Civil Liberties:

The Patriot Act

 Civil Liberties: The Patriot Act

The Patriot Act, passed by Congress 6 weeks after September

11th, gives the government extraordinary powers to prevent terrorism.

It is a 342-page, sprawling piece of legislation that includes over 150

sections and amends more than 15 federal laws. It deals primarily with

fighting against terrorism and gives the executive branch of

government more power to prevent terrorist activities. This act was to

address terrorism with a new vitality, to deter and punish the terrorist

acts in the United States and even all over the world, and to enhance

law enforcement investigation tools.

Other purposes include strengthening U.S. measures to prevent,

detect and prosecute international money laundering and financing of

terrorism, subjecting to special inquiry foreign jurisdictions, foreign

financial institutions, and classes of international transactions that are

susceptible to criminal abuse, requiring all appropriate parts of the

financial services industry to report potential money laundering and

strengthening measures to prevent use of the U.S. financial system for

personal. Several provisions are controversial because of their

infringements of civil liberties. The act has aroused civilians because

they gained the power to investigate and detain persons with little

oversight from the courts.

The biggest issue with the Patriot Act is that a person’s home

could be violated at any time; the government could conduct secret

searches and seize anything they want to. There are several other

issues as well. The top ten include how the government can force

libraries and bookstores to disclose titles of books that a person has

purchased or borrowed and can demand the identity of anyone who

has purchased or borrowed that book, how federal agents are

authorized to use hidden devices to trace calls or emails of any person,

how government agents are permitted to arrest individuals only

suspected of terrorist activities, how federal agents are permitted to

conduct complete investigations of citizens of the United States and

legal residents just because they have been involved in activities

protected by the First Amendment, such as merely writing a letter to

an editor or attending a quiet rally, how law enforcement agents are

allowed to listen to discussions between prisoners and their attorney,

which denies them the Constitutional right to a confidential legal

counsel, how people suspected of terrorism may be tried in secret

military tribunals where defendants basically have no rights what so

ever, how it is allowed for the CIA to spy on American citizens, how

there is an administrations where a government program encourages

citizens to spy on one another and report the activities to the

authorities, and lastly how the TIA (Total Information Awareness) will

link commercial and government foregrounds so that any piece of

information of a person could be pulled up if need be.

 In an article from October 30, 2001, it talks about how recently

after Bush’s signing of the Patriot Act, the act had obtained critics

already. Some disagree with the law's intrusions on civil liberties. They

refer to the provisions for extended detention, new powers to spy on

Americans, a lack of controlling the use of information, a stronger

ability to freeze and seize assets and an overly broad definition of

domestic terrorism. Others portray concern about the process itself.

The Patriot Act represents the most immense change in police powers

over the decades and codifies counterterrorist measures previously

rejected by Congress. There is another issue though it receives little

attention and that is the one of effectiveness.

The article also talks about the Patriot Act’s primary provisions

focusing mainly on data collection. The hidden assumption is that the

true problem is a lack of information. Due to past experiences, it is

suggested that the problem really isn’t a lack of data, but it is to make

sense of the data already obtained. At times, it could be the left hand

not knowing what the right hand has. After the bombing of the World

Trade Center in 1993, the FBI made a discovery that there had already

been copies of maps and detailed plans of the attack prior to its actual

happening. Other times, the act could reflect the difficulty of different,

conflicting pieces of information or of applying existing information to

new contexts. These duties require human interpretation and

judgment.
 The article, which is written by James Walsh for the San Francisco

Chronicle, also talks about the irony of the Patriot Act. The irony

happens to be what we will find out needs fixing after having already

passed an anti-terrorism law. In theory, the government could repeal

the legislation and replace it with something completely new or

different. History does suggest however that passing an anti-terrorism

law is a lot easier than repealing them. It is clear that in country after

country, temporary circumstances intended to combat terrorism have

became close permanent powers of the state. The Patriot Act may

improve our ability to fight and possible defeat terrorism. On the other

hand, it may also have no affect what so ever. It could even make

matters worse. It is like the patient who chooses his medicine before

really knowing his illness; the government has passed a law without

knowing what really needs sprucing up. It is a major gamble for this

country and the effects, whether good or bad, may be extremely long

lasting.

The Patriot Act does have both advantages and disadvantages.

The disadvantages do seem much clearer to realize and understand

but the advantages could be seen as well. At its heart, the act updates

communications between varying agencies that can work together to

investigate terrorist activities. It provides for easier and less heavy

means of investigation and surveillance. The act also provides a higher

funding arrangement for victims of terrorist attacks and their families,

as well as the rebuilding of property damaged by terrorism. The Patriot

Act is actually divided into 10 sections or titles and each contain a

number of further sections that clarify the provisions of the title. The

titles outline new powers that are provided to the government in order

to make the investigation process of terrorist activities possible, as well

as the checks and balances that are as a matter of fact designed to

prevent the abuse of power.

The necessities of the Patriot Act were very carefully designed in

response to prior events leading up to the September 11 attacks. It

had been believed that the bureaucratic red tape prevented important

surveillance activities and information needed that could have

enflamed the attacks. The purpose was to be sure that if another

attack were to be planned, the government would be prepared and

would obtain the power to prevent it. The basic pros to the Patriot Act

are that it allows law enforcement to use surveillance against more

crimes, there can be a use of investigations without terrorists knowing,

business records could be obtained if need be with a court order,

information is cooperatively shared among government agencies for a

better understanding, new technologies and threats are reflected,

anywhere a terrorist-related activity occurs law enforcement officials

may get a search warrant, victims of computer hacking can obtain law

enforcement assistance in monitoring their computers, and it increases

the penalties for those who commit terrorist crimes.

 The disadvantages of the Patriot Act have to do with it being too

thorough. The act provides immense power to government agencies to

watch the personal habits of anyone residing in the United States, not

just suspected terrorists. The time quickly following the passing of the

act was a bad time to be an American; the detainee camp at

Guantanamo Bay was opened in 2002. The camp housed a great

amount of people from various nations who were imprisoned without

traditional legal protections for unknown reasons. Little was known

about the intended use of the new Patriot Act powers. One of the most

controversial problems of the act was Title II; it allowed unprecedented

monitoring of semi-public records such as library records. Many had

begun to fear that their choice of reading could lead to accusation of

terrorism. Later, freedom of speech began to erode as many worried

that the most inoffensive of statements, those made publicly in

particular, could lead to persecution. Others argued that surveillance

activities and a lack of accountability for the invasion of privacy were

against the basic principles of freedom and protected by the

Constitution.

The basic cons of the Patriot Act, closer to today’s date, are that

in Section 215, the FBI can demand “any tangible thing,” which

includes books, diaries, medical records, etc., in Section 213, the

government’s ability was expanded to search private property without

notice to the owner, and then the first and fourth amendments of the

constitutions are violated.

There is a federal case that actually tests the Patriot Act. It was

the Padilla case in 2005. The government had an eleven hour decision

to dump the case of accused “dirty bomber” Jose Padilla on the

criminal court to which it originally should have been referred to. The

Padilla case is justification for the need of supervision, oversight and

judicial examination of how the government uses extreme powers in

extreme times. Specifically because terrorism is an elusive and a very

dangerous enemy, it is important the government act responsibly and

that its actions receive observation.

The Padilla case is a wonderful example of why supervision is

always a good idea where the power of the state is involved. The Bush

administration had actually dumped this case rather than face Padilla's

attorneys before the Supreme Court on a basic question, which they

did frame with commendable precision: ''Does the president have the

power to seize American citizens in civilian settings on American soil

and subject them to indefinite military detention without criminal

charge or trial?" Nevertheless, despite all the exaggeration with the

case, administration officials are now carelessly claiming that the

evidence for a ''dirty bomb" conspiracy was not worthy of

consideration by a trial court after all. The rest of us are supposed to

accept its explanation and move on. Instead, the suited punishment

should be some type of rewriting or change of the Patriot Act.

Works Cited

• http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/patriot/

• http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/USA_PATRIOT_Act.aspx

• http://www.aclu-houston.org/rice/patriotAct.html

• http://psstpsstpsst.blogspot.com/2005/06/ten-big-problems-with-

patriot-act.html

• http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/1151/patriot_act_

a_remedy_for_an_unidentified_problem.html

• http://www.answers.com/topic/patriot-act