Patriot Act Pros And Cons

Since the 9/11 attacks, concerns about the fine line between safety and privacy have arisen. It all began after the Patriot Act was enacted by the government to protect the safety of our country. One of its most controversial sections is section 215 which allows access to records and other tangible items under FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). Many Americans argue its right for the government to have access to certain personal information for the safety of the country. Others allege this goes against the fourth amendment of the constitution which states people are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. However, it does not protect against all searches and seizures, but only those that are thought unreasonable under the law.

With good intentions, the Patriot Act allows the government to pry into Americans' lives through computer and phone records as well as credit and banking history (Source 5). This oversteps the U.S. Constitution as the First and Fourth Amendment were created to give citizens freedom and the right to deny search and seizure

In this essay I will discuss the pros and the cons of the Patriot Act, how it affected the lives of US citizens and the world, and whether or not it fits within our democratic form of government. The Patriot Act was a rapidly drafted and approved Act of Congress which was intended to increase the security of US citizens by combatting terrorism. Although granting increased security to an extent, the Act was and still is extremely controversial due to certain parts of the Act limiting the freedoms of American citizens. The Patriot Act enhanced the government’s ability to spy on their own people, and with far fewer restrictions, so many people were and still are disgusted, but many others completely agree with it. Millions of people, billions across the world have a historical trend of being happy to sacrifice their freedoms for increased security. The controversy lies with how more safe are you in comparison to how much of your freedom you have to give up, and that compromise is weighed vastly different for individuals across the world. Did the Patriot Act save enough lives to warrant what it cost, or did it inhibit the lives of too many people to be allowed to continue. The answer will always be disputed and weighing each side will be a very difficult task.

S.N. Herman in his article The US PATRIOT ACT and the Submajoritarian Fourth Amendment that was published in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review in 2006 deals completely around violations of the US Patriot Act in regards to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It brings forth the facts that support that we as American citizens have allowed the government to chip away at our rights to be free from unreasonable searches and

In today's society, you are always being watched. The USA PATRIOT Act wants it to stay that way. According to Chris Plante in, "A Short, Crucial Explanation of the USA PATRIOT Act and USA Freedom Act," the USA PATRIOT Act, or the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, creates an, "[...] expansion of government power pertaining to domestic surveillance, law enforcement, and border security." (The Verge). The USA PATRIOT Act allows increased spying on citizens in the United States in order to decrease crime and terrorism. The Patriot Act Poll Results via ISideWith tell a story of a lack of understanding about the USA PATRIOT Act, however, with approximately 55% of Americans supporting the act. However, despite the belief it is a well-regulated, necessary act, the USA PATRIOT Act must be repealed due to the abuses the act allows, the violations of citizens' rights, and the inefficiency of the act in preventing crime and terrorism.

The US Patriot Act was a very controversial act that was created after the events of September 11, 2011. Although many sanctions under the US Patriot Act grossly violated the fourth amendment in several ways, congress felt it was necessary to protect the nation. Sections that violated the fourth amendment are: the sneak and peek warrants included in section 213, roving/warrantless wiretapping of section 206, and finally trap and trace searches of section 214. These are just a few of the many violations I can account for. The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights that was added to the Constitution in 1791. It protects people from unlawful searches and seizures. This means that the police can't search you or your house without a warrant or probable cause. Are we truly willing to override the Constitution in the name of national security?

The Fourth Amendment is a big key to make sure that people are following laws concerning terrorism. Expansions such as the Patriot Act on the Fourth Amendment allows the government to gain access to information previously not accessible. This act was passed so that events such as the 9/11 attacks could be prevented, and it’s been working since its passing. The expansions have tremendously helped searches for terrorists through information such as their recent texts or calls. When the Act was passed, the government immediately put it into effect, and the terroristic threat rate started dropping. There were many reasons for this act passing, but the main reason is to decrease the chance of homeland security being breached, like events such as

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.

People who oppose the act ask this question “Does this act violate the Fourth Amendment? (The right giving us privacy as United States citizens). “There is an inherent opposition between governments’ requests for access to data in the context of criminal investigations, or the fight against drugs or terrorism, and the basic rights of individuals to privacy in their home or their papers.” (Gilbert 3). Basically to some up that statement there are certain times when the United States will use the act, almost like when the police get a warrant they pick the time that is best for them for their safety and our country as a whole. People who oppose this act also ask this question, is the Patriot Act just a way for the United States to listen to our lives as an excuse? What does the CIA or FBI listen for when using this law? “Contrary to press reports, the Patriot Act is not “the” U.S. law that governs the rules for access to data or communications by law enforcement and national security agencies.”(Gilbert 2). This means the U.S would have to have consent to use other countries databases for information on criminals and other activities, but this brings up a point, the United States wouldn’t give you a warning if they were watching your internet browsing or wiretapping your phone if they wanted your

The PATRIOT ACT is an act of congress that was introduced on October 26, 2001. The USA Patriot Act was passed by Congress as a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. On October 23, 2001, Republican Rep introduced H.R. 3162 incorporating provisions from a previously sponsored House bill and a Senate bill also introduced earlier in the month. The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on March 9 and 10, 2006. On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, a four-year extension of three key provisions in the Act roving wiretaps, searches of business records, and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves"—individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups. Opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; the permission given law enforcement officers to search a home or business without the owner's or the occupant's consent or knowledge; the expanded use of national security letters, which FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. The Act allows federal officials greater authority in tracking and intercepting communications, both for purposes of law enforcement and foreign intelligence gathering. It gives the Secretary of the Treasury regulatory powers to combat corruption of US financial institutions for foreign money laundering purposes; it more actively works to close our borders to foreign terrorists and to detain and remove those within our borders; it establishes new crimes, new penalties and new procedural techniques for use against domestic and international terrorists. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional. The purpose of the USA PATRIOT Act is to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and other purposes, some

The Patriot Act, in my opinion, is violating the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (even though it is an exception to it) because it invades our privacy by allowing the government to place wide ranging wiretaps on us without even identifying the target or locations of target individuals who have no connection to terrorist organizations and collect business records of all Americans without any connection to terrorists. Under the act, any data can be collected by the government without a warrant. They have access to the phone calls we make, the inbound and outbound internet traffic we navigate, and even the emails we receive/send in a daily basis. Basically, under this act, none of the electronic information that we consider private is untouchable

This Act may be cited as the "Uniting and Strengthening America Act" by providing appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism. President Bush signed the Patriot Act on October 29, 2001. It passed and with no debate voted on; many members of congress did not fully read the act. Due to the anthrax scare many Congressman did not have access to their offices. Attorney General John Ashcroft silenced any debate by warning that anyone who contested the Act would be "akin to a traitor abetting the terrorist."(Podesta, 2001) Congress had rejected many of the provisions previously debated. It was a recycled compilation of many extreme "wish lists." In the post 9/11 wake of fear, it became a reality.

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

The Patriot Act, an act passed by Congress in 2001 that addressed the topic of privacy in terrorist or radical situations, is controversial in today's society. Although it helps with protection against terroristic events, The Patriot Act is not fair, nor is it constitutional, because it allows the government to intrude on citizens' privacy, it gives governmental individuals too much power, and because the act is invasive to the 4th amendment right. To further describe key points in the act, it states that it allows investigators to use the tools that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking, and it allows law enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant anywhere a terrorist-related activity occurred.

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,