Less than one week after the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S.A. Patriot Act was introduced to Congress. One month later, the act passed in the Senate with a vote of 98-1. A frightened nation had cried for protection against further attacks, but certainly got more than they had asked for. Russell Feingold, the only Senator to vote down the act, referred to it as, “legislation on the fly, unlike anything [he] had ever seen.” In their haste to protect our great nation, Congress suspended, “normal procedural processes, such as interagency review and committee hearings,” and, “many provisions were not checked for their constitutionality, lack of judicial oversight, and potential for abuse.” Ninety-eight senators were willing to overlook key civil liberty issues contained within the 342 page act. The lone dissenting vote, Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold, felt that our battle against terrorism would be lost “without firing a shot” if we were to “sacrifice the liberties of the American people.” Feingold duly defended American civil liberties at the risk of his career, truly exemplifying political courage as defined by John F. Kennedy. Feingold’s position as the only senator voicing opposition to the Patriot Act did not come without controversy. Despite all difficulties, Feingold never questioned his choice, and in fact declared that it was, “probably one of the best things [he’d] ever done.” Feingold acknowledged that he agreed with much of the Patriot act, however saw that certain provisions, “trampled on constitutional rights.” He declared that, as an elected representative, he took an oath to the Constitution that, “wasn’t an oath of convenience,” and displayed unyielding devotion to his fight to def... ... middle of paper ... ... Patriot Act book- 77 http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/feingold-book-details-his-lone-no-vote-on-patriot-act Privacy- Patriot Act Surveillance Powers Violate Privacy- pg 23 Sen. Feingold’s speech http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/22/feingold-voting-against-the-patriot-act-one-of-the-best-things-ive-done/ http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/184109-1 http://www.jfklibrary.org/Events-and-Awards/Profile-in-Courage-Award/About-the-Book.aspx http://www.jfklibrary.org/Education/Profile-in-Courage-Essay-Contest/Curriculum-Ideas/Curriculum-Appendix-2.aspx http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/11/politics/campaign/11wisc.html?_r=2& http://search.proquest.com/docview/203371843/142AA0E96894A65B0C0/19?accountid=40798 http://search.proquest.com/docview/433229998/142A9FFB38569252EDA/11?accountid=40798 http://search.proquest.com/docview/421692170/142A9FFB38569252EDA/9?accountid=40798
By 1954, the zeal had subsided. These short trials remain one of the most disgraceful times in modern U.S. history (McCarthyism, pbs.org). There are researchers and critics who still find the shadow of McCarthyism looming in the present history of the United States. About two years ago, in a Presidential Address, George Bush, pleaded the Congress to ratify legislation that would prolong the time-bound terms of the notorious anti-terror law, originally planned to end on December 31st, 2005 and later extended. Advocated by Attorney General John Ashcroft and accepted by the Congress in the scary upshot of the 9/11 fanatic assaults, the Patriot Act has been depicted by its critics as the utmost warning to U.S. human rights since the Alien and Sedition Acts or the postponement of habeas corpus during the Civil War.
In her essay “We should relinquish some liberty in exchange for security,” Mona Charen, a columnist and political analyst, speaks on the issue of security in the United States of America. She uses many significant techniques in her essay to persuade her readers of her argument. However, I feel that her essay fails to make a great argument because she relies heavily on assumptions, misses opportunities to appeal to pathos and ethos, and overall uses a degrading tone.
Cole, D., & Dempsey, J. X. (2006). Terrorism and the constitution: sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security. New York: New Press.
Levin, M. R. (2013). The liberty amendments: restoring the American republic. New York: Threshold Editions.
Host: On September the 11th 2001, the notorious terror organisation known as Al-Qaeda struck at the very heart of the United States. The death count was approximately 3,000; a nation was left in panic. To this day, counterterrorism experts and historians alike regard the event surrounding 9/11 as a turning point in US foreign relations. Outraged and fearful of radical terrorism from the middle-east, President Bush declared that in 2001 that it was a matter of freedoms; that “our very freedom has come under attack”. In his eyes, America was simply targeted because of its democratic and western values (CNN News, 2001). In the 14 years following this pivotal declaration, an aggressive, pre-emptive approach to terrorism replaced the traditional
Nearly all the amendments in the Bill of Rights have been reduced since the beginning of the war. The fourth through eighth amendments have been especially hit hard by this “war.” Search & seizure, due process, a speedy and public trial with a jury, and cruel & unusual punishment have all been disregarded as part of the current administration’s policy. The “War On Terror” has effectively eroded the civil liberties that Americans fought centuries for.
Edward Snowden is America’s most recent controversial figure. People can’t decide if he is their hero or traitor. Nevertheless, his leaks on the U.S. government surveillance program, PRISM, demand an explanation. Many American citizens have been enraged by the thought of the government tracing their telecommunication systems. According to factbrowser.com 54% of internet users would rather have more online privacy, even at the risk of security (Facts Tagged with Privacy). They say it is an infringement on their privacy rights of the constitution. However, some of them don’t mind; they believe it will help thwart the acts of terrorists. Both sides make a good point, but the inevitable future is one where the government is adapting as technology is changing. In order for us to continue living in the new digital decade, we must accept the government’s ability to surveil us.
The documentary Unconstitutional, directed by Nonny de la Pena, follows the evolution of the Patriot Act with interviews from senators who passed the bill, lawyers fighting the bill, and residents of the United States who have come under attack because of the bill. One of the positive points of the act that many like to point out was the bi-partisan support it had. However, former Representative Robert Barr, a republican from Georgia, and Representative Peter A. DeFazio, a democrat from Oregon, both claim that the act was very different from the one that was voted on. The night before the bill was to be voted on it was changed last minute and printed at 3:45 am that morning. The new bill included provisions that had already been denied on the floor. �No member of Congress read this legislation before us voting on it,� says DeFazio (Unconstitutional). Lawmakers passed a bill that they had not read and now the public is paying for it.
(O'BEIRNE, KATE. "Congress's Patriotic Act: This is a law that defends America and, yes, preserves civil liberties, dammit." National Review 15 Sept. 2003. War and Terrorism Collection. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.)
"The USA Patriot Act: What's so Patriotic About Trampling on the Bill of Rights?" 12
On September 11, 2001, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the United State’s Pentagon led to a chain of events that made Americans question their safety and security. Soon after, as an attempt to prevent future terrorist attacks Congress passed the U.S.A. Patriot Act, which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, the act was signed off by President George W. Bush. According to the Congressional Research Service, the act grants federal agents and law enforcement “greater powers to trace and intercept terrorists’ communications both for law enforcement and foreign
Since September 11, 2001 many people can say that America has changed. Many people question if America has changed for the better or has it just gotten worse. Since the day those four planes crashed around the United States people’s lives have been changed. Many may not realize how their lives have changed, but with new laws passed life is different within America. The United States Patriot Act is one of the laws passed after 9/11: singed into order on October 26, 2001 just 45 days after the attack. The United States Patriot Act was put in place in order to protect Americans, yet has been affecting American’s civil liberties and caused controversy all over the United States.
Now, many have had time to reflect back on the Patriot Act and feel differently (Ball 2004 p. 78-84). The Patriot Act Pros and Cons is a topic that is much like a double-edged sword. On one hand, many people feel they would like to be protected and feel that they will give up some rights to be safe. Others, on the other hand, feel that the Patriot Act goes against the U.S. Constitution and actually takes away some of the rights of American citizens.... ...
Citizens feeling protected in their own nation is a crucial factor for the development and advancement of that nation. The United States’ government has been able to provide this service for a small tax and for the most part it is money well spent. Due to events leading up to the terrifying attacks on September 11, 2001 and following these attacks, the Unites States’ government has begun enacting certain laws and regulations that ensure the safety of its citizens. From the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 to the most recent National Security Agency scandal, the government has attempted and for the most part succeeded in keeping domestic safety under control. Making sure that the balance between obtaining enough intelligence to protect the safety of the nation and the preservation of basic human rights is not extremely skewed, Congress has set forth requisites in FISA which aim to balance the conflicting goals of privacy and security; but the timeline preceding this act has been anything but honorable for the United States government.
These two articles, one, an address by Attorney General John Ashcroft to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and the other, an article written by David Cole that appeared on the Amnesty International web site, deal with the ethics and Constitutionality of the United Stated Patriot Act. David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, argues that the Patriot Act violates citizen’s civil rights and unfairly imprisons innocent individuals. Attorney General John Ashcroft counters that the Patriot Act is justified as a preventive measure to aid in the war on terrorism.