Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Introduction on the patriot act
The U.S.A. Patriot Act_cram
Introduction on the patriot act
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Introduction on the patriot act
The “Patriot Act” In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress sprang into action. Within a month, U.S. lawmakers overwhelmingly approved the USA Patriot Act of 2001, giving law enforcement and intelligence agent’s broader authority to fight terrorists operating in the United States. Signed into law by the President on October 26, the Patriot Act is designed to fight terrorism on several fronts. First, it gives the U.S. government authority to hold foreigners suspected of terrorist activity for up to seven days before charging them with a crime. The legislation also gives investigators the legal right to tap any phone a suspected terrorist might use. The Act also gives complete access to financial records, medical records, and even library records. In addition to tracking cellular-telephone communication, agents can now subpoena Internet providers to surrender records of e-mails that they judge suspicious. This component of the law was significant, given that the men who hijacked the four planes on September 11 had communicated extensively about their plans via the Internet. The Patriot Act also sanctioned funds to triple the number of border-patrol agents and Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors along the northern border. Some of the major areas of contention are as follows… Conducting "sneak and peek" searches, which allow law enforc...
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
Less than one week after the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S.A. Patriot Act was introduced to Congress. One month later, the act passed in the Senate with a vote of 98-1. A frightened nation had cried for protection against further attacks, but certainly got more than they had asked for. Russell Feingold, the only Senator to vote down the act, referred to it as, “legislation on the fly, unlike anything [he] had ever seen.” In their haste to protect our great nation, Congress suspended, “normal procedural processes, such as interagency review and committee hearings,” and, “many provisions were not checked for their constitutionality, lack of judicial oversight, and potential for abuse.” Ninety-eight senators were willing to overlook key civil liberty issues contained within the 342 page act. The lone dissenting vote, Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold, felt that our battle against terrorism would be lost “without firing a shot” if we were to “sacrifice the liberties of the American people.” Feingold duly defended American civil liberties at the risk of his career, truly exemplifying political courage as defined by John F. Kennedy.
Financial records, library records, travel records, video rentals, phone records, medical records, and religious records can all be searched if the government states that the search is done to protect against terrorism. The act was passed after the 9/11 attack. Similarly to the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Espionage and Sedition Acts, the Patriot Act is a severe and controversial act passed in the wake of a severe and controversial event. This act is unconstitutional and disregards the personal liberties of the United States’ citizens.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
Holloway, Carson. "Profiling and the Constitution." Public Discourse. N.p., n. d. Web. 4 Mar. 2014. .
With the introduction of the internet being a relatively new phenomenon, the act of cyber espionage is not something that has been properly acknowledged by society. The American Government has done a stand up job of keeping its methods in the shadows and away from the eyes of its people since its documented domestic surveillance began on October 4th, 2001; Twenty three days after the Twin Towers fell President George Bush signed an order to begin a secret domestic eavesdropping operation, an operation which was so sensitive that even many of the country's senior national security officials with the...
The Patriot Act has been under scrutiny and opposition since its creation following 9/11. When 9/11 struck it was clear that Americas intelligence was lacking in some specific way, but it was translated that America needed greater allowance for gathering information. The Patriot Act was signed on October 26, 2001, very close to 9/11. It can be concluded that the Patriot Act was signed with such extreme ability’s applied, because of how close it was signed after 9/11. The Act Greatly expands the liberty’s if law enforcement in their efforts to gather information, which in turn imposes on the privacy of the American people. The FBI has the ability to study any citizen suspected of terrorism, and has access to all their information. Wire Taps and other invasive action are allowed and granted by the Patriot Act. Was the Patriot Act signed to quickly? Are its measures to extreme? When is the line drawn on how much power the government can have? Is the Patriot Act effective enough that it is necessary? Should we as Americans willing to trade freedom for safety? Can the Patriot Act effectively stop or hinder terrorist attacks; has its stopped enough attacks to be validated? Another question is does America want a government that has that much power, how much are we as Americans willing to sacrifice, and how much more liberty’s is the government going take. If the government can pass the patriot act, what other legislation can they pass? In reality it all comes down to the American people, we are democracy but do we have the power in are hands? When finding all these questions one asks do we need an act that is in fact this controversial? Is the Patriot Act a necessary evil? To find this answer we have to answer all the questio...
The U.S. Patriot Act was set in place to better serve our country against terrorism. The U.S. Patriot Act is an Acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Acts (Lithwick). This act is to punish terrorist actions and improve law enforcement not only in the United States but also around the world. The United States Patriot Act consists of over 1,000 sections that describe the act in great detail. The sections include, but are not limited to, the power extended to the government by The U.S. Patriot Act to deport and incarcerate non citizens. With the U.S. Patriot Act a person’s phone line can be tapped, records of any and all purchases checked, and even library records searched. This Act also has sections to help money laundering, expand our country’s border protection, strengthening the extent of criminal laws and provide for people suffering from any type of terrorism acts (Huffman).
While this paper will later explain the many and often repeated criticisms that the Patriot Act entails, it is very important to outline what the Patriot Act allows and what it brought into law. For starters, the original bill was a lengthy 320 pages and changed 15 federal laws so there was a massive overhaul in how security would function in what many considered to be a new nation. Essentially, the Patriot Act does an assortment of things. Though it may come off as paranoid to the people that say the government is watching you, this is true. The
Law enforcement is now able to use surveillance against crimes. Investigators can gather information when looking into terrorism-related crimes. The gathered information may include chemical-weapons, use of weapons of mass destruction, and terrorism financing. Now, federal agents may follow advanced terrorists who are trained to elude detection. The Act authorizes agents to request court permission to track terrorists. Now, federal agents just need to ask a court for an order to obtain business records on high-profile national security cases. These business records provide the missing information that investigators are looking for to solve these crimes.
This paper discusses the history of the Patriot Act and the environment that led to its adoption. The Patriot Act was initially developed in order to prevent and obstruct terrorism threats and attacks on the nation. Under the Patriot, there are several provisions granting law enforcement and investigators greater power when conducting an investigation. Provisions such as surveillance, roving wiretaps, subpoena to access both physical and electronic intelligence, while not informing the subject aid the government and Homeland Security agencies in order to investigate and prevent acts of terrorism against the state. Under the act, law enforcement is allowed to collect electronic communications, and share information with other
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, otherwise known as the USA Patriot Act of 2001, President Bush signed into law October 26, 2001. The act is a response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Not without controversy, the act allowed for surveillance of citizens and non-citizens alike all to detect and prevent terrorist activities within the borders of the United States. It extended powers to the Justice Department deemed necessary to combat what “had not existed before. The presence of terrorists within national borders along with the need to apprehend and prosecute them, hopefully before rather than after they acted” (Rouse, 2010). The broad reach of the act allowed for message interception, telephone line taps or any form of communication deemed relevant in the ongoing fight against terrorist activity in the United States.
The USA Patriot Act is very important to everyone in the United States of America. There are many people that are anti-patriot act because they feel it infringes on there constitutional rights. At the same time, there are enormous amounts of people that are pro-patriot act putting the safety of the home front as their number one priority. This act was very instrumental in giving our intelligence agencies the tools necessary to intercept terrorist messages and fore warn us of any possible attacks.
However, government agencies, especially in America, continue to lobby for increased surveillance capabilities, particularly as technologies change and move in the direction of social media. Communications surveillance has extended to Internet and digital communications. law enforcement agencies, like the NSA, have required internet providers and telecommunications companies to monitor users’ traffic. Many of these activities are performed under ambiguous legal basis and remain unknown to the general public, although the media’s recent preoccupation with these surveillance and privacy issues is a setting a trending agenda.
A major reason the U.S. needs to increase restrictions on the type and amount of data collected on individuals from the internet is due to the fact that the United States government can track communications and browsing histories of private citizens without warrant or cause. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, ...