Introduction
President George W. Bush signed the USA Patriotic Act into law following the September 11 attacks. It was designed so as to improve the anti-terrorism investigations by the federal authorities. Among the primary purposes of this act is to improve the law enforcement investigation tools and prevent as well as punish the acts of terrorism in the country and other parts of the world. It is vital to note that this antiterrorism law removed the legal barriers, which were blocking the federal defense, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies from exchanging the information regarding possible terrorist threats. The present paper first elucidates how the provisions of this antiterrorism law grant the law enforcement and intelligence officials/agents special powers to combat terrorism. The paper then explains two different views of this act and why some individuals believe it is an inappropriate legislation. The paper ends with my point of view on whether the law enforcement and intelligence officials ought to have the authority given to them under the provisions of this act.
The Patriotic Act provided the federal agencies including the National Security Agency, the FBI, and the country's Department of Justice, among others with new powers to protect the country from terrorism activities. In other words, this act grants the country’s law enforcement and intelligence officials several special powers to fight terrorism. First of all, sections 203 (b) and 203 (d) of the Patriotic Act gives the law enforcement and intelligence officials the power to share the information about possible terrorist threats. According to Abramson & Godoy (2005), these sections allow the intelligence agencies to share the information from the criminal investigations.
Additionally, section 213 of this act grants the law enforcement and intelligence officials the power to search business or a home devoid of informing the probe’s target immediately (Chang, 2001). In other words, this section of the patriotic act gives the law enforcement and intelligence officials the power to conduct sneak and peek search warrants. Moreover, section 218 of this antiterrorism law gives the law enforcement and intelligence officials the power to get a search order or a foreign intelligence wiretap. Furthermore, section 215 grants the law enforcement and intelligence officials the power to obtain records, documents, and books, among other items pursued in connection with the investigations involving terrorism activities.
It is vital to note that the USA Patriotic Act has remained contentious. On one hand, the proponents of this Act believe that it facilitates the fight against terrorism. On the other hand, its critics maintain that it threatens the privacy, civil liberties, as well as democratic traditions in the country’s history. According to Chang (2001), the Patriotic Act, to an unprecedented extent, sacrifices the Americans’ political freedoms and upsets the democratic values, which defines the country. In particular, the critics of the Patriotic Act believe that it is an inappropriate legislation due to some reasons. For one, they fear that this antiterrorism law eliminates or decreases most of the civil liberties that the U.S. Constitution guarantees. One of these liberties is the freedom from unreasonable seizures and searches. In essence, the people’s homes and properties are protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures (Evans, 2001). The critics of the USA Patriotic Act believe that the sneak and peek warrants constitute the violation of the right to the protection against unreasonable seizures as well as searches.
Additionally, the opponents of the Patriotic Act maintain that it infringes on the individuals’ right to privacy. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution also protects the right to privacy. The Patriotic Act violates the right to privacy (Evans, 2001). The law enforcement and intelligence officials might violate the right to privacy for persons they suspect to have engaged in the terrorist activities. Furthermore, the critics of the Patriotic Act believe that it is an inappropriate legislation because it violates the freedom of speech. In particular, under the Patriotic Act, the librarians might be prosecuted if they tell a person that the federal agencies subpoenaed the information associated with an investigation related to terrorism. Consequently, the critics view the Patriotic Act as an inappropriate legislation, which violates the freedom of speech. What is more, the critics of the Patriotic Act believe that it is an inappropriate legislation because it encroaches on the right to liberty. Under the Patriotic Act, the suspected people might be jailed devoid of being charged. As a result, the opponents of this Act believe that it is an inept law.
In my point of view, the law enforcement and intelligence officials should not have the authority given to them in the provisions of the USA Patriotic Act. In essence, these officials might abuse this authority. In other words, they might use their positions to target the innocent individuals who they see as the threat. Without a doubt, the USA Patriotic Act infringes some bill of rights. The law enforcement and intelligence officials might, thus, take advantage of these weaknesses to misuse and abuse the authority granted to them. Specifically, they might use the authority given to them in the USA Patriot Act provision to curtail the individuals’ freedom of speech, association, and expression. What is more, they might use this authority to violate the individuals’ right to liberty, the right to the protection against unreasonable seizures as well as searches, and right to privacy, among others.
References
Abramson, L., & Godoy, M. (2005, December 16). NPR: The Patriot Act: Key Controversies. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/news/specials/patriotact/patriotactdeal.html
Chang, N. (2001). The USA Patriot Act. Covert Action Quarterly, 14-18.
Evans, J. C. (2001). Hijacking Civil Liberties: The USA Patriot Act of 2001. Loy. U. Chi. LJ, 33, 933.
