Patriot Act of the United States of America - Essay Example

USA PATRIOT Act How the Provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act Grants Law Enforcement and Intelligence Officials’ Special Powers to Combat Terrorism The USA PATRIOT Act seeks to enable the law enforcement and intelligence officials with extensive powers to curtail terrorism in USA. The main aim of the legislation is to safeguard the Americans against any future terrorist plots and/or attacks. In doing this, the US Congress decided to use the already existing security mechanism of the country with more precision and efficiency and remain one step ahead of the international terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba, etc. The Act permits the investigators to use the pre-existing tools that were used to scrutinize drug trafficking and organized crime against racketeers and mafia. In this way, the scope of counter-terrorism has been considerably extended without actually needing excessive innovation and research on new methods. The Act makes necessary arrangements so that the law enforcement personnel can use varied surveillance tools and techniques against the different crimes and acts of terror. (Department of Justice, 2012) In order to trap the well-trained and internationally networked terrorists, the Department of Justice (2012) states, “Because international terrorists are sophisticated and trained to thwart surveillance by rapidly changing locations and communication devices such as cell phones, the Act (USA PATRIOT Act) authorized agents to seek court permission to use the same techniques in national security investigations to track terrorists.” The Act extends the legal authority of the investigating officers in such a way so that they can extract data from court records, business records, library archives, etc. in the case they are necessary in probing a national security terrorism case. However, tactics might be necessary to be changed from one case to another. “In some cases if criminals are tipped off too early to an investigation, they might flee, destroy evidence, intimidate or kill witnesses, cut off contact with associates, or take other action to evade arrest. Therefore, federal courts in narrow circumstances long have allowed law enforcement to delay for a limited time when the subject is told that a judicially-approved search warrant has been executed.” (Department of Justice, 2012) The USA PATRIOT Act has ample provisions to enhance the legal implications and extensiveness of such investigative tactics, so that the law enforcement may avoid strangulation in formal processes and unnecessary legal battles. Further, the Act permits law enforcement personnel to acquire a search warrant wherever a terrorist activity has taken place. Also, the officials have been legally enabled to entertain the requests from the victims of Internet/computer hackers so that IT surveillance can be made fool proof. (Jaeger et al, 2003; Department of Justice, 2012) Different Views of the USA PATRIOT Act There are different views regarding the USA PATRIOT Act because of certain issues that emerge when the legislation is put vis-à-vis American values and the concept of civil liberties. Some experts support this legislation, while others think that it is highly inappropriate in the American social context. Views that Favor the USA PATRIOT Act The Department of Justice is a prominent defendant of the legislation. In the article The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty, the Department of Justice (2012) issues the following statement: “The Department of Justice's first priority is to prevent future terrorist attacks. Since its passage following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Patriot Act has played a key part - and often the leading role - in a number of successful operations.” Indeed, the Act has been pivotal in protecting innocent American citizens from the lethal plans of terrorists aimed to destroy USA and our way of life and culture. Concomitantly the results have been critical by passing the legislation, and the US Congress supported only diffident, incremental, and contextual changes in the contemporary legal framework of law enforcement at both the federal and state levels. Congress plainly took the existing officially authorized principles and effectively adjusted them to protect the lives and freedom of the US citizens from the dangers posed by global and organized terrorist networks. Analyzing the Act, Dinh (2004, p. 461) writes, “We need to discuss what governmental powers are necessary to make us safe, and what safeguards against misuse of these powers are essential to keep us free.” Hence, the USA PATRIOT Act does not deserve to be criticized outright, since it practically serves the national interests. Moreover, the Act was passed by the Senate by a majority of 98-1, and by the House by a majority of 357-66. It cannot be entirely justifiable to criticize the almost unanimous decision by so many democratically elected representatives and law makers. Even critics of the USA PATRIOT Act like S.E. Spaulding have admitted that public records contain only little evidence that the law enforcement personnel and investigators misinterpreted or abused the special powers vested to them by the virtue of the Act (Savage, 2009). Views that hold that the USA PATRIOT Act is an inappropriate legislation Although official records lack evidences about misuse of the PATRIOT Act on the part of the law enforcement officers, there are several cases when the citizens of the country suspected, alleged, or reported abuse. American constitution is based on the libertarian values with a special emphasis on the civil rights and liberties. It is the country of the Statue of Liberty, where millions of migrants are being generously harbored for several decades. Liberal social norms are not only restricted to the ethical context of US law but also encompass the greater political system of the country. Hence, as early as the year 2002, Pike (2002, p. 19) wrote, “At the anniversary of the USA PATRIOT Act, information professionals and the public are increasingly concerned that the “proper balance between freedom and order” may have shifted too far.” The PATRIOT Act has enabled the law enforcement officials to raid houses, execute combing, detain for longer periods (even without trial), issue surprise search warrants, and examine emails, phone calls, etc. According to Savage (2009), the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act “expanded the power of the F.B.I. to seize records and to eavesdrop on phone calls in the course of a counterterrorism investigation”, which hamper the ideology behind the American concept of freedom of expression and speech. The civil liberties activists, civil rights groups, and different lawmakers are protesting against the Act as a whole; they allege that the law enforcement framework has become to powerful and started to harass the innocent Americans instead of protecting them. The Act has changed several pre-existing legislations like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) such that the modifications are needed to be “examined in terms of a number of sources of personal information, including e-government, electronic and transactional records, and libraries” (Jaeger et al, 2003, p. 295). My Personal Opinion on the Extent of Authority Granted to the Law Enforcement and Intelligence Officials by USA PATRIOT Act The USA PATRIOT Act is a legal instrument that can be used as a proactive and incisive tool by the security agencies and their officials to cripple the terrorist networks and safeguard USA. In my opinion, the USA PATRIOT Act has been a milestone in serving the purpose of homeland security. Since ever it was passed, there has been no large scale coordinated terrorist attack on the country. Yet, allegations of making the law enforcement officials too powerful are becoming common everyday. Particularly, public activities over the Internet are being more minutely monitored, and the enforcement officials can create pressure on the various organizations and corporations to grant access to the most confidential databases and user account information including those which are necessary for financial transactions. However, I think it is wiser to give up certain individual liberties in order to protect the country and its people. Llewellyn (1935, p. 662) has rightly remarked, “Ideals without technique are a mess. But technique without ideals is a menace.” The USA PATRIOT Act stresses on this aspect of idealistic correctness, which may be tainted by occasional misuse, but cannot be quarantined in refining the techniques of modern law enforcement to destroy the terrorist networks effectively, and if necessary, ruthlessly. References Dinh, V. (2004). USA Patriot Act. German Law Review, 5 , 461-467. Dparment of Justice. (2012). What is the USA Patriot Web. Retrieved May 8, 2012, from http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm. Jaeger, P., Bartot, J., & McClure, C. (2003). The impact of the USA Ptriot Act on collection and analysis of personal information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Government Information Quarterly, 20 , 295-314. Llewellyn, K. (1935). On what is wrong with so-called legal education. Columbia Law Review, 35 , 651-664. Pike, G. (2002). History repeated with the USA Patriot Act. Information Today, 19 , 19-22. Savage, C. (2009). A Looming Battle Over the Patriot Act - NYTimes.com. Retrieved May 8, 2012, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/us/politics/20patriot.html. Read More