Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Americans fear that another attack is imminent. To ease these fears, lawmakers created the USA Patriot Act which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. This lengthy bill allows the justice department a great deal of power in criminal cases especially in those dealing with terrorism. While, according to lawmakers, the Patriot Act is aimed at ending terrorism, it is arguable that the Patriot Act is aimed at beginning a Big Brother-type society. For the government of the United States to enforce a law that encourages the obstruction of the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments and other civil liberties is highly hypocritical and quite un-American. 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. A children�s educational mag... ... middle of paper ... ...http://galileo.usg.edu>. Losely, Lauren E. �Universities Express Concern About the USA Patriot Act.� Academe Sep/Oct 2004: 4. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOHost. GALILEO. Odum Lib., Valdosta State University, GA. 10 April 2005 . �Patriot Act Overview.� Congressional Digest Nov. 2004:258-88. �Patriot Games.� Current Events 17 October 2003. Ridge, Tom. �Using the PATRIOT Act to Fight Terrorism.� Congressional Digest Nov. 2004: 266-68. Sekhon,Vijay. �The Civil Rights of �Others�: Antiterrorism, The Patriot Act, and Arab and South Asian American Rights in Post-9/11 American Society.� Texas Forum on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights 8.1 (2003): 117-148. Unconstitutional. Dir. Nonny de la Pena. Public Interest Pictures, 2004. Zeljak, Cathy. �The USA Patriot Act and Civil Liberties (Part II).� Problems of Post-Communism 51.3 (2004): 69-71.
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.
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.
U.S. Department of Justice. The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty. n.d. web. 11 November 2013.
Cole, D., & Dempsey, J. X. (2006). Terrorism and the constitution: sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security. New York: New Press.
In times of great terror and panic, the citizens of a nation must decide what they value most: their right to privacy or the lives of the innocent. Government surveillance is criticized, however there are times in a nation’s history where, in order to ensure the safety of their citizens, they must surveill the country for potential hazards that might exist in the world. The government-issued program, COINTELPRO--a series of illegal projects during the twentieth century organized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation--while heavily criticized for its unconstitutional grounds--was justified because it benefitted the nation during a period of upheaval. COINTELPRO is popularly condemned by historians and professors such as Brandeis University Professor of Sociology, David Cunningham, who asserts that the FBI counterintelligence program was only a form of repression that allowed for the government to suppress matters that they consider bothersome (234). This however was not the case.
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
Tyranny riddles many forms of government, such as oligarchy, absolute monarchy, dictatorship, autocracy, and totalitarianism. In May of 1787, delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia gathered to create a stronger central government -- while avoiding the tyranny that so many other forms of government had allowed for. James Madison, of one those very same delegates, defined tyranny as “The accumulation of all powers...in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many...” in Federalist Paper #47. The key to the protection against tyranny in the American Constitution was the way in which power was divided. The Constitution guarded against tyranny by making provisions for federalism, the separation of powers, checks and balances of power, and fairly equal congressional power.
Since the terrorist suicide bombed the world trade center and a wing of the pentagon, there has been a change in the relationship between the United States government and the people. The executive branch has taken steps that undermine the principles in the United States constitution. In order to ensure a more democratic society, we have to tell the difference between effective governing and individual freedom. There is one main topic I'm going to talk about how the 1st amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment, and 6th amendment are being eroded by the USA PARTRIOT Act which introduced a overabundance of legislative changes which considerably increased the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies in the United States.
“We have to make a balance between security and civil liberties.”(Sensenbrenner 2). The patriot act was passed with very little congressional debate. The public was unaware of its passing. Our security is over protective because rights are being broken. Our rights should matter more to the government because the security is overprotective. Is the patriot act too harsh and invading our privacy?
Since the terrorist attacks at Sept. 11, 2001, the surveillance issue often has turned away the table in the debate of individual privacy or counterterrorism. By passing the Patriot Act, Congress gave President Bush an immense law enforcement authority to boost U.S's counterterrorism, and the President used his enlarged powers to forward specific programs in order to reduce the threat of terrorism and defend the country’s safety.
"The USA Patriot Act: What's so Patriotic About Trampling on the Bill of Rights?" 12
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.
Schultz, David, and John R. Vile. The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America. 710-712. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale Virtual Reference Library, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .
Taylor, James Stacey. "In Praise of Big Brother: Why We Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Government Surveillance." Public Affairs Quarterly July 2005: 227-246.
Gonchar, Michael. “What Is More Important: Our Privacy or National Security?” New York Times. New York Times, 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 22 Feb. 2014.