The Pros And Cons Of The US PATRIOT Act

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.

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 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

Moreover, the Patriot Act promotes information sharing among federal, state, and local agencies so that the process of information can be easier, which will hep increase the quality of intelligence products (Department of Justice, n.d.). The Patriot Act also allows federal agents to have a more active role in investigating cybercrimes that are usually carried out by terrorists and it also requires financial institution to report to federal authorities suspicious transactions that could be linked with money laundering as well as money counterfeit crimes (ACLU, 2017) (Congressional Digest, 2004). Although the Patriot Act helps reduce the risk of terrorist attacks and other crimes, it does have an impact on the privacy of law abiding citizens that have nothing to do with terrorism. For example, under the Patriot Act federal agents can easily

The USA Patriot Act is actually an abbreviation for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism”. The USA PATRIOT Act is a series of amendments to existing statues, with several news ones, which were introduced with the intention of preventing future terrorist attacks against the U.S. The Public Law number for the PATRIOT Act is 107-56, as 115 Stat. 272-402. In October 2, 2001 the House of Representatives introduced the name PATRIOT (Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism ) Act to H.R. 2975. The Senate attached the name USA (Uniting and Strengthening America) to S.1510 in October 4, 2001. H.R. 3162 was the final combined bill name “USA PATRIOT

“The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act” (PATRIOT ACT) was signed into the law by former president bush on October 26, 2001. It was sought by the administration and passed by Congress in response to 9/11. It intended to expand the authority of law enforcement officials and intelligence agents to combat terrorism in the united states. The patriot act revised many of the existing United States statutes, including immigration laws, banking laws, and the “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” (FISA). Even though the law had widespread approval in Congress when it was passed, many of its augmentations have been highly controversial and has been challenged in court. This

Whether using a search engine, watching an online video, creating content on a social network, receiving an email, or playing an interactive video game, people are being digitally shadowed online. This data is combined with the time, length and frequency of visits and recorded by the providers. These abilities are being utilized by different companies, and by law, are required to give this information to the government if they require it. With an increase of reliability from society of technology, it is unreasonable that we are not given a choice when accessing said necessity. That we should be forced to give up any information in an unnegotiated trade of a provided necessity for private information. One of the many pieces of legislation that allowed for this expansion of control after 9-11 was the Patriot act. the Patriot act allows federal agents to follow sophisticated terrorists trained to evade detection and allows law enforcement to conduct investigations without tipping off terrorists. Although this is positive, it gives them more free rein in invasion of privacy, a sacrifice of privacy for security. For instance, the Patriot act allows “Federal agents to use "roving wiretaps" to investigate ordinary crimes, including drug offenses and racketeering. A roving wiretap can be authorized by a federal judge to apply to a particular suspect, rather than a particular phone or communications device.” This allows the government to track any communications possibly related to the suspect, even innocent bystanders. The Patriot act also allows federal agents to freely gather a citizen's library habits. The government states it is because most terrorist plan their attacks in a library, and that they can not become “safe havens” for terrorists. The Patriot act blantly allows for an increase of invasion of privacy. Some files released by Snowden show that

Have you wondered who exactly sees all of your texts, pictures, and even videos? Well, it’s the government. The NSA has access to any information that any personnel has linked to a social media account, their phones, and even their computers. There are pros and cons to the government monitoring our personnel privacy (Madden, 2015). “According to Washington Post, the NSA intercepts and stores an outstanding amount of information every single day” (Snyder, 2013). So should the government have all of this control or should this be something that should be stopped or put restrictions on?

The US PATRIOT Act allows government officials to intercept telephone lines conversations, all type of cellphones communications to include text messages, phone calls, all social media sites, and internet sites visited, as well as materials stored in computers, deleted files, websites accessed, and so forward. It also allows for the monitoring or search of homes, businesses, and other properties. It also allows the apprehension of citizens suspected of sympathizing with or having links to terrorist organizations. Assets can also be ceased from individuals suspected of terrorism against the United States, under the U.S. Patriot Act.

On September 11th, 2001 the twin towers in New York City were struck by two airlines killing thousands of people. In response to this attack Congress organized the USA Patriot Act. Its goal was to monitor the internet for signs of possible terrorist attacks. The act claims to investigate domestic terrorism, but does it? This act has recently come under fire due to this question. These laws have been around since the 70’s and 80’s, but never grouped together as the Patriot Act does (Gilbert). Now, due to daily internet use the act is more prevalent than ever. Although the Patriot Act has come under fire, it should not be repealed. The act has become relevant since the new technologies and it is only the first step to end domestic terror.

The USA Patriot Act is an anti-terrorism law enacted by the Congress in October 2001 at the request of then-President George W. Bush in response to the terrorist attacks that took place on Sept 11, 2001in New York and Washington,D.C. This was called the Patriot Act and was signed by Bush on Sept 26,2001. I went on the internet and googled Patriot Act for dummies. I watched this video from(CNN). It summed things nicely for me. I then decided to do my research differently. My sister in law Lisa is a Major in the Army and also a teacher at West Point Academy. She lives in New York, has high security clearance and is a Republican. I also decided to ask my other sister in law Debbie some questions as well. She is a psychologist in Santa Barbara, a Democrat and about the same age as Lisa 55 years old. I Thought it would be great to get different points of view. These are the questions I asked them via text: What is your take on the Patriot Act? Do you think we live in dictatorship? And how does this differ from oligarchy? This was the response from Lisa the Major. “I don't think we live in a dictatorship or an oligarchy. There are fair and free elections. The Patriot Act was an act of Congress, not a dictator. It may well have been an over reaction to 9/11, but at the time a lot of peottple were scared or angry. It had been repeatedly renewed by Congress under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The Patriot Act actually did expire in 2015. Some elements were put back

Since the passing of the Patriot Act, opposition has argued that this violates a person’s first amendment freedoms by searching personal records such as internet searches and library habits. In reality, federal investigators have no interest in the personal habits of ordinary American citizens. They are only concerned with those that are suspected of terrorism. Records are only obtained with permission from a federal judge and only when sufficient evidence is provided for monitoring. This aspect

After the September 11th terrorist attacks, the United States was left in a weakened state of fear. Government officials quickly scrambled to calm the mass panic which resulted in the speedy passing of the Patriot Act. The Patriot, or what is more formally known as the “Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” act, was established to provide the government with the implements it needed to stop terrorists operating on American soil. While the Patriot Act does have an important goal of obstructing terrorism, it achieves this goal at the expense of our individual liberties given to us by the Constitution.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”. The Patriot Act was passed shortly after the horrific terrorist attack the occurred on September 11, 2001 in order to aid the government in detecting acts of terrorism in the United States. However, there are many reasons why The Patriot Act should be repealed. Firstly, it has led to many civilians being falsely accused and harshly investigated due to being mistaken as a terrorist. Because of this it calls  back to McCarthyism of the fifties, only it’s not being accused of Communism Ties but to terrorism (Swarner 30). False accusations can lead life altering consequences, which we’ll discuss at length. Secondly, it actively goes against the third, fourth, and fifth amendments, making it unconstitutional. The Third Amendment protects against quartering in citizens housing during times of peace, and with The Patriot Act, we have government workers in the computers of every home across the nation at any time. Next, having agencies investigate citizens by going through private computers without informing them or providing a warrant directly defies the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure. Also, The Patriot Act at its core is unconstitutional by denying and disparaging the protected rights of the American people which verbatim is protected in the

Recently there has been extensive press coverage of Rep. Bernard Sanders' opposition to the USA Patriot Act. Much of this coverage has been inaccurate, unbalanced and unnecessarily frightening to the public. It is time to set the record straight.