On September 11
th, 2001, the United States was attacked by Al-
Qaeda with a series of coordinated attacks. Almost three thousand people were killed and six thousand were injured. It was one of the worst attacks in United States history, and will always be remembered. President George W. Bush retaliated by sending troops into Afghanistan on October 7
th, 2001 to capture
Osama Bin Laden and to destroy the terrorist groups responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Two weeks later President Bush signed the Patriot Act into law, which let the government override Constitutional rights in order to track down terrorists much easier. Are letting some of your rights to privacy go effecting national security? What are some of the violations this law has made? The Patriot Act has breached the Constitution and we have lost valuable rights so we can prevent possible terrorist attacks, and that is dangerously wrong.
On October 26
th, 2001, President Bush signed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, also know as the USA Patriot Act into law. The Act increased the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone records, e-mail communications, medical, financial and other records. It also eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States, expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, especially from foreign individuals, and enhanced the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorist-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the Patriot Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied (
Wikipedia).
Due to the circumstances of this law, it has become very controversial. Many politicians and citizens believe that this law violates Americans’ 4
th amendment rights in The Constitution, while others believe that giving up some rights to benefit the nation for national security is the right thing to do. The most controversial part of the law has been Article II, which states surveillance procedures. These sections of the law were originally to expire on December 31, 2005, but now have been renewed until the end of next year (
Wikipedia). They include information sharing, wiretapping, access to records, foreign intelligence with wiretaps and searches, “Sneak & Peak” warrants, and material support of terrorists. Information sharing allows information from criminal probes to be shared with intelligence agencies and other parts of the government. Critics believe that this could lead “to the development of massive databases about citizens who are not the targets of criminal investigations.” Wiretapping allows one wiretap authorization to cover multiple devices for a
suspect's cell phone or computer. However critics say that innocent people who come into contact with the suspect may be violated. Access to records allows easier access to business records in foreign intelligence investigations.
However, critics say the law could be used to demand the reading records of library or bookstore patrons. “Sneak and Peak” warrants let authorities search a home or business without immediately notifying the target of the search. Critics say that this can allow authorities to use “Sneak and Peak” warrants for minor crimes, and not just terrorist cases. The article also bans material support for terrorists, which could lead to guilty by association (
Abramson). As you can see, even if we are going after terrorists the government still has the right to search innocent citizens if they wanted. Innocent people could also get caught in a search that has nothing to do with them as well. The evidence here shows that the government has a lot of power to not just go after terrorists, but also innocent civilians. Innocent people could also get caught in searches if they come into contact with a suspect and that is very wrong. If they get caught in the search they would end up in something that they should not be a part of and could possibly end up in a database without knowing.
Perhaps why most politicians, who were in favor of this law originally, supported it was because it helped fight modern terrorism. Politicians wanted to use The Patriot Act in emergency situations involving terrorism. However, that is not always true. In 2007, a Justice Department audit found that the FBI had used the Patriot Act illegally and improperly to secretly obtain personal information about United States citizens. FBI agents demanded information without proper authorization and improperly obtained telephone records in circumstances that were not emergencies (The Guardian).
In 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the Patriot Act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause. “Justice Department officials said the cases cited in the report represent only a small sampling of the many hundreds of non-terrorism cases pursued under the law.” (
Lichtblau).
Perhaps why there are many problems with this law is because it was rushed through Congress. It was signed a month after the September 11
th attacks so it was rushed through Congress (New York Times). Congressman Jim
McDermott even alleged that no Senator had even read the bill. Congressman John
Conyers, Jr. said, "We don't really read most of the bills because it would "slow down the legislative process" (Moore). In 2005 Congress worked together to adjust the law after parts of it expired. Parts were amended to adjust some of the controversial parts, but they are still there (
Wikipedia). Even former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales believed that it had to be adjusted because it “gives government too much power to invade the privacy of ordinary Americans and otherwise trample on their rights” (New York Times).
In the book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, politician Ron Paul states that “The Patriot Act is a violates the Constitution by allowing searches and seizures of American citizens and their property without a warrant issued by an independent court upon finding a probable cause.” He goes on to say that we have no way of knowing if our personal records have been handed over to the government to examine (115). The government would never let us know if you would become part of a search database, if we have come into contact with a possible terrorist, or if we have been searched. All of these circumstances violate our right to privacy from the Constitution.
I believe the American people deserve better than this. This is proof that the government has too much power in our lives and it happens in plain sight. Even if this law was originally supposed to be used on terrorists, innocent people still get caught in it. The Patriot Act has taken away American citizens’ constitutional right, and that is very wrong. It has also tampered with the Constitution, which is our supreme law. There must be easier and less violating ways to find terrorists. Before the 9/11 attacks, the United States had never had a problem with terrorism, so we were doing something right. The government should come up with new ways to diffuse terrorism without dispensing our rights. ‘We the people’ deserve better.
Bye Bye Coco! We will miss you!
