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
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.
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.
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 ...
Cole, D., & Dempsey, J. X. (2006). Terrorism and the constitution: sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security. New York: New Press.
Senator Feingold responded that “we will lose that war [on Terrorism] without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people.” It is now 2017, but Senator Feingold’s arguments from September and October of 2001 continue to pointedly remind the American people of the negative effects the Patriot Act had on American life and will continue to have moving forward. The heart of Feingold’s stance against the Patriot Act was the counter-productivity of it. The, “government of the people, for the people and by the people,” (Lincoln Online) would essentially trade liberties for security. Liberties the Founding Fathers deemed too innate to individuals to list. What purpose will “security” serve if there are no liberties left to defend? If the
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.)
Spaulding’s background and qualifications to comment on the USA Patriot Act are beyond reproach and not questioned by either party. Her criticism focuses most directly upon the sharing of information and the removal of the wall between what was formally accepted as a given withy that sharing- that there was a need to distance and prohibit the wall between law enforcement and intelligence entities, whether that be the CIA, the DIA, or the NSA. She elaborates, but the issue, while detailed and correct, boils down to the need for a separation between the information ostensible gathered in the ‘war on terror’ in all its guises, and the normal everyday law enforcement information
"The USA Patriot Act: What's so Patriotic About Trampling on the Bill of Rights?" 12
The Patriot Act was signed into law by President George Bush on the 26th October 2001. The act is an Act of congress whose title is a ten letter acronym which stands for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” (USA PATRIOT Act 2001). The Act was enacted 45 days following the September 11 attacks. The September 11 attacks on the world trade center in New York catalyzed the enactment of a legislation that would provide law enforcement with greater powers to investigate and prevent terrorist activities. The spirit of the act is founded on the notion of providing all that is required by law enforcement, within the limits of the constitution, to effectively combat the war on terror.
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.
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
September 11, 2001, the day terrorism exploded. Across the country a terrorist group called al-Qaeda coordinated four separate attacks against the U.S. in just one day. The attacks left nearly 3,000 dead and double that amount injured. The American government had to respond in some way. Thus, The USA Patriot Act was born. However, in accordance to the U.S. Constitution, the act doesn’t quite fit the bill. The Patriot Act enables unconstitutional and unethical encroachment upon American citizens. Within this essay I will explain the Patriot Act and apply certain amendments to it in an effort to evaluate its level of constitutionality.
It’s 9/11 and all you hear is cries from the people, while the Twin Towers crumbled down, the Pentagon engulfing in flames, and flight 93 crashing in a field. 19 men hijacked four commercial airlines. This terrorist attack on the United States was led by al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. A total of 2,977 people were killed in New York City, Washington, DC and outside of Shanksville, Pennsylvania, it was the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. This day in history damaged not only the nation, but the people. Citizens were in fear of what could happen on top of all the commotion. The Patriot Act was made to secure the nation, and help people recover from the terrorism attack of 9/11. Some people may think the Patriot Act had no effect on major things. However some people think wrong in the matter. George W. Bush’s enforcement on the Patriot Act of 2011 majorly effected local enforcements, federal agencies, and military regulations.
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.