There are many advantages for expanding governmental surveillance and investigative powers. For instance, there’s the possibility of gaining invaluable information for future attacks, and also the potential for targeting terrorists who may be responsible for such attacks. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “The FBI does not have to demonstrate probable cause, only declare it has “reasonable grounds” to suspect that library records may be relevant to an investigation.” Supporters of such extreme measures believe in national security over privacy. They would much rather see a terrorist behind bars than protect their personalphone calls or bank accounts. Another claim is that the government wouldn’t investigate ordinary citizens, meaning that the law is exclusive to suspected criminals. Question: Do these claims qualify as being morally right?
From the supporter’s perspective the answer is yes. The government’s involvement is warranted in order to establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility (Department of Justice).
The Act also provides increased funding for victims of terrorist attacks and their families, as well as for the rebuilding of business and infrastructure that are damaged by terrorism.
The Patriot Act is divided into 10 separate sections known as “titles.” Each title contains numerous Sections that further clarify the provisions of the title. The emphasis was on being sure that should another attack be planned, the government would have the power to prevent it from being completed. Section 213 Sneak and Peek Warrants: this provision allows “sneak and peek” search warrants, which grants authorities authorization to search a home or business without immediately notifying the target of a probe. Investigators still have to explain why they want to delay the search notification and must eventually notify the target about the search (Abramson and Godoy 2006). Under this provision the FBI is permitted to enter...