To a vast majority of Americans, there exists the belief that the Patriot Act violates their right to privacy, and does little to ensure national security. However, this was not the intention of the Bush Administration, who passed this law. One week after September 11, 2001, the Patriot Act, a law that was meant to strengthen national security, was signed by the Bush Administration to ensure that no terrorist attack would ever harm the lives of more Americans. The Patriot Act gave federal law enforcement agencies what they needed to mount an effective and coordinated plan to stop United States Terrorism. The officials were given the right to carry out surveillance over the internet, phone conversations, and public records. Therefore, this Act has helped the U.S. during times of national crisis and strengthened the government as a whole. However, it has also accounted for strong criticism from many people on the basis that it inhibits national security. While this may be true, the Patriot Act also makes the national government stronger by ensuring the well-being of its citizens. Therefore, intelligence officials should continue to carry out this act and do whatever is necessary in order to figure out the intentions of people who wish to harm this country, because if they don't then another terrorist attack will likely occur.
One way in which the Patriot Act is beneficial to the national government is that it allows federal officials to follow terrorists who are trained to "cover their tracks", and who know what is necessary to not get caught. This is done in a way that ensures that the national government can figure out their intentions so that they do not harm this country. The most common methods of doing this are wire-tappin...
... middle of paper ...
...ns. In turn, the Unites States would have a peaceful relationship with middle eastern nations, and also more allies for the future.
To a vast majority of American citizens, the Patriot Act does little to nothing to ensure national security and merely violates the right to privacy of citizens. In addition to this, people believe that the Patriot Act also violates the fourth amendment, of the United States Constitution, because it allows federal officials to inspect other people without a warrant or probable cause: "In Mayfield v. U.S., a federal district judge ruled that the two provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution because they allow surveillance without probable cause. This decision shows that six year after the Patriot Act passed, privacy concerns still exist regarding its use and scope"(Games 1).
The Patriot Act violates many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment, for example, gives American citizens freedom of speech, press, and religion. The Patriot Act allows the government to monitor the religious and political papers and institutions of citizens that are not even reasonable suspects for criminal activity. Church,
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.
Free speech and the First Amendment rights do not give people lisence to desecrate a symbol of pride and freedom. It is not all right to protect those who let it burn, lighting up the sky with their hatred. It definitely is not acceptable to insult the men and women who fight every day to protect this nation by burning the symbol of their labors. Therefore, it is crucial that the Supreme Court pass the amendment to the Constitution to protect the flag of the US.
After the horrendous terrorist attack on the New York Trade Center a new Bill was passed by congress shortly after September 11, 2004. This bill is known as The Domestic Security Enhancement Act also called Patriot Act 2. This bill was designed as a follow-up to the USA Patriot Act to work in increasing government surveillance, detention and other law enforcement powers while reducing basic checks and balances on such powers. By the beginning of the year 2003 a draft of the legislation was available. Amongst the most severe problems the bill diminishes personal privacy by removing checks on government power, diminishes public accountability by increasing government secrecy, and diminishes corporate accountability under the pretext of fighting terrorism. Also the bill undermines fundamental constitutional rights of Americans under overboard definitions of “terrorism” and “terrorist organization” or under a terrorism pretext. Furthermore, unfairly targets immigrants under the pretext of fighting terrorism. (http://www.aclu.org/Safeand Free/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206)
According to the Fourth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Without the Fourth Amendment, people would have no rights over their own personal privacy. Police officers could just enter people’s houses and take anything that they could use as evidence and use it against them. With the advancement in today’s technology, it is getting more and more difficult to define what exactly privacy is to us, and whether or not the Fourth Amendment protects it.
While this act made legislative changes that increased surveillance and the investigative powers of law enforcement agencies to protect America from further terrorist acts, the passing of the USA Patriot Act has reduced the privacy rights of Americans and also does not provide for a system of checks and balances that safeguard civil liberties. Terrorism is a serious matter that should not be handled lightly, but the act has gone over the top in trying to stop terrorism. The USA Patriot Act, enacted for protecting America from further attacks, not only does little if anything to protect Americans, but rather undermines their civil rights. The Patriot Act targets not only terrorists, but also the American people which it intended to protect.
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?
“The Fourth Amendment wasn't written for people with nothing to hide any more than the First Amendment was written for people with nothing to say.” (Dave Krueger). The Fourth Amendment protects the people's values, including the right of privacy. The Fourth Amendment includes, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure, shall not be violated.” When the founding fathers created the Constitution they ensured the people fundamental laws that would be used to any issue portrayed in the Supreme Court. That gave the people a relief that no one is ever above the law that is created. The privacy of the people was a very big value enforced by warrants. In the case of the
The Patriot Act has been under scrutiny and opposition since its creation following 9/11. When 9/11 struck it was clear that Americas intelligence was lacking in some specific way, but it was translated that America needed greater allowance for gathering information. The Patriot Act was signed on October 26, 2001, very close to 9/11. It can be concluded that the Patriot Act was signed with such extreme ability’s applied, because of how close it was signed after 9/11. The Act Greatly expands the liberty’s if law enforcement in their efforts to gather information, which in turn imposes on the privacy of the American people. The FBI has the ability to study any citizen suspected of terrorism, and has access to all their information. Wire Taps and other invasive action are allowed and granted by the Patriot Act. Was the Patriot Act signed to quickly? Are its measures to extreme? When is the line drawn on how much power the government can have? Is the Patriot Act effective enough that it is necessary? Should we as Americans willing to trade freedom for safety? Can the Patriot Act effectively stop or hinder terrorist attacks; has its stopped enough attacks to be validated? Another question is does America want a government that has that much power, how much are we as Americans willing to sacrifice, and how much more liberty’s is the government going take. If the government can pass the patriot act, what other legislation can they pass? In reality it all comes down to the American people, we are democracy but do we have the power in are hands? When finding all these questions one asks do we need an act that is in fact this controversial? Is the Patriot Act a necessary evil? To find this answer we have to answer all the questio...
The U.S. Patriot Act was set in place to better serve our country against terrorism. The U.S. Patriot Act is an Acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Acts (Lithwick). This act is to punish terrorist actions and improve law enforcement not only in the United States but also around the world. The United States Patriot Act consists of over 1,000 sections that describe the act in great detail. The sections include, but are not limited to, the power extended to the government by The U.S. Patriot Act to deport and incarcerate non citizens. With the U.S. Patriot Act a person’s phone line can be tapped, records of any and all purchases checked, and even library records searched. This Act also has sections to help money laundering, expand our country’s border protection, strengthening the extent of criminal laws and provide for people suffering from any type of terrorism acts (Huffman).
September 11th 2001 was not only the day when the delicate facade of American security was shattered, but it was also the events of this day that led to the violation of the rights of millions of American citizens. After relentless reprehension by the American masses on the approach that was taken after the 9/11 attacks ,the Bush administration enacted the Patriot Act on October 26th, 2001, a mere 56 days after this tragic event.The Patriot Act expanded the authority of U.S. law enforcement agencies so that they could hopefully avert future terrorist attacks. Under the Patriot Act The NSA (National Security Agency) could entrench upon the privacy of the citizens of the U.S. without public knowledge, consent or, probable cause. The particular incident which had the general public up at arms was when the NSA illicit surveillance came to public knowledge.
The aftermath of the attacks on September 11 demonstrated that this was necessary. The Constitution is not designed to render the nation defenseless against people who have no value for human life, and who will use whatever means necessary to harm others to advance their goals. In conclusion, the Patriot Act gives the government the tools in which are necessary to keep America and its citizens safe.
The intent of the Fourth Amendment was to create a constitutional buffer between the people and the intimidating power of the government. There are three components of the Fourth Amendment. First, it establishes the privacy aspect by recognizing that U.S. Citizens have a right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” This privacy interest is protected by prohibiting any searches and seizures that are “unreasonable” or have not been authorized by a warrant that is based upon probable cause. And, “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” must be described with particularity before it is issued to a law enforcement officer.
The pro-Israel intervention represented the US foreign policy reaction when the violation to regional stability was committed by Israel. The cases discussed above were evaluated against the US reaction to Israel’s regional behaviour; in terms of whether the Israeli behaviour served or hampered US interest in maintaining regional stability and whether or not the US opposed Israel when it acted in ways that the United States deemed undesirable. It was concluded that, as a general rule, Washington was ready to intervene to address any violation to the status quo in the Middle East system except when this violation was committed by its regional surrogate. Israel had contributed directly in destabilizing the Middle East system (pushing the system out of its equilibrium point) in several cases, four of which have been discussed above. These crises, in spite of their negative effect on regional stability, witnessed minimal US reaction.