Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The Patriot Act in America
United States Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act
The Patriot Act in America
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The Patriot Act in America
In 2001, the United States fell victim to a multitude of tragedies. The most unforgettable, of course, being the terrorist attack on September 11th. Following the threat, Congress knew something had to be done to strengthen security controls. On October 23, 2001, Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican Representative, introduced provisions to a previously sponsored House bill. By the next day, the act passed in the House with a vote ratio of three hundred and fifty-seven to sixty-six. The following day, the Senate took a vote on the bill, passing it by ninety-eight to one. Finally, on October 26, 2001, the USA Patriot Act was signed into law. The bill was intended to strengthen federal anti-terrorism investigations. But is the USA Patriot Act working to the full potential that it was originally intended? This is something that we are now going to explore. We will look deeper into, not only what the bill is, but also it’s journey to getting to the final draft and how it got passed. We will also explore the proponents and opponents of the act, and what they have to say about it. Finally, I will shed some light on who exactly is being effected now that this act is in place, and if they have been given a little too much power. The USA Patriot Act was a result of a number of other bills being revised together in legislation. The first bill introduced, known as the Combating Terrorism Act of 2001, was proposed by Republican Senators Orrin Hatch and Jon Kyl, and Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer. By October 2001, after several other proposals and revisions, the first draft of the Patriot Act was presented to the Senate based on this bill, under the name Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism ... ... middle of paper ... ... punish those responsible for the attacks and to protect against any similar attacks” (Doyle, The USA PATRIOT Act: A Legal Analysis, page 2). Sense the new laws were out into effect, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding it. Several questions have been posed as to whether or not the Act was giving too much power to government law enforcement. With the law now leaving room for open investigations, spying, and even wiretapping, people are wondering if things have been taken too far. Interest groups fighting to protect our civil liberties are arguing that we have passed the point of keeping our country safe from outside terrorism, but are now compromising our basic civil rights as Americans, and as humans for that matter. Although many revisions have been proposed, the USA Patriot Act still stands, and continues to raise question to the governments authority.
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.
By 1954, the zeal had subsided. These short trials remain one of the most disgraceful times in modern U.S. history (McCarthyism, pbs.org). There are researchers and critics who still find the shadow of McCarthyism looming in the present history of the United States. About two years ago, in a Presidential Address, George Bush, pleaded the Congress to ratify legislation that would prolong the time-bound terms of the notorious anti-terror law, originally planned to end on December 31st, 2005 and later extended. Advocated by Attorney General John Ashcroft and accepted by the Congress in the scary upshot of the 9/11 fanatic assaults, the Patriot Act has been depicted by its critics as the utmost warning to U.S. human rights since the Alien and Sedition Acts or the postponement of habeas corpus during the Civil War.
Cole, D., & Dempsey, J. X. (2006). Terrorism and the constitution: sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security. New York: New Press.
...the previous Act. The last Act is the FISA Act of 2008 “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act”, which allows intelligence professionals to monitor terrorist communications, while protecting civil liberties of Americans, more quickly and efficiently. (USDOJ) These legal changes have allowed not only the investigation and prosecution of terrorists to be more proficient, but it has also help change the structure of the operations of agencies to enhance counter-terrorism efforts.
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks US Congress passed legislation known as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 commonly known as the USA Patriot Act. This paper will attempt to prove that not only is the USA Patriot Act unconstitutional but many of its provisions do nothing at all to protect Americans from the dangers of terrorism.
“We have to make a balance between security and civil liberties.”(Sensenbrenner 2). The patriot act was passed with very little congressional debate. The public was unaware of its passing. Our security is over protective because rights are being broken. Our rights should matter more to the government because the security is overprotective. Is the patriot act too harsh and invading our privacy?
Since the terrorist attacks at Sept. 11, 2001, the surveillance issue often has turned away the table in the debate of individual privacy or counterterrorism. By passing the Patriot Act, Congress gave President Bush an immense law enforcement authority to boost U.S's counterterrorism, and the President used his enlarged powers to forward specific programs in order to reduce the threat of terrorism and defend the country’s safety.
Now, many have had time to reflect back on the Patriot Act and feel differently (Ball 2004 p. 78-84). The Patriot Act Pros and Cons is a topic that is much like a double-edged sword. On one hand, many people feel they would like to be protected and feel that they will give up some rights to be safe. Others, on the other hand, feel that the Patriot Act goes against the U.S. Constitution and actually takes away some of the rights of American citizens.... ...
The NSA wiretapping has started when the September 11 accident had happened, causing the implication of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act allows the NSA to collect information from you such as your records of educational, medical, financial...
Most extradition treaties between states call for an exemption for crimes that are political in nature. The political offense exemption was originally created to allow states to protect those that another state may wish to prosecute for crimes that are politically committed against that government. R. Stuart Phillips, a Judge Advocate in the United States Army, distinguishes between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses. “Pure” political offenses are directed specifically against the state and do not directly affect civilians. They also do not contain acts that would normally be considered a common crime. This can include efforts to overthrow the government, treason, and espionage. These types of crimes should be protected by a political offense exemption. A problem with the extradition exemption comes up with the “relative” political offenses. These offenses are not entirely political in nature. These crimes tend to be common crimes that are committed for a political purpose. The reason behind the crime is not enough to warrant an exemption from prosecution for the crime itself (Phillips 340-343). Terrorists should not be allowed to find the loopholes in a system that enables them to continue to terrorize those whom they blame for their problems.
Since September 11, 2001 many people can say that America has changed. Many people question if America has changed for the better or has it just gotten worse. Since the day those four planes crashed around the United States people’s lives have been changed. Many may not realize how their lives have changed, but with new laws passed life is different within America. The United States Patriot Act is one of the laws passed after 9/11: singed into order on October 26, 2001 just 45 days after the attack. The United States Patriot Act was put in place in order to protect Americans, yet has been affecting American’s civil liberties and caused controversy all over the United States.
This is not what the Patriot Act was passed for; they have gone over their limits and are getting involved with things that don’t entirely concern them. This is exactly what infuriates the people because they are getting out of their boundaries to make a big fuss out of some minor crime that has nothing to pertain to terrorism. While the Patriot Act was put into place to stop terrorism, it has had a nasty after math. People suspected of terrorist activity have no civil rights. They are put in prison and held without due process regardless of whether they are innocent or not. This is just wrongful imprisonment because they don’t have a valid reason as to why they would put an innocent civilian behind bars. This act just concerns the people by any rational assessment. The power given to the government to conduct surveillance on citizens is just against the constitution because we have no privacy. The government is off-track and is labeling anyone as a suspected terrorist and will collect information about them. We are living in a society where slowly and slowly we’re going to lose most of our rights and be told what to do. We are gradually going to become somewhat close to a dictatorship and lose all of our rights. The Patriot Act also allows the above-mentioned sneak and peak warrants to be used for any federal crime,
In a post 9/11 era, the American people were devastated by the attacks on the world trade center. Politicians rushed in a bipartisan agreement to push and enact the Patriot Act with the intent of keeping the United States safe. Immediately after 9/11, a panic broke out and many Americans supported the idea of giving up their rights for safety without any hesitation. Now, twelve years later, many skeptics call in to question the Patriot Act and the agencies created as a result of the legislation. In 2001, Former Senator Russ Feingold was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act. Senator Feingold stated, "The first caution was that we must continue to respect our Constitution and protect our civil liberties in the wake of the attacks" (Statement on the USA PATRIOT Act). With fear fresh in their minds, many Americans were blinded by the promises of national security.
However, there was concern amongst citizens about a section of the Patriot Act that allowed wire taps and potential Fourth Amendment violations regarding unwarranted searches of the internet and emails. The worry that Americans do not want their privacy invaded by the government remains legitimate. This part of the act is less restrictive on the government in that it allows a much wider span of searches to seek out terrorists and destroy any type of terror activity. The Patriot Act help to the government look into other crimes such as drug trafficking as well as international crimes both of which may lead to terrorism. These searches that were allowed after the Patriot Act helped the governments look into larger scale crimes like the production or selling of weapons of mass destruction as well as chemical warfare. The Patriot Act seemed to help the government become less translucent to terrorists. Another positive part of the act was that it seemed to make the government to be up with the time so to speak as far as technology was concerned. Lastly, President Bush allowed for harsher penalties towards terrorists after 9/11. The Patriot Act allowed the government to surpass some amount of privacy of the American people which in the end seemed to be a constructive thing in the way of
Terrorism will happen again regardless of how prepared the U.S. thinks it may be. This means that it is the country’s job to ensure that there is a continuation of measures that should be taken to fight against terrorism. Others believe that the U.S. is fully prepared for another terrorist attack and that enough has been done. The question at hand is, should the U.S. still be concerned about terrorism. The United States needs to be concerned about terrorism to prevent tragedies like 9/11 from happening again, to address problems with domestic terrorism, and to improve homeland security.