The U.S. Patriot Act
Americans faced one of the most horrifying episodes in their history of the United States. Many individuals watched with horror as the historical landmarks collapsed simultaneously at the hands of terrorists. Who could forget the shock as the terrorist planes embraced the Twin Towers as the terrorist snuffed the lights of many innocent victims? As a result of this horror, the American Congress waited for only forty-five days before passing the USA Patriot Act in response to that fateful date of September 11, 2001. A number of delusion individuals convinced themselves that they reserved the right to attack the United States and remove the hardworking innocent victims from their rightful place in the society. “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” Act, or the USA PATRIOT Act came into existence in order to enforce the righteous purpose of discovering and prosecuting any and all intercontinental terrorists who choose to operate in the United States. While the US Patriot act seeks to secure the American citizens, there are adverse outcomes that have proved to be extreme violation of the United States Constitution.
Abramson and Godoy (2006) support the idea that the United States Patriot Act will eventually face “long-term renewal” (Abramson & Godoy, par.1) in its policy. In fact, the most-important senators arrived at a compromise “with the White House that allays the civil liberties concerns of some critics of the law,” (Abramson and Godoy, par.1) as the Act infringes on First Amendment rights. The First Amendment forms the foundations that protect the freedom of speech and expression. In addition, the Fourth Amendment Rights supports and protects the United States citizens against any form of unjustifiable investigations and apprehension. Many critics argue that the Patriot Act sanction unprincipled and unauthorized observation of United States citizens with an insignificant enhancement of national security in the country. Clearly, the imposition of the Patriot Act stifles freedom of speech, freedom of thoughts, and a freedom to live the true American lifestyle as the Act promotes an atmosphere that thrives on continuous apprehension and mistrust.
If these claims are factual, the law may not have stemmed from “a rational response to the attacks of September 11, 2001,” (The US Patriot Act, par.7). Instead, the law could well have been a well-structured, long-term plan by some members of the judiciary unit “in favor of law enforcement and intelligence agencies [so] that civil libertiesmay be sacrificed as a result,” (“The US Patriot Act, par.7). Nonetheless, one could say that some aspects of the provisions of the Act interferes with the rights of individuals and therefore presents a grave threat to the municipal rights of each individuals in the country. Beale and Felman, in their study, support the PATRIOT Act, and postulate that “for the first time [the Act] permits disclosure, without a prior court order, of grand jury material that involves ‘foreign intelligence’ information to many Federal agencies whose duties are unrelated to law enforcement” (Beale & Felman, p.1). In addition, the right to disclose information protects the witnesses and “it is unlikely that these provisions will encourage witnesses to flee, because there is no reason to believe that the information will make its way back to those who might wish to harm the witnesses for their testimony,” (Beale & Felman, p.1).
According to Grabianowski in his article “How the Patriot Act Works,” the main goals of this law is “to strengthen domestic security and broaden the powers of law-enforcement agencies,” (Grabianowski, par.1) in response to finding and stopping different terrorist groups. But, how can a law that seeks to protect, promote the destruction of one’s freedom? The reality is that the “passing and renewal of the Patriot Act has been extremely controversial,” (Grabianowski. par.1). Advocates for the Patriot Act suggest that the Act supports a number of investigations that leads to the prosecution and eventual arrest of terrorists who seek to destroy the United States. In contrast, advocates against the Act opine that the Patriots Act allows “the government too much power, threaten civil liberties and undermine the very democracy it seeks to protect,” (par.1). Arguably, many contemporary lawmakers and politicians in America appear to have lost the vision of essential ideas of the foundation of the American Dream. As such it is the citizens in country who suffer as a result of the Patriot Act. The aim of the US Patriot Act is to protect the citizens, but how can one call invading the privacy of others, protection? History shows that the foundation principles of America promote personal freedom, civil rights, and the right to privacy. Nevertheless, one finds that the print media faces the fear of every thought and idea becomes an avenue for the enforcement of the Patriot Act.
For many individuals, this imposition on the freedom of speech serves as one of the most frightening feature of the Patriot Act. In addition, the Act allows for the government to search out any and all of its citizens whether these citizens are good or bad. Businesses also suffer as they have to be mindful of their business associates. One may innocently transact business in excess of the required amount stated under the Patriot Act and find oneself at the center of a lawsuit. The Patriot Act demands that multiple money transactions be treated as a distinct transaction if the financial institution has first-hand knowledge that the transactions total more than $10,000 during any one business day, (Risk Management Manual, n.p). But, honestly, with the current economic crisis around the world, who wants to refuse monetary transactions? The answer is simply, ‘no one.’ Still, the ridiculous rule impacts on business and force the citizens to endure the constant embarrassment of abiding by an archaic law.
Interestingly, the US Patriot Act does not stipulate that there must be adequate verification that an alleged “suspect” is connected to an unlawful action prior to the government authorizing surveillance of the individual. In fact, citizens who abide by the law can become one of the targets of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) scrutiny just because of their mannerisms in the way they carry out their First Amendment rights. The harsh realities are that, in trying to protect its citizens from the outside world, the Patriot Act falls short of protecting the United States liberties. One can successfully argue that the Patriot Act exposes each American citizen to prospective exploitation of power as the Act enforces the creation of an environment that supports secrecy, government corruption, discrimination, and fraud. The truth is the Patriot Act uses “national security” as a charade for violating the fundamental Constitutional rights of the people. Consequently, many advocates against the Act suggest that with the passage of time, the Patriot Act has become increasingly distant from the ideal society that grew out of democracy.
Initially, the United States citizen enjoyed the independence of being free from awkward seizures and searches. However, the volatile attack of September 11, 2001, forced many individuals into the position of having to relinquish their rights so as to protect the citizens in the country. Still, one question the sacrifices one has to make to ensure that the punishments come to the perpetrators who seek to destroy the lives of the innocent citizens and prevent future tragedies. Still, many citizens willingly support the government’s attempts to protect and serve the people of the country. Statistics show that the Americans came together to support the decision of Congress to pass the law that would seek to protect every citizen. One could say that the threat of terrorism forced the citizens to unite, and, as a result, the President’s rating increased from just over fifty percent to eighty-six percent. This statistics proved that while the Patriot Act has a number of flaws, the citizens prefer to feel safe than to face another morbid experience.
The Congress believed that the Patriot Act could shield the American citizens from her enemies who work in America. But, the Act changed over time and has become one that violates the rights of the people. As with any other country, a number of Americans accepted the Patriot act without question as they feared that they could be labeled as unpatriotic. Nonetheless, a great number of American citizens publicly questioned the act of the Congress at the time. In fact, many citizens continue to question the moral stance of the act, but Congress continues to ignore their objections. Although the Patriot Act passed with a vote of ninety-six to one, many critics believe that the apprehension and terror of the period after the attack led many citizens to keep their silence about their discomfort on the law. Arguably, the swiftness with which the Patriot Act came into being quickly pushed aside much of the controversial feature that would normally attract ample congressional analysis. In essence, the fear that came with the September 11 attacks clouded the better judgment of the American people, and, as a result, there many willingly sacrificed their fundamental civil rights for a false sense of security.
It is true that the state has the powers to make the necessary laws that protect the truthfulness of its country, life, liberty and property of its citizens. The US Patriot Act of 2001 surfaced to protect the American citizens against the possibility of another terrorist attack on American soil. On one hand, the Patriot Act helped law enforcement officers to find terrorists and to prevent them from executing their fatal plans. With the Patriot Act, law enforcers have better tools to prevent terrorism. But, Senators and Congressman such as the Kentucky Senator Rand Paul strongly opposes the US Patriot Act. In his address to the members of his constituency, he noted that the Patriot Act has good intentions, but the law failed to speak to the real issues. He adds that under these circumstances, the United States government garnered control over unwarranted searches in addition to other unconstitutional powers. The logical arguments of the Senator leave no doubt that the good intentions of the Patriot Act got lost on its journey into the twenty-first century.
Interestingly, the very laws that seek to protect the citizens stand against the citizens to promote discrimination guaranteed and protected by the United States Constitution has become a nightmare for the citizens. Senator Feingold fought hard to protect the rights of the citizens as his arguments pointed to the negative effects that the Act would have on the Americans and their way of life as they move into the twenty-first century. Feingold believed in his arguments that the Patriot Act would remove the citizen’s liberty. Unquestionably, the US Patriot Act is undemocratic because it infringes on the essential American principles of “checks and balances” on government control. Generally, the government cannot carry out an investigation into a citizen’s dwelling without a search warrant and express a motive that the suspect will commit or has committed a crime. Nonetheless, the Act breaches the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution as it allows the government to the opportunity to carry out searches without a warrant for no apparent reason. How could this be morally and ethically right?
There is no way that citizens can learn to appreciate the embarrassment that comes with an unwarranted search. In fact, no one should have to endure this violation of privacy and freedom, especially when law enforcers hide from the true reasons for such embarrassing situations. Many “victims” of the Patriot Act point out that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) hide behind the façade of saying that their actions relate to national security. The fact is that this reason is often not good enough. However, the struggle to maintain balance in the Patriot Act has improved to an extent. The law now seeks to add some amount of moral ramifications to the once closeted investigations as there is transparency in the way that searches are carried out. But, is this transparency enough to comfort those that face the unwarranted searches and the infringement on one’s rights? Ideally, the implementation of accessing a search warrant the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) would change the way the Federal Bureau abused their authority. But, how many times has this court gone against the Bureau?
In the article “A Patriot Act for Everyone,” the writer notes “the Federal Bureau of Investigation and otherlaw enforcement agencies [have] access to anything and everything,” (par.3) in a citizens life. This access causes disturbances in the lives of the innocent citizens in the country. Similarly, Murphy postulates that the Bureau justified its actions by accessing anything that is relevant to section 508 and covers those suspected of carrying out terrorist actions, (Murphy, n.p). In addition, section 508 covers those suspected of engaging in acts that appear to influence the policies of a government by intimidation or coercion, (Murphy, n.p). Consequently, majority of the cases of terrorism in the Department of Justice are simple crimes instead of terrorist activities. The case against Jose Padilla in 2002 indicates the trivial pursuits of the government as they seek justice under the Us Patriot act. A federal judge ordered the release of a terrorism suspect, Jose Padilla, because of insufficient evidence after being imprisoned for more than two years. The ruling reinforced the idea that the Patriot Act has many flaws.
Arguably, the case against the hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar broke down because of the government’s inability to follow Sections 203(b) and 203(d) of the Patriot Act. These sections of the Act seek to separate intelligence and criminal investigations. The Justice Department blame the wall for the failure to find and detain September 11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar prior to the attacks,” (Abramson & Godoy, par. 8). In fact, CIA agents possessed information to prove that both men entered the United States prior to the attack “and were suspected terrorists, but the FBI [revealed that] it did not receive [the] information until August 2001,” (Abramson & Godoy, par.8). How ironic? Yet, the government and law-enforcers were quick to detain the innocent Padillo. Many United States officials blame the failure to disclose information for the ineffectiveness and misapprehension of the law. Interestingly, advocates against the Patriot Act readily agree that the unrestricted sharing of information can undoubtedly result in the expansion of substantial databases that seek to protect innocent citizens.
Horrowitz highlights three of the most troubling sections of the Patriot Act. He notes, “Section 206: Allows for roving wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” (Horrowitz, p. 1) and allows the court to issue “a court order to employ electronic surveillance of a foreign power or agent of a foreign power,” (Horrowitz, p. 1). Conversely, the fact that the government can listen to any and every conversations suggests that there is a complete breach of the freedom of privacy and speech. This breach should not occur as a citizens reserves the right to speak on any matter at will. One may argue that such freedom to speak should be monitored as citizens can plan daring attacks via the telephone. But, how does one determine who is a terrorist without wire tapping? The fact is that the decision to monitor individual’s calls presents a problem for the government as no one can look at a person and determine whether or not the person is a terrorist or a future threat to the stability of the country. Nevertheless, wiring tapping impinges on a person’s rights, but in the same breath the government has the responsibility to protect the citizens.
The matter is further compounded when the Section 209 of the Patriot Act allows law enforcement officers to confiscate voice mail messages after obtaining a warrant, (Horrowitz, p.1). The harsh reality is that, the government must take an unpopular stance to protect the rights of all its citizens even though such actions may force one to lose one’s liberties. One can argue at length that the right to seize recorded phone messages is a matter of discretion on the part of law enforcers. But, this discretion is not practiced in many cases and citizens feel violated because of Section 210 of the Patriot act that “allows law enforcement to subpoena additional subscriber records from service providers such as “records of sessions and durations” and “means and source of payment,” (Horrowitz, p.1) However, the government notes that there is a need for roving wiretaps as they provide the opportunity to deal with technologically sophisticated terrorists who use telephones to plan and execute their actions. On the other hand, the structure of the act violates the privacy of those who makes casual contacts with a suspected terrorist.
According to lawyers Dillard et.al, because of the implementation of the Patriot Act there have been more “anti-terrorism” plans, coming into the light, (Dillard et.al, p.1). This positive move had led critics to believe that despite the negative issues of the Patriot Act, the Act represents positive actions for the country. While the US Patriot Act attempts to prevent terrorist attacks in the present and in the future, the Act must be repealed as it infringes on the Constitutional rights of the innocent citizens in the country. One of the main reasons for repealing the US Patriot Act is that the act is not legitimate or constitutional. First of all, the openly defies the principles of the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution. In fact, the Act practically eliminates the Fourth Amendment. In addition, critics note that the Patriot Act goes against the First and Sixth Amendments and has become unconstitutional. Arguably, the Act limits the freedom and the rights the American citizens to speech and a speedy trial, and should therefore, be removed from the laws of the country. Under the Patriot Act, “almost any investigation can hide under the guise of an intelligence investigation, and thus be exempt from constitutional restraints. While these enhancements might help monitor terrorists, the price for our liberties is too high,” (Stanker, 38), as the real threat remains while the minor threats continue to run rampant in the society.
Levy notes “the temptation will be great to write draconian new laws that give law enforcement agencies - or even military forces - a right to undermine the civil liberties that shape the character of the United States, [but] Congress must carefully balance the need for heightened security with the need to protect the constitutional rights of Americans[and] Americans of Islamic descent, who could now easily became the target for of American xenophobia and ethnic discrimination,” (Levy, p.1). Critics argue that the US Patriot Act protects the country from acts of terrorism. While this may be true, one of the most terrifying features of the Patriot Act is the emergence of domestic terrorism. No one wants to deal with this new form of terrorism, but it is real. In recent times, the United States faced three main types of terrorism in the form of international terrorism, federal terrorism and terrorism that surpasses national borders. The Oklahoma City Bombing, for example, falls within the emerging domestic terrorism category and they are “violent acts committed by politically dissident domestic groups,” (Stanker, 38). For a group to be deemed as a “domestic terrorist” group, Stanker notes that the organization must engage in “a violent act in the name of the group,” (p.38). But, there is one problem with this scenario.
Most of the domestic terrorist groups are affiliated with political and religious non-conformist groups. Christianity has always been important to the Americans. Nevertheless, the implementation of the Patriot Act places churches and political groups under surveillance if there is even a hint that the members come in contact with these domestic terrorists. Interestingly, there does not have to be any concrete proof that the members of the church are in direct contact with the suspected individuals, but their phones were tapped. In all honesty, one crosses the boundaries of freedom when suspected “Christians” lose their rights to privacy because the government taps their phones and keep them under surveillance. Clearly “some aspects of the Patriot Act are necessary and completely reasonable, given advances in technology and the very real threat of terrorism,” (Stanker, 38) such as “Tripling the number of Border Patrol, Customs Service Inspectors and Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors at the northern border of the United States, and providing $100 million to improve technology and equipment on the U.S. border with Canada,” (Explaining the US Patriot Act, par. 5). On the other hand, Ronald J. Sievert notes that there is a general ignorance among the public about the Patriot Act, (p.320). Nevertheless, “other facets of the act have a chilling effect on our most sacrosanct political liberties,” (Stanker, 38).
In concluding, the Patriot Act violates the Constitutional rights of the average citizen in the United States, and must be repealed. The harsh reality is that the US Patriot Act limits the freedom of the American people to speech and privacy and it abolishes a big portion of the Bill of Rights. A vast number of congressmen, senators, among other politicians do not believe that the US Patriot Act serves as a good measure in the country as it violates the rights of the people. The fact a large number of the United States Senators and Congressman oppose the Act suggests that there are serious flaws to the Patriot Act and the government’s attempt to remove the freedoms of the citizens. The truth is that every American citizen revels in the fact that they live in a society that promotes freedom, and the government acknowledges the rights of the individual as they guard the rights of everyone. However, the implementation of the Patriot Act is slowly depriving the citizens of their freedom. The law-makers, therefore, need to revise the law and repeal the laws on wire tapping, access to personal telephone conversations so as not to sacrifice the civil liberties and a feeling of being secured in one’s country.
Many questions remain about the success of the Patriot Act in protecting the citizens of the United States against terrorism in the future. Arguably, the contentious additions to the Act show that the Act stands as a blockade to the privacy rights of American citizens and the likelihood that the government will abuse its power. The fact is that if law enforcement agents have the power to search any citizen’s home and personal records without a judge’s permission, then the belief that a man’s home is his castle is a thing of the past. This lack of privacy removes a citizen’s need to feel safe. The reality is that happiness comes with a feeling of comfort and privacy; and without such comfort there is no doubt that the country is taking a turn in the wrong direction. One solution to the problem is that the government must amend the Patriot Act and remove the power of law enforcers to search and seize phone records. An innocent citizen will undoubtedly feel violated if they hold personal conversation that law enforcers can expose freely. The amendment should be that careful investigation be carried out before law enforcers seize personal phone records. In fact, the Act should be revised so that all elements of wire-tapping be removed from the Act so that people can talk freely without others interpreting their meaning in an incorrect manner. One could argue that terrorists would be happy as there would be nothing to stop their planned movements. The truth is, even with or without wire tapping, terrorists will find unique ways to carry out their devious plan. Therefore, the country should put an end to punishing innocent citizens for the actions that they cannot control.
Works Cited
“A Patriot Act for Everyone” Viewed at
<http://www.teenink.com/opinion/current_events_politics/article/304139/A-Patriot-Act-for-Everyone/> Accessed October 9, 2014
Abramson, Larry and Godoy, Maria, (2006, February 14) “Politics: The Patriot Act: Key
Controversies,” Viewed at <http://www.npr.org/news/specials/patriotact/patriotactprovisions.html> Accessed
October 9, 2014
Beale, Sara Sun & Felman, James (2002) Assessing the USA PATRIOT Act's Changes to Grand
Jury Secrecy Criminal Justice Volume:17 Issue:2 Dated:Summer 2002 Pages:42 to 50
NCJ 196246 Viewed at <https://www.ncjrs.gov> Accessed October 9, 2014Chiacu, Donna, & Menn (2014, July 29) “U.S. Senate Bill Proposes Sweeping Curbs on NSA
Surveillance” Washington Post. Internet Version. Viewed at
<http://www.reuters.com/article > Accessed October 9, 2014
Dillard, Thomas W., et,al (2003) “A Grand Façade – How The Grand Jury Was Captured by
Government – Executive Summary No. 476 May 13, 2003. Viewed at <http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa476.pdf> Accessed October 9, 2014
Grabianowski, Ed. "How the Patriot Act Works" 06 July 2007. HowStuffWorks.com. Viewed
at <http://people.howstuffworks.com/patriot-act.htm> Accessed 09 October 2014.
Horowitz, Richard (Esq.) “Summary Of Key Sections Of The USA Patriot Act Of 2001” Viewed
at <http://www.rhesq.com/Terrorism/Patriot_Act_Summary.pdf> Accessed October 9, 2014
Levy, Sara, (2005) “For Reconciling Civil Liberty And Law Enforcement Concerns” Viewed at
<http://studentorgs.kentlaw.iit.edu/jicl/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/01/s2005_sara_levy.pdf> Accessed October 9, 2014
“Padilla Must Be Released or Charged, Federal Judge Rules,” Associated Press (2005) Viewed
at <http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7047710/#.VDc-ZkGol4E> Accessed October 9, 2014
Risk Management Manual of Examination Policies” (n.a) 2005 Federal Deposit Insurance
Cooperation Viewed at < https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/safety/manual/section8-
1.html> Accessed October 9, 2014
Sievert, Ronald J. (2007)”The Patriot Act Grand Jury Disclosure Exception: A Proposal Patriot
2005–2007: Truth, Controversy, and Consequences”pp.320 -360 Texas Review of Law
and Politics Vol. 11 Viewed at
<http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v11n2/Sievert.pdf> Accessed October 9, 2014
Stanker, Michael (2003) "The USA PATRIOT Act: An Egregious Violation of Our Rights or
National Necessity?"Moebius: Vol. 1: Iss. 2, Article 8. Viewed at <http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/moebius/vol1/iss2/8> Accessed October 9, 2014
“The USA Patriot Act” (2014) Department of Government and Justice Study, Viewed at:
<http://gjs.appstate.edu/media-coverage-crime-and-criminal-justice/usa-patriot-act>
Accessed October 9, 2014
