The Patriot Act detriments our political freedoms on behalf of national security and hurts the values that distinguish our nation. The act consolidates numerous fresh powers in the executive branch of government. The most vital feature of the Patriot Act is a new, in-depth meaning of terrorism. “Section 802 states that a person engages in domestic terrorism if they do any act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if that action appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.””(The Patriot Act Helps Keep America Safe. 9 June 2005.)” The acts must take place above all within the national jurisdiction of the United…
The Act, aimed at updating both the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and the Electronics Communications Privacy Act of 1986 is composed of 10 titles all of which were hurried through Congress on October 24th, 2001 and passed the senate the following day, “…with little deliberation. Unlike a typical statute, neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate issued a report on the PATRIOT act.” (Standler, 2007-2008, p. 4) To this day, the Patriot Act remains controversial; its supporters uphold it as a requirement for The War on Terrorism and for the enforcement of modern electronic communications law. The Act’s critics cite its numerous infringements on civil and individual rights. Title II, considered the most controversial, deals directly with surveillance, wiretapping, and computer fraud. Title II also details sanctions placed on trade with the Taliban, Syria and North Korea. The Patriot Act’s Title II, Enhanced Surveillance Procedures is a breach of privacy and infringes upon the tenants of our Fourth Amendment rights.…
September 11 2001, marked a very tragic day in history, and immediate action was required in order to handle the situation. During the Bush administration, surveillance programs were put into place in order to monitor possible hostile actions towards our country. In a post Snowden article in 2006, Robert A. Levy went into depth about what Article II is and if current programs put into place can be deemed illegal. After reviewing Article II and Levy’s position I agree that it was illegal, but I believe that this was because what need to take place was described vaguely and was left up to interpretation. The fourth amendment speaks about using “reasonableness,” what might be reasonable to one may not mean the same to another. Due to this, abuse…
In 2001, people are quick to dismiss the idea of an internment of American citizens, suggesting that the country has come a long way from 1942. The hypothesis that the government might conduct surveillance or use illegal wiretaps to monitor groups or individuals that it suspects of domestic terrorism seemed foreign before September 11th, and now has become a way to gain more information about potential suspects. These new measures, included in the USA Patriot Act, delicately trace the line between national security and civil liberties. A brief look at how the Bush…
On October 26th, 2001, just 45 days after September 11th a panicked Congress passed, with little debate, the USA Patriot Act. The 342 page patriot act violates our 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th amendments, thus making it unconstitutional. I don't know why Congress passed this act, or how it got through the Supreme Court, but most people in Congress didn't even read the Patriot Act. I am sure that our founding fathers would not have wanted the Patriot Act. Just look at what Ben Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."…
After the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, many Americans were fearful of what the future held. Enacted as a response to those attacks, and as a way to re-instill a sense of security to the nation, American legislators worked to pass the USA Patriot Act of 2001. The Patriot Act appropriately made changes to other U.S. laws to combat terrorism, however it also established measures that may potentially hinder the rights of those it was designed to protect, sparking controversy regarding privacy and governmental power over the lives of private citizens.…
I chose to focus my analysis on Edward Snowden and his disclosure of classified domestic surveillance documents. When the leak first came out, I was upset at the thought of my privacy being violated by the NSA. However, the feeling dissipated when I considered the protection making that sacrifice affords. The NSA, like many organizations, are sometimes faced with ethical dilemmas. Occasionally, there is no right answer. Thus, the decision made, while not ideal, is the lesser of evils. In his TED talk interview, Snowden stated, “Your rights matter because you never know when you're going to need them” (TED, 13:20). While I admit his statement did trigger the reexamination of my stance, I arrived at the same position. Perhaps, I will look back…
There has been significantly less terrorist activity in America since domestic surveillance has started, but how much does that prove? Evidence has been found that often the NSA has information on terrorist plots and disregards it without a thought, such as in the case of the Boston Marathon bombing and on Charlie Hebdo in Paris (“Domestic Surveillance” 4). The NSA is a little kid, spying around a corner and never uttering a word.…
In the aftermath of September 11, Congress was eager to put laws on the books to prevent another attack. In an unprecedented spirit of bipartisan patriotism, a law was passed in the House by 357 to 66 (Clerk of the House) and in the Senate by 98 to 1 (Secretary of the Senate). The title of the act, USA PATRIOT Act, is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. Since its historic passage there has been much debate on the constitutionality of the act. Some would claim the Legislative and Executive branches acted opportunistically and enacted a law that infringes on the rights of Americans. This paper, for sake of brevity, focuses on Section 213 of the Patriot Act, the “sneak and peak” section. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the arguments on both sides of the issues and determine whether or not Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act is indeed unconstitutional. This paper examines the history of the Patriot Act, evaluates recent litigation concerning this act, and considers precedents that would give or withhold from Congress the authority to enact such a law.…
I believe that the government still has a right to perform those actions because it is for the overall safety of the people. Organizations such as The American Civil Liberties Union are protesting and criticizing the Patriot Act. I think that their arguments are not justified. Most of the citizens in the United States are not trying to perform a terrorist attack or break criminal laws. The people that are, are the ones that are affected by this act. If a citizen has nothing to hide, then they have nothing to worry about because they are not being…
The Patriot Act was designed to try and eliminate acts of terrorism on the United States. This act was signed in 2001 by president George W. Bush. Just weeks after the terrorist attacks on 9/11(NBCNews). The Patriot Act allows for the government to identify terrorist. “This is done by wiretapping and monitoring text messages and phone calls’’(Diamond).I am not saying that are civil liberty aren't important but when it comes to keeping our citizens safe then this is the only choice. People who have nothing to hid should have no problem with the government monitoring them for the sake of people's lives. The patriot act has allowed for at least 50 terrorist attacks against the United States to be foiled since 9/11.(Johnson) This Act is doing…
Many people believe that this grants them a certain feeling of ease and rest because they know that there is something that helps identify and major threats and stop terrorist groups before anything drastic happen. This cause people to worry less and have a strong sense of safety. Others feel that this grants certain agencies to much power to spy and monitor them. People say that this takes away a lot of their own privacy and that it isn’t right. This causes them to feel a breach in their privacy and fear of what the government can do if they don’t have any limits. People against the act will want to get rid of it because they feel that the government will take advantage of this and they won’t know when to stop. Their belief is it breaks some of their own rights and this is wrong. The ACU and the ACLU are prime examples of this belief and this is why they are always fighting against it. The others believe that terrorism is a great threat not only to the United States but also around the world and some action needs to be taken immediately. The USA Patriot Act offers them exactly what they are looking for and they are willing to give up some privacy in order to find the bad people among them. Usually, the people in the United States don’t have to fear because if they don’t do anything suspicious, the government won’t look at them. It is only those certain few…
As a result of the attacks on the date of 9/11, Congress passed the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act made the government’s ability to spy on individuals easier, but also weakened the checks and balances our country relies on. So in essence, the threat of terrorism against our country paved the way for violating one of our basic civil liberties under the fourth amendment of the constitution – the ability to live free of unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the ability for government agencies to obtain information quickly and without warning becomes a powerful tool against terrorism.…
The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by Congress as a response to the terrorist attack of September 11. On October 26, 2001 The USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law No. 107-56) was signed into law by President George W. Bush. The USA PATRIOT Act "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” this law enabled law enforcement personnel new abilities to search, seize, detain, or eavesdrop in their pursuit of possible terrorists as it states in our text. For the most part public response for The Patriot Act has been very close to even a Feb 2011 survey from the Pew Research center states “42% say the Patriot Act is a necessary tool that helps the government find terrorists, while somewhat fewer (34%) say the Patriot Act goes too far and poses a threat to civil liberties.” As compared to their Jan 2006 survey that said, “The public divided evenly over the Patriot Act, with 39% saying it is a necessary tool and 38% saying it goes too far.” When one thinks of the Pros of the Patriot Act he has to include the use of surveillance.…
Developed “to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes” the USA Patriot Act, bears the formal name ‘‘Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot Act, 2001, p. 1). Heretofore referred to as the “Patriot Act” the USA Patriot Act was signed into law within 6 weeks from initial draft to final approval supporting the enforcement of laws for the ultimate protection of the United States and her citizens by granting access to persons and information with liberal criminal and civil procedure exceptions. The Patriot Act immediately granted broad-based interrogation, surveillance and isolation abilities to law enforcement when investigating “crimes against terror” (US Government, 2011)…