The Patriot Act allowed the United States to protect its citizens from terrorism. The extreme surveillance established by the Patriot Act allowed the government to have an upper hand on terrorists and without that, there could be another attacked similar to 9/11 or worse. Although the Patriot Act removes rights of all citizens, it also protects the safety of all citizens. Certainly, life and safety are much more important than allowing the government to invade privacy when it is determined to be necessary for protection. The forfeiture of rights during a time of war is necessary because safety and security are of greater value than privacy rights at the time.
The major concern about the Patriot Act is the invasion of privacy that it affords to the government . The so called Sneak and Peek Warrants allow for searches without warrants. This provision as well as provisions allowing information sharing, access to records, and foreign intelligence wire tapes are included in the Act with intention to prevent covert plans to attack America. These provisions also expand the power of the government to investigate other criminal activities besides terrorism. This is not a downfall of the Patriot Act. Preventing crime, whether by foreign terrorists or by American criminals is a good thing. It ensures a safe country. Giving the government the power to apprehend criminals that are not terrorists should not be an issue. These criminals may have otherwise conducted their criminal activity without detection.
The Constitution itself does indeed protect citizen’s rights during war, and the Patriot Act coincides with the rights provided in the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution forbids unreasonable searches and seizures. Searches and seizures made upon suspected terrorists and suspected criminals are not unreasonable. It is certainly not unreasonable to stop another terrorist attack on American soil. None of the direct provisions of the Constitution of the United States are directly violated by the provisions of the Patriot Act. Interpretations throughout history have refined the rights as necessary during the times. The framers of the Constitution certainly did not envision terrorism. The times have changed and the interpretations of the Constitution need to change as well. Safety and Security should be of utmost importance. Additionally, the Constitution does not directly provide for the right to privacy. This right has been established over time to address issues that were occurring in America. Now that terrorism is a real threat, the rights to privacy can be more limited without a direct violation of the United States Constitution.
The dissent to war should not be equated to a lack of patriotism. The United States Constitution provides the right to freedom of speech. Dissent to war, so long as it does not involve criminal acts or violence, should be allowed. Simply opposing war is not a crime. It is not a lack of patriotism either because patriotism is more than just supporting a war. Patriotism is a feeling of pride and devotion to one’s country. Pride and devotion does not have to include the support of war. War may be opposed for many reasons. However, if the opposition to war is more than a stance against violence or destruction and equate to a deep seeded resentment and hatred towards one’s country, then it is a lack of patriotism. The intensity of the dissent would determine whether patriotism is lacking.
References
Abramson, Larry and Maria Godoy. "The Patriot Act: Key Controversies." National Public
Radio 14 February 2006.
"American Security: Triumphs and Downfalls of the Patriot Act." Interpolations n.d.
Foner, Eric. Voices of Freedom: A Documentary History. W.W. Norton, 2005. Print.
"Pros and Cons of the Patriot Act." 5 January 2013.
