Essay about The Not So Patriot Act

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.

Congress ushered in the Patriot Act by arming law enforcement with new tools to detect and prevent terrorism by expanding federal officials’ powers to keep tabs on our personal information, from credit card use to cell phone calls to car travel. It allows investigators to use the tools that were

Public Law 107-56 otherwise known as the USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. (justice.gov) This law was instated in response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The Islamic terrorist group known as Al-Qaeda, coordinated four different plane hijackings killing 2,996 people, and injuring 6,000+ others. (9/11 memorial.org) Just weeks after the attacks congress rushed to pass this bill, passing the senate 98 to 1, and the house 357 to 66 (justice.gov), so that we can have more security controls within the United States. It gives the United States government the same powers and tools used to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking in decades prior, to investigate current suspected terrorist. The Patriot act has several different titles that cover different grounds, all which have the same purpose of preventing future acts of terrorism. The patriot act allows the government to track and intercept any form of electronic communications of suspected terrorist in order to prevent any acts of terror, and also for intelligence gathering. The act also aids the government in securing borders, and removing those that are here with the intent to cause harm.

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

(6) Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or attorney for the Government, who by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived there from, may disclose such contents to any other Federal Law Enforcement , intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to the extent that such contents include foreign intelligence information, to assist the official who is to receive that information in the performance of his duties.? This allows for a better sharing of information among the different division of federal, state and local law enforcement nationwide. In a large scale criminal investigation, proper communication and information sharing is vital. This act has allowed information to be disseminated to law enforcement agencies throughout the country, so they can effectively work together towards the goal of arresting terrorists, and preventing another terrorist attack. Another section of the USA PATRIOT ACT that Schmalleger (2003) quotes is Sec. 213. Authority for Delaying notice of the Execution of a Warrant. ?With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required,

Several acts severely infringe the civil liberties of Americans; for example, Title II of the act provides for enhanced surveillance procedures. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications became expanded if these communications might be related to terrorism or computer fraud. There are 25 separate sections providing significant new authority for the government to monitor mail, e-mail, voice mail, and telephone and computer communications. Search warrants will be easier to obtain, and they will be broader in scope. Warrants will be valid for longer periods. The FBI can ask for a warrant requiring any tangible items which can include books, papers, records, documents, etc…(the warrant may be non-specific in nature). This is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of search and seizure.

The United States government changed the face of computer and internet use when it signed the USA Patriot Act on October 26, 2001. This act was created in the wake of the terrorist attacks in New York City on September 11 that same year. Many people believe that this act is a good thing and will help in defense against any future attacks. What most people do not know, however, is the effect of this act on the more general public. This includes individual people, public libraries, colleges and universities, and even trucking or hauling companies.

September 11, 2001 sparked many different feelings into the hearts of Americans. People sprang into action to seek revenge and protect America’s precious soils from another deadly attack by reinforcing America’s strength through her government. The men and women of Congress retaliated to the terrorist attacks by drafting and passing the USA PATRIOT Act on October 26, 2001, which stands for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” The bill was moved through Congress with amazing speed and little hesitation. After the passing, the unsuspecting citizens of America were bombarded with many new rules and regulations that

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.

This search is not only conducted for households, but also other buildings such as a “terrorist cell” or even a vehicle. For example, a suspect in Buffalo had his car searched and the agents utilized a delay-notice warrant in which they used a duplicate key to take the suspect’s car without the suspect noticing. The DEA agent left traces behind as if the suspect’s car was broken into and stolen. It is also important to notice that the suspect must be informed eventually about the warrant being issued against them, but that could last up to days, months or years (DeRosa, 2005). However, according to the 2006 Amendment of the Patriot Act, a thirty day notice is mandatory unless the agent or officer extend the notice by providing further facts and information to the judge. Before the attacks on 9/11, sneak and peek searches did not involve the inspection of files, documents and pictures in the home, but Section 213 expands the scope of these searches (Lippman,

For example, the Patriot Act has a judicially authorized “sneak and peek” provision that allows law enforcement agencies to perform a search but delay notification for a period of up to three months (para. 2).

The most controversial title of the Patriot Act is Title II. This title is intended to help law enforcement enhance their surveillance capabilities to capture terrorists. It allows “...for the seizure of voice mail messages under a warrant, authorized intelligence agencies and federal law enforcement agencies to share noncriminal information, it permitted pen registers and trap and trace orders of electronic communication such as e-mail, and it encouraged cooperation between law enforcement and foreign intelligence investigators...” (Oliver, 2007, p. 70). Of course, the most controversial part of this title is that it gives free reign for law enforcement to conduct surveillance, as long as there is some suspicion of terrorist activity.

They feel this restricts the freedoms of the college students because of their findings that the Department of Homeland Security submitted this information to the Pentagon as a possible terrorist threat due to the information gathered by spying on the students (ACLU). In 2008, the ACLU sued the Department of Homeland Security for the invasion of privacy. The Department of Homeland Security had recently allowed officials to search laptops and electronic devices at the United States borders (Albanesius). This search of personal property could be a violation of the Fourth Amendment which guards against unreasonable searches of one’s possessions and his person. Another amendment that could be found in violation by the Department of Homeland Security because of either of these cases is the Ninth Amendment. Some have found this amendment to be a broad protection of privacy (UMKC Law Dept.). The Christian Science Monitor also voices concern over the pervasiveness of the Homeland Security Act in our daily lives even before the act was passed (Chaddock). These events demonstrate that the Homeland Security Act has some faults that lead to what some perceive as constitutional infringements and little improvement in order at the cost of freedom.

David Haynes examines the Section 215 program and its overreach. Clearly, Haynes isn’t fond of the program. Section 215 allows the National Security Agency to gather information by listening in on the conversations of unsuspecting Americans.