There are many issue with the Patriot Act. Yes it has prevented many attacks on
us from terrorists, but would you really want to give up so much freedom in order to have
better control of terrorists. Many people would support the act since it does offer more
protection against those attacks. Other however, would totally disagree with the act. The
Patriot Act is actually violating many of our Constitution rights. The act will allow the
government rights to look into your personal life. If the government has enough proof
this act will give the opportunity to look into your personal items such as phone taps,
electronic communications, and even what is in your bank account. As a person would
you really like to have the government go thourgh your personal life and belongings, just
for a little more protection.
The government has set up a boundary that allows them the chance to go into
your personal lives. The main reasons that are noted that would give them a chance to
violate your rights as an American. As noted on web page
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/, that only a certain event will allow a
certain individual the chance to allow such things as wiretap. This will occur if an
individual is committing one of a list of immune rated crimes, if that happens the
communication concerning that offense, and the facilities in which the offender has used
in connection with the offense. The only persons that came allow an interception would
be only designated officials. The interception is only valid for a certain length of time.
In order for a wiretap to be conducted it has to be authorized by a Judge that feels that it
would be beneficial to the country.
The USA Patriot Act, also known as the Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,
was set up in order to offer a greater feeling of security to Americans, however, I don’t
feel that the Americans really know what the Patriot Act
really stands for and what it will do to our rights as Americans. The bill was passed and
signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2001. The Patriot Act was a lot like
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.
The power of executive privilege has been extremely controversial since basically the beginning of the United States as a democratic government. Many saw this power come into a greater public focus particularly during the Nixon presidency and the infamous Watergate Scandal, but the theory and use of executive privilege existed long before Nixon. As in true American fashion, some argue in favor of executive privilege, while others view it in a more negative light. The intense controversy is what makes executive privilege so intriguing to review in a deeper and more in depth analysis. The theory of executive privilege has derived its power throughout evolution of time, a series of presidencies, and quite a few pinpointed circumstances resulting in some very notorious court cases.
" 2. The court said that it was difficult decide with the argument of executive privilege because there was no real claim to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets. 3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
The 9/11 attack changed America in ways that made limits on our freedom and privacy seem better than the alternative. On September 11, 2001, “...our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist attacks,” President George W. Bush stated in a public address shortly after the attacks. He also stated, “Today, our nation saw evil – the very worst of human nature – and we responded with the very best of America,” to calm fears ...
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)
“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.
be made. They make sure there is enough legal cause to pursue a criminal charge. If the
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).
“Before Sept. 11, the idea that Americans would voluntarily agree to live their lives under the gaze of a network of biometric surveillance cameras, peering at them in government buildings, shopping malls, subways and stadiums, would have seemed unthinkable, a dystopian fantasy of a society that had surrendered privacy and anonymity”(Jeffrey Rosen). Where were you on September 11, 2001? Do you remember the world before this tragic incident? Throughout history, the United States has adopted forms of legislation with the intention of improving national security. From prohibition, to gun laws, the outcomes of these legislations have not always been good.
Attorney, it’s important to ensure the protection of the victims and to punish the delinquents for
middle of paper ... ... The Patriot Act does not infringe upon the rights of citizens; it ensures that those who wish to harm this country have limited means to do so. The Patriot Act was passed as a means to allow better protection of citizens, given the current state of technology today.
Domestic Surveillance 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.
In this mindset, privacy is a very miniscule price to pay for the “greater good”. The average American citizen should have no fear of anything happening to them with this relinquishing of privacy. They are protected from both the government and any perceived threat, because an average American has no tendency to criminality and because the government may now be able to locate any threats before they become a problem, respectively. If a person has nothing to hide, they should not have any problem with letting the government take possession of mass amounts, if not all, of their personal information.