Patriot Act Case Study

Government and congress knew they had to act upon these attacks and make changes quickly. That year on October 26th, President George W. Bush signed the Patriot Act into law. Although the Patriot Act was created to help and better the security for the United States, it violated the privacy and rights of the citizens. This controversy on the Patriot Act went on for a long time. The patriot act violated basic civil liberties of the people. Basically, all in all, Civil liberties is your rights and freedoms given to you by the amendments of the constitution. The First Amendment is supposed to guarantee citizens the right to freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. It also guarantees you your basic rights given to you by the Bill of Rights. Examples include, human rights, individual rights, right to life, right to peacefully assemble, right to petition government for redress, right to property, right to privacy, and right to worship. However, the patriot act violated many of those rights given to the citizens. For example, the patriot act allowed law enforcement to use surveillance against crimes of terror. Before the Patriot Act, courts could permit law enforcement to get electronic surveillance to investigate many ordinary, non-terrorism crimes, such as drug crimes, mail fraud, and passport fraud. Another Example would be the patriot act allows law enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant anywhere a terrorist-related activity occurred. This means if you live in an area and there has been terrorist activity, the government is allowed to check your house and your property. They can invade your personal space and belongings to ensure that there is no terrorist activity going

One beautiful morning in September 2001 many people went about their day like they have before. Some off to work, or traveling for business, or to visit family, and in a blink of an eye our lives in America changed forever. We were attacked, on our own soil, not once, but four times. That fourth plane didn’t make it to its destination, thanks to the brave souls aboard that sacrificed their lives to save others. On that fateful day 2,753(NYmag) families would never be the same, as well as the rest of us that watch in disbelief. The attacks on September 11th 2001 led to something called the Patriot Act. In the days after 9/11 Congress hurried to pass a bill to give law-enforcement agencies the power to fight domestic terrorism. On October 26, President George W. Bush signed three hundred page USA Patriot Act into law (Crf.org). The USA Patriot Act of 2001 was created to prevent and catch terrorist in the United States and around the world. The contents of it has been one of great controversy in the rights of our privacy and the violation of our constitutional rights. Can we give up too much freedom to keep us safe? Where do we draw the line to keep our Country safe?

After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 the United States became a very different place. This drastic change was caused by the initial emotional reactions that American citizens, as well as government leaders had towards the tragic event. The government, in an effort to assure that these events never happen again passed the USA PATRIOT Act, which is an acronym that stands for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. The major goal of this act is to combat terrorism by giving the government more leeway in what areas they are allowed to use their surveillance tools and also to what circumstances these tools can be used. The major issue that arise with this act are the fact that many of the act can be seen as unconstitutional.

In the years since the passing of the Patriot Act, there has been much controversy and debate regarding the positive and negative advantages, and consequences of this bill. As a member of the law enforcement community I have experienced firsthand some of the changes the Patriot Act has brought upon this nation. A result of this experience along with information obtained in the studying of this act and

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) is one of the most controversial pieces of legislation to ever pass through the US Senate. Its critics use fear mongering tactics to scare people into opposition of an intrusive police state which they believe is inevitable given the government’s new powers. They consider the Act an assault on civil liberties and an invasion of the privacy of innocent American citizens. Yet the real issue is not that the government now has new powers, it’s that the American people do not trust our intelligence agencies to handle these new powers properly while still respecting their rights.

The provisions of the Patriot Act sought to beef up security against homegrown terrorism increase surveillance procedures, including phone taps against an individual rather than just one phone number. Next, the act aimed at the removal of access to funding for terrorist groups and made it a requirement for financial institutions to prevent money laundering wherever possible. Title four was aimed specifically at providing more funding for protecting our borders. The most important part of title five was the use of National Security Letters and included an order which kept the target from knowing about it or even telling anyone else. Then, the act outlined compensation for victims of acts of terrorism and their families. Also, there was a sharp increase in information sharing between law enforcement entities and jurisdictions. Afterward, several criminal acts were added to the list of things considered acts of terrorism and the penalties increased for these acts as well. All of these things are, to me, a utilitarian effort to make our best moral effort to secure our country. Viewed from a consequentialist standpoint, things like the Patriot Act are

The Patriot Act was signed into law on October 26, 2001 by President George W. Bush. The act expanded the surveillance capability of both domestic law enforcement and international intelligence agencies. When this law was passed it was under the assumption “to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes” (The USA Patriot). The Patriot Act has given the government the power to spy on the average American through monitoring phone records and calls, gaining banking and credit information, and even track a person’s internet activity. This is an unbelievable amount of power intelligence agencies wield all under the umbrella of national security. This power has gone too far, is unjustified, unconstitutional, and infringes on the privacy of the

Many different citizens and politicians endorse the Patriot Act as they feel it is a necessity in the name of national security. They argue that since its start, there has never been another wide scale attack like the September 11 attacks on US soil. Additionally, the Act has been credited with preventing and convicting several different criminal schemes throughout the country. On a philosophical level, utilitarian ideology would support the act. Utilitarianism argues for the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Hence, if some people must face discomfort from government surveillance without permission, it would be in the best interest for the greater good, as it would prevent a mass attack. Additionally, some would argue that they are not worried about their communications, financial, and other records being investigated by the government. Rather, they prefer the government, rather than their friends, family, and coworkers see it.

It is a great pleasure to writing to you today. I am a citizen of the United States who attends Jamaica Gateway to The Sciences and I have some concerns regarding the Patriot Act, which you have recently reinstated. I understand that you might be wondering what a kid would understand about the Patriot Act? Well, the thing is I understand plenty, as a matter of fact I agree with the Patriot Act to a certain extent. I personally believe that the Patriot Act is a great concept that reinforces the protection of the U.S from future terrorist attacks; however, some of its ideologies are slightly unjust. To my understanding the Patriot Act is an act that emerged due to the horrific events of September 11th, 2001. I myself may not have had a first

Introduction: The provision of the Patriot Act, Section 326 - the "know your customer" provision, compelling financial institutions to demand identity documents before opening accounts or conducting financial transactions is a fundamental element of the outline below. That section authorized the executive branch to issue detailed regulations on the subject, found at 31 CFR 130.120-121. It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year. There are several ways to compel Mexico to pay for the wall including the following:

Finally, as for, restrictive aspects of normative control are given the government or individual(s) too much authority and control. I great example of this is the 2001 PATRIOT Act in the United States. This act “allows” government agencies to monitor, track, wiretap, and collect data on individuals without a court warrant or without judge’s approval, in the regard of terrorism. This act not only violate our civil liberties, violates individuals’ freedoms, put in place by our Founding Fathers. Still the National Security Agency “NSA”, were monitoring countless citizens’ emails, phone calls, Facebook accounts, SnapChat accounts, and texts without a warrant. This actions are against citizens’ and even non-citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights. Still

After the devastating attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, this country scrambled to take action to provide future protection. New techniques had to be developed to protect the nation from the menace of terrorism. Along with the new techniques came the decision to enact laws that some believed crossed the threshold of violating civil liberties this county and those living in it were guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. “On October 26, 2001, the Public Law 107-56, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, also known as the USA Patriot Act, was signed into effect” (Stern, 2004, p. 1112). While speaking to Congress,

On October 26, 2001, President Bush signed into law the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, commonly known as the USA Patriot Act (Currier). The Patriot Act pertains to data that is being transferred that would be considered to be terrorist associated. This can include any date over the internet or in this case dealing with the private sector. I believe that certain aspects of a private sector company should be willing to give information to the government of suspicious terrorist actions. Better safe than sorry. For instance, if a person is depositing money into a bank that is of average amount and then all of a sudden deposits 10,000 dollars in cash, this

knowledge, or large cash transactions, and someone stealing or purchasing explosives. These are hints all of terrorist activity.

In practice, the FISC system curtails the constitution, is appointed by a single person, and acts a simple bureaucratic box to tick. The judges of the FISC are appointed solely, without any approval, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Justice John Roberts and the chief justices before him alone dictate the interpretation of the fourth amendment, a largely republican bias, “[John Roberts] appoints all FISA judges, drawn from the federal bench, and right now 10 of 12 were originally appointed by Republican presidents” (Walsh). Likewise, the warrants issued by FISC are not specific to individuals, organizations, or specific items to be found. They lack essential principles of law, such as probable cause and particularity, “indiscriminate searches and seizures conducted under the authority of ‘general warrants’ were the immediate evils that motivated the framing and adoption of the Fourth Amendment” (Payton). Moreover, the government effectively provides no contest to any NSA search or spying. According to statistics of court rulings, warrants and records requests over the court’s history were denied 0.03% of the time (Center). The current situation of surveillance oversight in the United States is dismal, reckless, and