Post 9/11 Government Involvement and Constitutional Liberties have changed - Term Paper Example

 An intensive debate began among Congress members on the issue of Security vs. Civil Liberties. The tragic terrorist activities shook the entire nation to its core. Administrative machinery then went into action wanting immediate clearance of the strong Anti-Terrorism Act. The paper attempts to identify the laws specifically enacted to tame terrorist activities and existing laws that are significantly transformed on the aftermath of September 11 terrorist attacks, restricting civil liberties of the US citizens in the process.

The paper also aims to look into how, in the given circumstances, the issue of safety for individuals and the nation is more important over individual freedom and rights. Background of the Issue Viet Dinh, the then assistant U.S. attorney general for legal policy argued that the government aimed at enhancing nation's ability to fight against terrorism without encroaching upon personal freedom. His point was that the legislation was not for changing the demarcation line between civil rights and law enforcement.

It is important to remember here that Congress passed the combating Terrorism Act of 2001 only three days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The purpose was to enhance law enforcement's authority to have a close watch on internet communications taking benefits of advances in science and technology on their efforts on terrorism. The Act provided necessary strength to the law enforcement agencies. All US attorneys got necessary powers to put FBI e-mail surveillance system in operations. Dinh was categorical in stating that the current “Anti-Terrorism Act is restrained and sufficiently pared-down to allow for only what we need to fight terrorism" (Phillips, 2001).

The new act aimed at allowing police to apply all surveillance methods for online communications, all e-mail addresses and even URLs so that police could identify the suspect's activities without any need to know the content of e-mails. The new act was to change the existing laws such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Until this new law, the law enforcement officer needed to inform the cause that the suspect was an agent sitting somewhere in far off country; however, the new act allowed tapping to collect evidence for a criminal involvement of the suspect without having a cause of a foreign intelligence.

Similarly, the Federal Wiretap Act of 1968, or Title III permitted police to intercept communications if sufficient evidence was available pertaining to some kind of criminal activities. Under the new act,