The USA PATRIOT Act - Assignment Example

The USA PATRIOT Act and Public Policy Surrounding Due Process The PATRIOT Act became federal law in October of 2001. It was quickly accepted by Congress just a month and a half following the September 11 attacks. Pressure to pass anti-terrorism legislation prevailed over the need to understand what the 342 page Act entailed. “Many members of Congress now say they did not even read it before voting in favor” (Robinson, 2005). Those voting in favor were overwhelming. Only one of 99 Senators and 66 of 423 Representatives voted against the law. The PATRIOT Act, as many citizens and legal experts alike have argued, violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution’s first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights.  This includes the freedom of speech and assembly (First Amendment); the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment); the right to due process of law (Fifth Amendment); the right to a speedy, public and fair trial along with the right to counsel and to confront the accuser (Sixth Amendment), the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment) and freedom from punishment without conviction (13th Amendment). The given purpose of the PATRIOT Act was “To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes” (Robinson, 2005). Much of the Act was renewed in March of 2006. Since that time, citizens, legal experts and civil libertarians alike have renewed their efforts as well. They are concerned that the ‘other purposes’ are a threat to the Constitution and will dilute the freedoms that have made America the premier example of democracy for countries worldwide. This multifaceted PATRIOT Act modified numerous laws including the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, Right to Financial Privacy Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act and Immigration and Nationality Act among many others (Electronic Privacy Information Center, 2003). The Act gives support to and encourages enhanced sharing of information among various law enforcement agencies at the local, state and federal levels. According to the Justice Department, this law assists law enforcement in their efforts to “connect the dots” from a wider scope of agencies when assembling evidence so as to “develop a complete picture” regarding possible threats from terrorists (US Department of Justice, 2005). The Act also allows for easier identification and enforcement of those suspected of money laundering and a greater ability to control the assets of organizations so as to interrupt the bankrolling of terrorists.  The Act also gives law enforcement more latitude when attempting to intercept transmissions of suspected terrorist’s discussions via the internet and telephone. Additionally, the Act increased border security funding and allows the Attorney General to disburse monetary rewards to those individuals and entities such as municipalities that have enjoined the fight against terrorism. Furthermore, it provides financial support for the training of first responders such as firefighters. Finally, the PATRIOT Act permits government agencies power to delay notification of search warrants, “which (is) a long-existing crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades in organized crime, drug cases and child pornography” (US Department of Justice, 2005). Agents of the Government can now secretly tap into any citizen’s phone calls or internet communications including all visited web sites. If directed by the Justice Department, police officers can enter people’s homes without benefit of a warrant and even seize their belongings and not ever have to inform the homeowner of the search. This is commonly referred to as the ‘sneak and peak warrants.’  Individuals as well as religious and political organizations can legally be spied on by law enforcement agencies whether or not those agencies can produce any evidence a crime has or is planned to be committed. In addition, citizens are denied their Fifth Amendment right of due process by the Act. They can be forcibly detained and refused access to an attorney with no evidence being supplied by which to justify this previously illegal action. Critics of the Act suggest that is in contradiction to the tenants of the First Amendment. As an example, a citizen can be identified and treated as a terrorist if they are breaking a federal law such as trespassing on public property during a protest when a federal official is injured, not by that person but simply injured during the protest. This allows any person who was exercising their constitutional right of free speech to be arrested and detained indefinitely without benefit of legal counsel.  Though the Justice Department disagrees with this assessment of the Act, it is conceivable that a person could be prosecuted as a terrorist if that person played a part, however unintentionally, or is present while another person is injured while making a political statement. The Justice Department insists that individuals cannot be arrested if they are involved in a peaceful protest. The Department claims that domestic terrorism regulations instituted by the PATRIOT Act “is limited to conduct that breaks criminal laws (which results) in death and was committed with the intent to commit terrorism” (US Department of Justice, 2005a). The ‘intent to commit terrorism’ is an ambiguous phrase open to wide interpretation as are many aspects of the Act which causes many to question to what extent civil liberties are affected by it. A close examination of the Act, which the members of Congress did not do prior to voting, confirms that those that champion civil liberties are justifiably alarmed. While that Act was being formulated, the Justice Department requested that it contain provisions which allowed the Department to detain suspects indefinitely without having been charged with a crime. The Act, in its final version, allows for an individual to be detained for an indefinite time for violating a slight technicality of an immigration law. If the suspect for whatever reason cannot be immediately deported because, for example, they are legally in the country but had an insignificant flaw in their documentation, that individual can literally be lawfully detained for life. The attorney general simply must certify once every six months that this person is a ‘threat’ to national security. As an illustration of the scope and magnitude of this problem, a Wall Street Journal story reported that seven congressional Democrats filed a request from the U.S. Attorney General so as to ascertain the status of more than a thousand detainees in federal facilities. The request was granted after the congressmen cited the Freedom of Information Act. According to the report obtained by the lawmakers, “some detainees have been denied access to their attorneys, proper food, or protection from physical assault” (Levy, 2001). Some had been kept confined to solitary confinement though they had not been formerly charged with a crime. Numerous detainees of Arab decent were allowed one phone call attempt to an attorney per week. However, if they could not reach their counsel, they could not call back until another week had passed. This treatment is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment right to due process of law. Though these detainees were not U.S. citizens and not entitled to such constitutional protections, many wonder how the country will be perceived by those it hopes to convert to American style democracy if it doesn’t apply its own rules to all persons. A Washington Post editorial posed questions as to why the Justice Department had initially refused to provide this information to congressmen and why it continues to resist such requests. “The Department of Justice continues to resist legitimate requests for information regarding the 1,017 people it acknowledges having detained in its investigation of the September 11 attack” (Levy, 2001). The questions posed by the editorial were echoed by many citizens and politicians. These questions included the number in custody, their identity and the charges levied against them, the treatment they are receiving and to what extent their cases were progressing. The Justice Department neither voluntarily provided these answers nor explained its motive to withhold the information. The Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Underdown, that “immigrants who have committed crimes cannot be detained indefinitely, but must be deported within a reasonable period or released” (Levy, 2001). The Court went further in its ruling by saying “temporary and even illegal immigrants, not just U.S. citizens, are entitled to due process” (Levy, 2001). With these words, the Court seemed to clearly state that the PATRIOT Act was in violation of the Constitution. However, the Court also ruled that “different rules may apply to immigrants who are denied entry, suspected of terrorism, or considered to be national security risks” (Levy, 2001). Wadsworth Publishing conducted a survey of experts in the field of criminal justice. According to it findings, 95 percent believed the PATRIOT Act was passed without the thoughtful consideration of the impact this legislation had on public policy. Most, 74 percent, responded that the PATRIOT Act violated the rights of individuals and a large percentage of these felt that laws already on the books, if implemented, could adequately and equally protect the country from terrorism (Thompson Wadsworth, 2003). One can surmise from these findings that those experts surveyed supported the government’s endeavor to protect the nation from future terrorist attacks but also felt that the Act is a threat to the nation’s freedoms. Though congressmen did not fully realize what they were passing in the rush to give the appearance of action in the wake of 9/11, they have had ample opportunity to examine it since that time. These legislators and those in the Bush Administration which initially proposed the Act certainly must realize that, though they justify it in the name of national security, many of the provisions it contains are inconsistent with the Constitution specifically the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments. The Congress and President, rather than tempering the deviating portions of the Act, promoted the legislation as a united declaration of PATRIOTism. The name itself, the PATRIOT Act is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. The label for this law was cleverly designed and packaged to enlist broad support from a nation is generally vulnerable to PATRIOTic propaganda but even more so at the time that it was so swiftly enacted. Citizens and legislators were all too eager to submit to the rhetoric that suggested that sacrificing a certain amount of freedom was a small price to pay for security. The words of Benjamin Franklin, described in the following paraphrased quote, ‘those that give up liberties for safety deserve neither,’ was obviously disregarded by the proponents of the Act. The arguments given by those in favor of the Act are easily reasoned and justified but it is clear that the war on terror the U.S. is waging has caused irreparable damage to the civil liberties formerly guaranteed by the Constitution. Dispatching with the due process of law has been the most visible of the civil liberties that have been curtailed by the Act. The reason is that due process is not only an individual right in the U.S. but when this right is violated, it results in the immediate and horrendous perpetuation of human suffering as well. Works Cited Electronic Privacy Information Center. “The USA PATRIOT Act.”  (2003).  October 31, 2006 Levy, Robert A. “The USA PATRIOT Act: We Deserve Better.” (October 9, 2001). The Cato Institute. October 31, 2006 Robinson, Dr. Matthew. “Civil Liberties and the War on Terror: An Eight Part Series.” Paper originally presented to the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, March 15-19, 2005, Chicago, Illinois. October 31, 2006 Thompson Wadsworth. “Thompson Wadsworth Criminal Justice Survey.” (2003).  October 31, 2006 US Department of Justice. “Waging the War on Terror.” (2005).  October 31, 2006 US Department of Justice. “USA PATRIOT Act news archive.” (2005a).  October 31, 2006 Read More