The War on Terrorism is an Attack on American Civil Liberties

The USA Patriot Act grants government agencies powers in terrorism investigations that it already uses in non-terrorist crimes. Several law abiding citizens have been approached, questioned, and interrogated without probable cause of any criminal activity, basically for engaging in political speech protected by the constitution (Bailie, 2012). The Act freely eliminates privacy rights for individual Americans, it creates more secrecy for government activities, which make it extremely difficult to know about actions the Government are taking.

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.

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

The Patriot Act was established after the tragedy of September, 11, 2001 in a moment of weakness. It gave unprecedented and unnecessary powers to intelligence agencies under the wide umbrella of national security. The Patriot Act has used an “us vs them” mentality as well as pro-American propaganda to accomplish its goals. This new authority of the intelligence agencies has gone too far, is unjustified, unconstitutional, and infringes on the privacy of the American people, as well as others in the world. The Patriot Act should be weakened in order to preserve the rights of the American people and to reaffirm to the world that the U.S will not tolerate violations of human rights.

In the mist of America ending its wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan here in the homeland we are still be proactive in trying to alleviate terrorist threats and opportunities for terroristic activity in our backyards. When looking at the USA PATRIOT ACT that was enacted to help battle this ongoing pandemic it has come into question whether the laws of the USA PATRIOT ACT extremely broad, narrow, and overarching that they leave too much room for interpretation which in the end has led to violations of a person’s rights that they are guaranteed by the US Constitution.

During many presidencies there have been many controversial decisions affecting civil liberties during times of national crisis. Throughout American history, the powers granted to the National Government and the President himself have been strengthened and expanded in wartime situations. Although they are sometimes controversial, the authority exerted on the nation through these powers have successfully protected the well-being of America and its national security. The passage of the USA Patriot Act under George W. Bush following terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and

The Patriot Act allows the United States to use surveillance and wiretaps to keep its country safe from terrorists and other radical groups. This impacts our lives everyday whether we know it or not, by such as a one

When the Patriot Act was passed, there was a public backlash against its constitutionality. In order to protect the nation from future terrorist attacks, the Patriot act vastly expanded the government's authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court”. This brought up a lot of controversy within lawmakers, as the enactment of this law would give the FBI the right to violate the Fourth Amendment.

Many people feel that the Patriot Act overreaches its original intent by allowing the government to spy on its own citizens, essentially violating American’s civil liberties, most notably our right to privacy granted by our Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, as well as our right to due process granted by the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

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.

The Patriot Act is a sweeping piece of legislation. Created in the wake of 9/11; it remains controversial. Opinions on the necessity of the Act are intense and vary widely. A better understanding of its applicability, strengths, and weaknesses will aid future opinion and legislation. The Patriot Act affects all citizens, immigrants, and especially minority groups. Studies have been done on the racial profiling of Muslim Americans. The benefits of having The USA PATRIOT Act cannot be argued. However, oversight, transparency, and accountability are needed. Ensuring that agencies do not overstep or target minority groups should be addressed.

It was and still is one of the most controversial acts in history: “The USA Patriot Act is one of the most sweeping acts in modern history because of its potential impact on civil liberties” (Cornehls). The Patriot Act threatens civil liberties in numerous ways. Just take a look at the Bill of Rights. It violates the First and Fourth Amendments. The Patriot Act violates freedom of speech for everyday, ordinary people because they get flagged for keywords that are ridiculous.

The final applicable point to make in favor of the position that civil liberties should not be ignored in the fight against terrorism is that increased government intrusion can lead to tyranny. To illustrate this point, elected officials do not posses the integrity to restore civil liberties once taken from the American people. Additionally, as the government begins seize people's rights, it is only matter of time before America becomes a government-run police right to take them away.

Dority, Barbara. "The USA PATRIOT Act Has Decimated Many Civil Liberties." Homeland Security. Ed. Andrea C. Nakaya. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "Your Every Move." The Humanist 64 (2004). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 3 Sept. 2015.