The United States Patriot Act that was Enacted After September 11 of 2001 - Case Study Example

The US Patriot Act The US PATRIOT Act was enacted in reaction to the terrorist attacks on September 11,2001. Since its enactment, it has been opposed by both liberal and conservative groups. Each group brings forth arguments claiming the PATRIOT Act violates the civil liberties of American citizens. Despite this unusual collaboration of traditionally opposing viewpoints, there has been no credible evidence presented that this Act violates any constitutionally guaranteed rights. As a matter of fact, the Act prohibits discriminatory practices such as racial profiling, illegal wire taps and all other unlawful actions which are generally deemed improper. The PATRIOT Act was enacted to protect US citizens by augmenting the tools by which law enforcement agencies fight crime and improves communication capabilities between these government agencies. In spite of the prevailing majority opinion, the PATRIOT Act protects, rather than degrades, civil liberties. The name of the act, the USA PATRIOT Act, is a shortened acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. According to the Justice Department, the PATRIOT Act gives support to and encourages enhanced sharing of information among various law enforcement agencies at the local, state and federal levels. In addition, 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. By enabling more fluid communications between the various agencies, information regarding a particular suspect can be matched up faster, often automatically by computer database, and more accurately identified. This assists in increasing the safety of citizens both by removing dangerous suspects from the general population before they are able to cause serious trouble and by ensuring innocent citizens are cleared and released in a timely and efficient manner if or when mistakes are made. Communications is the focus of the other major element of the act as well. The Act allows law enforcement officials more latitude when attempting to intercept transmissions of suspected terrorist’s discussions via electronic surveillance (Ward, 2002). This is not a blanket license for law enforcement to listen to anyone’s line based upon a simple whim or roll of the dice, but is instead intended to help investigators trace suspicious person’s through their more intimate and therefore more difficult to track communications. This is often where plans and strategies such as the action that successfully carried out the World Trade Center attacks are made. Since the PATRIOT Act was enacted in October of 2001, it has been an essential instrument in ensuring the safety of American citizens in the ongoing ‘War on Terror.’ The more conducive sharing of information augments the same, constitutionally lawful, forms of law enforcement that had been employed to apprehend and prosecute criminals prior to 9/11. In addition, the legislation has increased the effectiveness of the U.S. Department of Justice in its efforts to interrupt terrorist actions while simultaneously and earnestly defending the civil liberties of American citizens. “America still faces dangerous enemies, and no priority is more important to the President than protecting the American people without delay” (“US PATRIOT Act”, 2006). Rather than a refutation of basic American civil liberties, the PATRIOT Act works to ensure these same civil liberties are not abused by those who would bring the country to its knees through various forms of harmful and, as seen on September 11, 2001, significantly impacting activities. The essential role of the PATRIOT Act is emphasized by those in power again and again. 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. It’s essential law” (Allen, 2004). While many have called President Bush’s judgment into question, others have turned to more respected world leaders for evidence that the PATRIOT Act is a long-needed tool in the war against terror. Paul Rosenzweig, a senior legal research fellow at Heritage is convinced that Ronald Reagan, the champion of modern-day conservatism, would support 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). More than the formidable backing of the esteemed Ronald Reagan, this endorsement also brings with it the legal backing some say the Act ignores. According to some conservatives such as Rosenzweig, the Patriot Act poses no threat to civil liberties because it “has all the checks and balances on police authority that has been around for years” (Lakely, 2005). As has been emphasized previously, the Act is not designed to give law enforcement agencies or anyone else additional access to the private communications and interactions of the normal, law-abiding American citizen, but is instead designed to provide the government with the necessary ability to immediately follow up on leads that could prevent future terrorist actions on American soil. The contentious debate regarding the PATRIOT Act among those in the public and private sector alike was sparked predominantly by left-wing propaganda. This propaganda has continuously falsely characterized the intent and language of the Act to engender fear in the American public that their rights are somehow being stripped from them. Newspaper and television reports have used phrases such as ‘unlawful use of authoritative powers by the executive branch.’ This type of language has been a factor in the widely distorted perceptions regarding the Act. Interestingly, the portions of the Act that have generated the loudest objections are the ones that merely provide law enforcement officials with an enhanced communicative benefit that works in concert with the identical methods that have been utilized to fight crime for many decades. As an example of the type of manipulation of the facts involved, media outlets have continued a prolonged and vociferous campaign. They warn against government intrusion into the lives of private citizens allowed by Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. For evidence, they point to the provision that allows library records to be scrutinized by more efficient means by government officials. What the media doesn’t report is that library records have routinely been subpoenaed as evidence in criminal cases for many years, even before 2001. For example, library records were subpoenaed in the 1996 Unabomber case and in 1997 to help solve the Gianni Versace murder (Carafano & Rosenzweig, 2005). “The power to subpoena records of any kind, including library records, business records or financial records, has been a longstanding and fundamental resource in law enforcement’s ability to investigate and prosecute criminal conduct” (Doyle, 2005). This long-standing law enforcement tool, because of the PATRIOT Act, is now used more effectively in the fight against terrorism by law enforcement and investigative bodies when it is justified. The only thing that has changed is the effectiveness and efficiency of the use of this information in assisting investigations, yet the practice is decried and falsely linked to the Act as its origin. Although the media has made a big deal about the potentials of the Act if it were allowed to be carried to ridiculous abuses of power, to date, no library records have been requested by authority of the provisions stipulated in the PATRIOT Act. Whether the Act is in place or not, the ability to subpoena all relevant records pertaining to a suspect and his (or her) activities is essential to police work and will likely remain in the law codes should the PATRIOT Act be repealed. What would happen should the PATRIOT Act be repealed, however, would be that law enforcement would lose valuable communications between agencies as a means of sharing information about suspects and would lose an essential investigative tool in being able to effectively and efficiently access records of suspects that might help to avert attacks. Policies such as these that exist to provide for our fundamental protection should be determined by those in power who are able to more accurately determine what is fair and necessary rather than by the fear-mongering tactics of the liberal media. Of course, those who oppose the PATRIOT Act also point to Section 213 and suggest that it can be easily abused to provide law enforcement officials with a means to legally ‘sneak and peak’ into the lives of ordinary citizens without needing to prove any probable cause. The suggestion that police can simply look into one’s records because they want to and conduct searches based on no provocation or instigation brings to mind horror stories of excessive use of governmental power, a concept dreaded by liberal and conservative alike (Kyl, 2005). Because these fears speak to our fundamental sense of what it means to be an American, they are very effective in capturing the imaginations of the public. Contrary to the arguments of the opponents, the Act does not eliminate the need for law enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant before conducting a search, which must be authorized by a judge before the search is conducted. A repeal of the Act wouldn’t change this aspect of the law at all. What it would change is the requirement that the subject of the search be notified beforehand. It is also widely believed that the PATRIOT Act enables law enforcement to obtain a warrant and conduct the search without the prior knowledge of the subject of the search. That law enforcement can perform these types of searches is true not only in the search of physical property, but also of private communication records and library records. The postponement of notification to a person being investigated provides law enforcement with a necessary element of surprise that has enabled the capture of dangerous criminals in the past, such as Mafia boss John Gotti. Again, though, this ability is not something spelled out and brought about by the PATRIOT Act, but was something that had already been in place for many years and had already been tested and upheld by the Supreme Court prior to 2001. Searches of this type are hardly a recent phenomenon and have generally been utilized in solving multifaceted, long-standing cases involving many suspects, some of which have yet to be identified. This type of case accurately fits the characteristics expected to be encountered when attempting to locate terrorists operating within the country (Moschella, 2003). The PATRIOT Act again simply allows this tool to be used more effectively in the ‘War on Terror.’ Under Section 213, “a federal judge can authorize temporarily delaying notice of a search if notice could result in danger to an individual, the destruction of evidence or seriously jeopardize an investigation” (Mueller, 2005). This effective tactic has simply been broadened to aid law enforcement in identifying and thwarting terrorist activities. Although there has been widespread and very vocal opposition to the PATRIOT Act since its inception, even those against it have acknowledged that it is effective in building a more cohesive link between all levels of law enforcement, including the intelligence agencies. “For years, law enforcement has used court-approved tools to go after the mob, drug traffickers, gangs and other criminals. The Patriot Act allows use of those same court-approved tools to go after terrorists” (McKay, 2005). As has been demonstrated again and again, the Act does not give away the civil liberties that were earned by the bloodshed of our predecessors as some would and have said. It doesn’t actually put into place any of the laws that it has been criticized for. Instead, as is illustrated through the refutation of arguments brought forward by its opposition, the PATRIOT Act augments the law enforcement tools that have already been in place to protect the citizens of the US. This is the first responsibility of the federal government and it is right and fair for the federal government to put in place those tools necessary to carry out its appointed function. Because some of the language in the Act has been unclear to some, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asked Congress to write more explicit language into the Act. While conceding that perhaps the terms were not as clear as they could be, this action does not and should not be construed to mean that the Act itself is in any way harmful, unconstitutional or an infringement upon the basic rights of the American citizen. Changing some of the language may be necessary to help those unwilling to understand the terms as they are set forth; however, the provisions of the Act or the Act itself should not be done away with as it is important to the security of the nation and its citizens. References Allen, Mike. (April 21, 2004). “Congress urged: Pass Patriot Act.” The Washington Post. Carafano, James Jay & Paul Rosenzweig (2005). Winning the Long War. Heritage Books. Doyle, Charles. (July 6, 2005). Libraries and the USA PATRIOT Act. Available March 7, 2008 from Kyl, Jon. (April 11, 2005). “Why The Patriot Act Must Be Renewed.” Real Clear Politics. Available March 7, 2008 from Lakely, James G. (June 14, 2005). “Conservatives, Liberals Align Against Patriot Act.” The Washington Times. McKay, John. (June 13, 2005). “Patriot Act’s Tools no Different than Those Used to Fight Crime.” The Seattle Times. Moschella, William E. (July 25, 2003). U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs. Available March 7, 2008 from Mueller, Robert S. III. (April 5, 2005). Congressional Testimony. Available March 7, 2008 from “(The) U.S. PATRIOT Act.” (March 9, 2006). The White House. Washington D.C. Available March 7, 2008 from Ward, Elaine N. (February 7, 2002). “USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.” The University of Texas at Austin. Read More