Pros And Cons Of The Patriot Act 2005

Primary Source report

Controversy over the USA PATRIOT ACT (2001, 2005)
George W. Bush and Suzanne E. Spaulding

After the attacks by the predominantly Saudi extremists on 9-11, the administration of then President George ‘Dubya’ Bush went into overdrive to be seen as proactive in the effort to make sure that the attacks could not be repeated. With the passage of The USA Patriot Act, the then President Bush asserted, we would be handed our intelligence and law enforcement officers the required tools and abilities to fight this new and ‘present danger.’ The document lays out the assertions of the President as of October 26, 2001 as given during a speech at the White House. Also included are the contrasting comments and opinions of Suzanne Spaulding, who has served in the intelligence community for 25 years under both Republican and Democratic presidents and is currently Under Secretary for the National Protection and Programs Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security.

In his speech, from the outset, Bush asserts to the American public that the given tools and justifications hidden within the USA Patriot Act are necessary in the ‘War on Terror.’ He also states that law enforcement would be used, despite later making it quite clear that his administration felt it

was clearly an intelligence and military matter. That keeps the issue at arm’s length and allows for the blame to me sloughed off for the many failures to follow in the administrations two disastrous terms. Even the calculated naming of the USA Patriot Act was a disingenuous attempt to curtail criticism- for who amongst us can rightfully criticize something with the word Patriot right there in the name. It would be as if you weren’t supporting the troops.
One of the most telling aspects of Bush’s speech is located approximately halfway through the speech and is not explained in any type of detail, ‘As of today, we’re changing the laws governing information sharing.’ (Jacobson, et al, 381)Of course, over the last several years we’ve all come to realize some of the ramifications, a la the NSA.
The assertions concerning warrants was also proven later to be a greatly minimized version of what the intelligence community and law enforcement were given latitude to cover without individual warrants. A representative of the intelligence community recently asserted that as we all have access to information that can cut across the world, we are all technically ‘suspects’ and therefore almost any warrant can be stretched to include the surveillance of any citizen inside the US or outside our borders.
The most grievous and telling statement, in hindsight and with the last 13 long years behind us, is certainly this: ‘This bill was carefully drafted and considered. Led by the Members of Congress on this stage and those seated in the audience, it was crafted with skill and care, determination and a spirit of bipartisanship for which the entire nation is grateful.’ Politicians lie by necessity, but that statement contains not the least bit of truth.
Ms.

Spaulding’s background and qualifications to comment on the USA Patriot Act are beyond reproach and not questioned by either party. Her criticism focuses most directly upon the sharing of information and the removal of the wall between what was formally accepted as a given withy that sharing- that there was a need to distance and prohibit the wall between law enforcement and intelligence entities, whether that be the CIA, the DIA, or the NSA. She elaborates, but the issue, while detailed and correct, boils down to the need for a separation between the information ostensible gathered in the ‘war on terror’ in all its guises, and the normal everyday law enforcement information

gathering.
The USA Patriot Act was a farcical power grab by an administration with zero concern for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the ‘general welfare’ of the people of the United States.

Jacobson, Fran. Konhaus, Tim. Wade, Scott. The Norton Mix, American Voices. W.W. Norton & Company, 2013. 379-383