One of the main grievances of the Patriot Act is that “its powers are too broad or open to misuse” (“The Patriot Act”), which has allowed it to “become a common tactic in cases that have nothing to do with national security” (“Surprise! Controversial Patriot”). Julian Sanchez, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, claims that “the Patriot Act is not really a ‘tool’; it 's a toolbox; and the debate currently unfolding… is not over whether to take the box away; it 's about whether and how particular tools can be” implemented (“The Patriot Act”). One main provision, or tool, called into question is Section 213, which allows for ‘sneak and peek’ search warrants, which “let authorities search a home or business without immediately notifying the …show more content…
One group at the forefront of the fight against the legislation is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). It is a non-profit organization headquartered in New York City since 1920, with over 500,000 members and nearly 200 attorneys. The mission of the ACLU is to be the “nation’s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone” (“About ACLU”). Two of the main rights the organization is involved in protecting are the First Amendment freedoms (speech, petition, assembly, press, and religion) and the right to privacy. In 2004, the ACLU “filed a lawsuit on behalf of an unidentified Internet service provider challenging the FBI’s use of a type of administrative subpoena known as a national security letter” (Eggen). These National Security Letters (NSLs) give government intelligence agencies the power to force companies to disclose customer records, whether it be banks, Internet service providers, or cellular companies. In this case of Doe v. Gonzales, Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York ruled that the NSL provision of the Patriot Act is unconstitutional because it “effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge and violates free-speech rights by imposing permanent silence on targeted companies” (Eggen). ACLU lawyer, Ann Beeson, claims that this judgment “is a wholesale refutation of the administration’s use of excessive secrecy and unbridled power under the Patriot Act” (Eggen). In addition to this landmark court case, the ACLU has played a leading role in the fight against NSA bulk surveillance. After a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) order was disclosed in 2013 asking a Verizon subsidiary to provide details of every call placed during a period of three months,
The final version of the Brady Act requires mandatory background checks on individuals before a firearm purchase can be made from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer, or importer, unless there is an exception. Section 992 (g) of the Brady Bill prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:
After the Revolution, the country was left in an economic crisis and struggling for a cohesive path moving forward. The remaining financial obligations left some Founding Fathers searching for ways to create a stronger more centralized government to address concerns on a national level. The thought was that with a more centralized, concentrated governing body, the more efficient tensions and fiscal responsibilities could be addressed. With a central government manning these responsibilities, instead of the individual colonies, they would obtain consistent governing policies. However, as with many things in life, it was a difficult path with a lot of conflicting ideas and opponents. Much of the population was divided choosing either the
How would you feel if everything you did on the internet, every text you sent, and every call you made was seen by someone? That is what the NSA is doing right now. According to Wikipedia, the National Security Agency is a national-level intelligence agency of the United States of Defense, under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.[1] They have been a controversial topic since the 1970s when it was revealed that they had been wiretapping Americans’ telephones. Their surveillance has only grown since then, even though most Americans disagree with it. [2] The NSA’s domestic surveillance is unconstitutional, ineffective, and a violation of privacy that needs to be stopped.
The Fourth (IV) Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses paper, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (U.S Constitution, Fourth Amendment, Legal Information Institute). The fourth amendment is a delicate subject and there is a fine line between the fourth amendment and 'unreasonable search and seizure. '
U.S. Department of Justice. The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty. n.d. web. 11 November 2013.
The aftereffects of the September 11, 2001 attacks led to Congress passing sweeping legislation to improve the United States’ counterterrorism efforts. An example of a policy passed was Domestic Surveillance, which is the act of the government spying on citizens. This is an important issue because many people believe that Domestic Surveillance is unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, while others believe that the government should do whatever is possible in order to keep the citizens safe. One act of Domestic Surveillance, the tracking of our phone calls, is constitutional because it helps fight terrorism, warns us against potential threats, and gives US citizens a feeling of security.
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.
The feeling that someone is always watching, develops the inevitable, uncomfortable feeling that is displeasing to the mind. For years, the National Security Agency (NSA) has been monitoring people for what they call, “the greater good of the people” (Cole, February 2014). A program designed to protect the nation while it protects the walls within as it singles people out, sometimes by accident. Whether you are a normal citizen or a possible terrorist, the NSA can monitor you in a variation of ways. The privacy of technology has sparked debates across the world as to if the NSA is violating personal rights to privacy by collecting personal data such as, phone calls and text messages without reason or authorization (Wicker, 2011). Technology plays a key role in society’s day to day life. In life, humans expect privacy, even with their technology. In recent news, Edward Snowden leaked huge pieces from the NSA to the public, igniting these new controversies. Now, reforms are being pressed against the government’s throat as citizens fight for their rights. However, American citizens are slammed with the counterargument of the innocent forte the NSA tries to pass off in claims of good doing, such as how the NSA prevents terrorism. In fear of privacy violations, limitations should be put on the NSA to better protect the privacy of our honest citizens.
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 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).
...e administration plans to introduce legislation that would alter the N.S.A’s privacy breaches and end its illegal data collections. Citing an identical argument, that the government cannot indicate terrorist attacks that have been stopped by the intelligence gathering programs, a review group of the Administration “called for major changes to the program; the latter also concluded that the bulk collection is illegal.”3
The Patriot act positives out weigh the negatives. The positives are law enforcement being able to use surveillance that investigators used to investigate organized crime and drug traffickers. The Federal Bureau of Investigations can now use wiretaps to investigate possible terrorist when before they were only allowed to use them to investigate organized crime and drug traffickers. The Patriot Act allowed enforcement or investigating agencies to collect information when looking into terrorism-related crimes, including: chemical-weapons offenses, the use of weapons of mass destruction, killing Americans abroad, and terrorism financing. The Act allowed the FBI to seek court authorization to use the same actions in national security investigations to track terrorists such as roving wiretaps. Federal courts in constricted circumstances have allowed law enforcement agencies to delay for a limited time when the person’s judicially approved search warrant is...
Signed into law by the President on October 26, the Patriot Act is designed to fight terrorism on several fronts. First, it gives the U.S. government authority to hold foreigners suspected of terrorist activity for up to seven days before charging them with a crime. The legislation also gives investigators the legal right to tap any phone a suspected terrorist might use. The Act also gives complete access to financial records, medical records, and even library records.
The attacks on American soil that solemn day of September 11, 2001, ignited a quarrel that the grade of singular privacy, need not be given away in the hunt of grander security. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its liberties yet, they are merely eroding the very existence with the start of a socialistic paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), warned more than two centuries ago: “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Implementing security measures comes at a cost both economically and socially. Government bureaucrats can and will utilize information for personal political objectives. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what the ‘law is”, causing a lack of circulated rule. The actual leaders with political purposes jeopardize our individual privacy rights, liberties, and freedoms.
There has always been surveillance of the general public conducted by the United States government, the usual justifications being upholding the security of the nation , weeding out those who intend to bring harm to the nation, and more. But the methods for acquiring such information on citizens of the united states were not very sophisticated many years ago so the impact of government surveillance was not as great. As a result of many technological advancements today the methods for acquiring personal information - phone metadata, internet history and more - have become much simpler and sophisticated. Many times, the information acquired from different individuals is done so without their consent or knowledge. The current surveillance of people