USA Patriot Act: Tool Against Terrorism or Loss of Liberty - Research Paper Example

? USA PATRIOT Act: Tool Against Terrorism or Loss of Liberty? Immediately following the September 11, 2001 (9-11) terrorist attacks the nation’s focus turned to preventing a similar instance from occurring. The federal government initiated a host of measures to that end, one being the quickly enacted USA PATRIOT Act (an acronym which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) in October of that year. Among other aspects of the law, the PATRIOT Act gives law enforcement more authority to collect personal information when dealing with national security issues. It also enhanced the legal definition of the word terrorism to include domestic terrorism thereby expanding the scope of activities, including surveillance of American citizens without a warrant. While both the Bush and Obama administrations contend the Act is a vital tool against the war on terror, passes constitutional scrutiny and does not intrude on individual rights, many lawmakers, civil liberty groups and average citizens remain concerned that it violates individual liberties and the right to privacy by making personal intrusions without just cause. Lawmakers overwhelmingly passed the Act in 2001 then extended its reach last year with the intent of protecting the nation from attacks such as those the world witnessed in horror during 9-11. Without the Act’s indispensible protective measures, its promoters claim, Americans would be far less safe from random terrorist bombings yet, at the same time, preserves all the uniquely Americans liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. If it were unconstitutional, the Supreme Court would have struck it down long ago. To date, no civil action damage claims has been made against the government even though citizens are explicitly allowed to do so by the Act. For every provision that permits enforced searches or the gathering of evidence an accompanying provision is added that requires a federal judge’s to approve the action. Hundreds of would-be terrorists have been charged and convicted since the Act became law. In addition, several domestic terrorism attempts have been prevented since its enactment. (Wilson, 2012) The PATRIOT Act, as several legal experts claim, may save lives and help protect the homeland but it also violates at least four of the ten amendments found in the Bill of Rights which disqualifies it to be the law of the land. The Act infringes on the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble, rights clearly outlined by the First Amendment; on unreasonable searches and seizures of the Fourth Amendment along with the right to Habeas Corpus, the due process of law found in the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment furthers the due process clause by adding the right to a “speedy, public and fair trial” along with the entitlement to legal representation and to confront one’s accuser. The decade-long events at Guantanamo Bay military prison is evidence that many Sixth Amendment violations have been violated constantly over the years along with the Eighth Amendment banning cruel and unusual punishment and the 13th Amendment which forbids punishment without first being convicted of a crime. (Sinnar, 2003) Following 9-11 Americans were understandably hyper-sensitive to the subject of terrorism. The topic became a part of the everyday conversation fueled by a media hungry for sensational stories. A frightened citizenry turned a blind-eye to most any action taken by the government if it claimed national security was at stake. Therefore, the Bush administration blatantly did whatever it wanted without consideration of the public’s, congress or constitutional support. The Obama administration that followed continued some of these legally questionable tactics. During the Bush years, due process of law was ignored for anyone accused of terrorism. The government illegally wiretapped telephone calls of citizens, used torture tactics such as water-boarding on ‘detainees’ that had not been formally charged with a crime and invaded Iraq under false pretenses. It was during this time when the American public was more interested in preserving their lives than their liberties when the PATRIOT Act was enacted and implemented. Some, such as former Senator Chris Dodd began to speak out against the loss of liberty and national identity several years after the Act was signed into law. “The people who perpetrated these horrendous crimes against our country and our people have no moral compass and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but by taking away their legal rights, we are jeopardizing our own moral compass as well.” (Heuvel, 2007). Despite the reservations by growing number of lawmakers, legal scholars and citizens alike that the powers granted by the Act made the federal government too powerful, Congress approved and Obama signed an extension of the law last year. The Act was originally proposed as an essential way to aid federal law enforcement agencies in the performance of their duties and to save American lives by preventing future national disasters due to terrorism all under an umbrella term no true patriot would dare oppose. That was and is the political reality of the law both in 2001 and today. Somewhat surprisingly, the main opposition to the 2011 extension came from two polarized factions, conservative “Tea Party” Republicans and liberal Democrats who both argued against these broadened powers for the same reasons. These two ideologically opposed groups both claim the Act is just another example of a continuing authoritarian and some would contend treasonous overreach of power, a dangerous path with far-reaching consequences. The Act, according to them, diminishes the liberties of the country that should be the example of freedom for the world. However, led by another two strange bedfellows, Obama and the Republican leadership, the Act was extended. “The Patriot Act has been plagued by myths and misinformation for 10 years,” said Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.). “If Congress fails to reauthorize these laws before they expire, America’s national security and that of its citizens will be the most vulnerable in a decade.” (Mascaro, 2011). The PATRIOT Act, according to the Department of Justice, provides support and promotes a greater degree of information sharing among various federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. Moreover, this law helps law enforcement “connect the dots” from a greater range of agencies when gathering evidence so they can better “develop a complete picture” with regard to possible terrorist threats. “The Act removed the major legal barriers that prevented the law enforcement, intelligence, and national defense communities from talking and coordinating their work to protect the American people and our national security.” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006). The Act allows law enforcement to use electronic surveillance when trying to intercept transmissions by “suspected terrorists” more freely, with less oversight and regulation. Government agents can now secretly access any person’s telephone conversations or internet communications including all web sites visited. The Act also increased funds for border security and provides economic support for emergency first responder training. It also permits government agencies the authority to delay search warrant notification in suspected terrorist cases. “which (is) a long-existing crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades in organized crime, drug cases and child pornography” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006). Those who criticize the Act argue that is in opposition to the precepts of the First Amendment. Within the Act is a provision that allows a person to be identified then considered a terrorist if they break a federal law even one as that is suspect to begin with such as protesting on public property during the time a federal official was injured. The person’s only “crime” is to be at the protest not that they injured anyone. This is a violation the constitutional right of free speech and peaceable assembly and allows any person exercising their constitutional rights to be “detained” for an indefinite period (Guantanamo style) without benefit of due process including obtaining legal counsel which is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment.  Although the Justice Department disagrees with this appraisal of the Act, the scenario is conceivable. A person could be arrested and imprisoned then be labeled a terrorist fir life if they played a role, however unintentional, or were present when another person was injured while peacefully protesting. The Justice Department claims that regulations concerning domestic terrorism established by the Act “is limited to conduct that breaks criminal laws (which results) in death and was committed with the intent to commit terrorism.” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006). Even if one chooses to take the Department at its word, the phrase ‘intent to commit terrorism’ is an ambiguous phrase open to broad interpretation as are several wordings within the Act, a concerning circumstance which causes many to wonder to what degree civil liberties are affected. The elimination of due process is the most noticeable of the civil liberties disregarded by the Act. The Due Process Clause is, fundamentally, the promise of fairness.  “The Due Process Clause serves two basic goals.  One is to produce, through the use of fair procedures, more accurate results: to prevent the wrongful deprivation of interests.  The other goal is to make people feel that the government has treated them fairly by, say, listening to their side of the story.” (Constitutional, 2012). When the Act was being finalized, the Department of Justice asked that it include a provision that allowed the Department to indefinitely detain suspects without proving reasonable cause or charging them with a crime. The Act permits a person to be “detained” for an undetermined amount of time for violating a minor technicality in an immigration law. A person can be jailed for what could potentially be a life term for being nearby a violent act on a federal official or for having a small and irrelevant flaw in their immigrant documentation. To keep a person in jail all the Attorney General has to do is certify a person to be a “threat” to national security once every six months. According to President Bush, “The Patriot Act defends our liberty. The Patriot Act makes it able for those of us in positions of responsibility to defend the liberty of the American people. its essential law” (Roberts, 2009 President Obama justified the law the day he signed the extension by saying “It's an important tool for us to continue dealing with an ongoing terrorist threat” (Abrams, 2011). Senior legal research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, Paul Rosenzweig, is certain that President Ronald Reagan, the modern-day hero of conservatism, would also sign the PATRIOT Act. “I’ll put it this way, Ronald Reagan would be for the Patriot Act. And I know that because his former attorney general, Ed Meese, is for the Patriot Act” (Lakely, 2005). According to conservatives, the Patriot Act does not threaten individual liberties because it “has all the checks and balances on police authority that has been around for years” (Lakely, 2005). At least three presidents think the Act is constitutional and necessary along with the majority of conservatives but the country as a whole is not as certain. Pew Research Center conducted a poll last year finding that 34 percent thought the law “goes too far and poses a threat to civil liberties.” About 42 percent considered the Act “a necessary tool that helps the government find terrorists.” More accept it now than in 2004 when 39 percent said it went too far but only 33 percent thought it necessary. (Abrams, 2011) Liberal Democrats and the Libertarian wing of Republican Party, the Tea Party, does not have the same innocuous view of the PATRIOT Act. They think it sacrifices freedoms for the sake of security. Basically, liberalism is a profoundly held belief in personal liberty. They take a literal interpretation of the phrase “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence and consider those inalienable rights. At the time the Constitution was ratified through to today, most people have thought their individual rights comes from a government document, that their rights are dependent on what the ruling class decides to permit. Liberals consider the right to privacy inalienable, that it goes without saying. The Constitution does go without saying it but a person’s right to privacy is heavily implied by Fourth Amendment which prohibits law enforcement from searches and seizure of property without a search warrant. Under provisions of the Act, police officers can legally enter a home without warrant then search and seize whatever they wish if they are asked to do so by the Justice Department. Democrat Senator Dick Durbin said he voted for the act in 2001 “while ground zero was still burning but I soon realized it gave too much power to government without enough judicial and congressional oversight.” (Abrams, 2011) Law enforcement officials can legally monitor (spy on) individuals along with political and religious organizations if terrorism is “suspected” though not substantiated. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act allows government officials to scrutinize library records, again, without a warrant or even probable cause. Section 213 permits the FBI to get a warrant and search residences and businesses without informing the owners or occupants, if, of course it is a matter of “national security.” Probable suspicion has replaced probable cause. Law enforcement is able to “get around” obtaining a warrant when it wants to. No longer does law enforcement officials need to show ‘probable cause’ to obtain a search warrant, ‘probable suspicion’ is enough. Judges can consent to an investigation if they are led to believe it might stop a terrorist attack. Democrat Senator Mark Udall said “the provision on collecting business records can expose law-abiding citizens to government scrutiny. If we cannot limit investigations to terrorism or other nefarious activities, where do they end?” he asked. (Abrams, 2011) Supporters of the Act counter that, to date, there have been no substantiated accusations of the abuse of power due to government officials intruding into the private affairs of citizens such as accessing library records or wiretapping phones. Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU in Washington disagrees. “The Patriot Act has been used improperly again and again by law enforcement to invade Americans' privacy and violate their constitutional rights” (Abrams, 2011). The Bush administration had a different perception of abuse of power than liberals. According to Bush, abuse of power depends on the motive for gathering the information. If the government does it claiming a terror threat it’s not an abuse of power but is illegal if, for example, a person blackmails someone to record the conversations of an ex-spouse. According Justice Department official Jeffrey Breinholt, collecting information on innocent people, “does no harm unless someone decides to act on the information, put you on a no-fly list or something. Only a serious error could lead the government, based on nothing more than someone’s bank or phone records, to freeze your assets or go after you criminally and you suffer consequences that are irreparable. It’s a pretty small chance” (Gellman, 2005). This explanation of abuses of power misses the point. What concerns critics of the Act is the idea of the government regularly intruding into the private lives of citizens. Lawmakers swiftly passed the PATRIOT Act following 9-11 because their constituents demanded something be done. They did not have time to read it at the time but since then all the concerning details have come to light yet Congress again overwhelmingly approved an extension with the approval of a Democratic President who has not only extended but expanded government powers within the Act. It appears the attackers of 9-11 got what they wanted, a financial collapse which occurred immediately afterward and a loss of what American cherish most, freedom. However, the attackers did not take our freedom, many would argue we did it to ourselves. References Abrams, Jim. (May 27, 2011). Patriot Act Extension Signed By Obama Huffington Post Retrieved June 13, 2012 from < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27/patriot-act-extension-signed-obama-autopen_n_867851.html> Constitutional Legality of the Judicial Review Council (March 30, 2012). Retrieved June 13, 2012 from < http://www.corruptct.com/corrupt/constitutional-legality-of-the-judicial-review-council/> Gellman, Barton. (November 6, 2005). 2005 The FBI’s Secret Scrutiny. Washington Post. Retrieved June 13, 2012 from Heuvel, Katrina. (April 2, 2007) Legislation Watch: Dodd’s Moral Compass The Nation Retrieved June 13, 2012 from Lakely, James G. (June 13, 2005). “Conservatives, Liberals Align Against Patriot Act.” The Washington Times. Retrieved June 13, 2012 from Mascaro, Lisa. (May 27, 2011). Patriot Act provisions extended just in time Los Angeles Times Retrieved June 13, 2012 from < http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/27/nation/la-na-patriot-act-20110527> Roberts, Joel. (February 11, 2009). The Issues: Patriot Act CBS Evening News Retrieved June 13, 2012 from < http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-647329.html> The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty (January 4, 2006). U.S. Department of Justice Retrieved June 13, 2012 from Sinnar, Shirin. (April 2003). Patriotic or unconstitutional? The mandatory detention of aliens under the USA Patriot Act.  Stanford Law Review 55.4 1319(38).  Wilson, MD. (March 18, 2012). An Introduction to the Basics of the Patriot Act. Helium Retrieved June 13, 2012 from Read More