide a declaration for all other ethnicities living in America including Arab-American, South Asians, and Muslim-Americans to accord Americans total respect and protect their civil rights and liberties (Horowitz, n.d). The Arab and Muslim Americans suffered a backlash after the September 11 attack because of speculations that they took part in the attack. Americans turned against fellow Muslims and Arabs destroying their properties and displacing them. The Patriot Act granted federal agencies the right to humiliate Muslim and Arab communities that led to discrimination and hated crimes.
The second element that influenced the principle functions of Americans was the enhancement of security procedures. The following element contradicted with the constitutional rights granted to American citizens to protect the country from terrorist activities. Section 209 of the USA Patriot Act gives law enforcement agencies the right to seize voice mail messages without pursuing warranty (United States, 2005). According to AHIMA Practice Brief (2016), the passage of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 led to the development of the HIPAA privacy rule. The two acts contravened with the Freedom of Information Act that protected the confidentiality and privacy of individual information including health information. Law enforcers were to acquire a warrant before intercepting personal information from phone calls, short text messages, or online messages. The act aimed at balancing the right to privacy with protecting citizens. However, the public felt the law interfered with their personal freedom.
Finally, the USA Patriot Act of 2001 introduced an element of border protection that influenced the principle functions of the government. The provision made the U.S.A border more secure by introducing laws that allowed all immigrants to undergo thorough scrutiny before entering the country. For example, Section 411 of the Act denies members or representatives of a terrorist organization admission to the U.S. unless they provide legal documents stating their purpose of visit. The law influenced the function of the Department of Immigration by making them more vigilant and alert when dealing with members of these communities.
Changes in federal law enforcement authority resulting from the USA PATRIOT Act
The USA Patriot Act introduced significant changes to the federal law enforcement authorities. First, the Act led to an increase in funding of federal law enforcement authority to make them more prepared for dealing with terrorism activities. The law equips the federal law enforcement authorities and intelligent officials with appropriate tools and resources capable of offering effective detection and protection of terrorists and their activities in the nation.
Second, the USA Patriot Act gave the federal law enforcement authority more powers in conducting terrorism investigations than before. The presence of these powers makes the agency more prepared to undertake any challenge or problem presenting itself capable of leading to terrorist activity. However, claims have emerged that the federal law enforcement agency takes advantage of these powers to investigate non-terrorist crimes. Jeffrey Rosen of the New York Times argued the Patriot Act gives law enforcers too much power. Law enforcers use these powers to spy on innocent Americans. Politicians and other powerful figures in the nation take advantage to investigate political dissent and other offenses for personal benefits other than that addressed in the Act (Rosen, 2011).
The USA Patriot Act also created changes in the federal law enforcement agency by giving them powers to prevent activities that promote terrorism such as money laundering and ferrying of illegal weapons. The Act gives the agency the authority to seize money laundering schemes and freeze bank accounts of terrorism suspects. The law can easily intercept communications on terror plans because they have more powers to monitor telephone and internet conversations. Additionally, the federal authority's role in border control changed; hence, giving them more powers to seize any cargo suspected of containing weapons or explosions meant to carry out terrorist activities.
Conclusion
The USA Patriot Act acted as the best reliever for Americans from the hands of terrorists. The move by the U.S. Attorney General to introduce the act and have it passed into law had a lot of positive impact on the security of the United States. The discussion reveals that the some lawmakers questioned the constitutionality of the act claiming it removed some clauses of the American constitution. However, the Attorney General together with some Congressmen defended the claim arguing the act only made some amendments and never changed the constitution. The main changes in constitution addressed include the right to privacy and liberty, the power of federal law enforcement authorities, and the right to U.S. citizenship. On the other hand, the Patriot Act brought numerous changes to the federal law enforcement agency including access to more funds, more privileges, and additional powers. The public and the government should work together in practicing provisions of the act to promote unity and strength of Americans in the fight against terrorism.
References
AHIMA Practice Brief. (2010, Nov.). Homeland Security Act, Patriot Act, Freedom of
Information Act, and HIM (2010 Update). Retrieved 07 May 2016 from http://bok.ahima.org/doc?oid=106172#.Vy2Ud1V961t
Bailie, J. D. (2012). The Constitutionality of the Patriot Act: Examining Section 213. Student
Pulse, 4(03). Retrieved from http://www.studentpulse.com/a?id=622
Constitutional Rights Foundation. (2016). The Patriot Act: What Is the Proper Balance Between
National Security and Individual Rights? Retrieved from http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/the-patriot-act.html
Ferdico, J. N., Fradella, H. F., and Totten, C. D. (2015). Criminal Procedure: For the Criminal
Justice Professionals (20th ed.). USA: Cengage Learning.
Jenks, R. (December 2001). The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001: A Summary of the Anti-
Terrorism Law's Immigration-Related Provisions. Center for Immigration Studies. Retrieved 07 May 2016 from http://cis.org/USAPatriotAct-ImmigrationRelatedProvisions
Rosen, J. (2011, Sep. 8). The Patriot Act Gives Too Much Power to Law Enforcement. The New
York Times. Retrieved 07 May 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/09/07/do-we-still-need-the-patriot-act/the-patriot-act-gives-too-much-power-to-law-enforcement
United States. (2005). USA PATRIOT Act: A review for the purpose of reauthorization: hearing
before the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress, first session, April 6, 2005. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.
