In a post-September 11th America, it is not uncommon for the mentioning of the word “terrorist” to spark any number of emotions in its citizens. In response to activities such as the attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon, as well as the 2001 anthrax scares, Congress proposed the USA PATRIOT Act. Supporters of the Act cite the importance and immeasurable need for greater protection in terms of national security, which is the government’s responsibility first and foremost to protect its citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. However, for every proponent there is an equally passionate opponent who partially believe not only does the Act impede on civil liberties and individual rights but was an opportunistic ploy to grant excess power to the government in the wake of September 11th empathy.
USA PATRIOT is what is referred to as a “backronym”, or a title from which is construed from a pre-existing word. The phrase itself stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, 2014). While the goals and provisions outlined in the original and supplemental Act documents aim to accomplish what the title implies, there are still an increasing number of opponents to its contents. The Act of Congress, of which was originally signed in to law by former President George W. Bush in 2001, has been at the focus of political, media, and private scrutiny since its conception. While its proponents argue the need for government immersion to combat the probability of future and/or current terrorist activity and nation security concerns, adversaries question the scale of impedance on individual civil liberties. Specific subjects of contro...
... middle of paper ...
...ue over specifics for years to come, the important thing is that a happy medium between a secure and protected nation and the freedoms and rights of its citizens remain the foremost concern.
Works Cited
• Edward Snowden. (2013). Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://www.wikipedia.com
• Justice, D. o. (n.d.). The USA PATRIOT ACT: Perserving Life & Liberty. Retrieved from Department of Justice: http://www.justice.gov
• McNeill, J. B. (2011, February 10). The PATRIOT Act and the Constitution. Retrieved from The Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org
• Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act. (2010, December). Retrieved from ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union: http://www.aclu.org
• USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, H.R. 3162 (One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States 2001).
• USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. (2014, March). Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://www.wikipedia.com
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.
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.
American Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.). American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved March 9, 2014, from https://www.aclu.org/fusion-centers-force-multiplier-spying-local-communities
Our nation seems as if it is in a constant battle between freedom and safety. Freedom and security are two integral parts that keep our nation running smoothly, yet they are often seen conflicting with one another. “Tragedies such as Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings may invoke feelings of patriotism and a call for unity, but the nation also becomes divided, and vulnerable populations become targets,” (Wootton 1). “After each attack a different group or population would become targets. “The attack on Pearl Harbor notoriously lead to Japanese Americans being imprisoned in internment camps, the attacks on 9/11 sparked hate crimes against those who appeared to be Muslim or Middle Eastern,” (Wootton 1). Often times people wind up taking sides, whether it be for personal freedoms or for national security, and as a nation trying to recover from these disasters we should be leaning on each other for support. Due to these past events the government has launched a series of antiterrorist measures – from ethnic profiling to going through your personal e-mail (Begley 1). Although there are times when personal freedoms are sacrificed for the safety of others, under certain circumstances the government could be doing more harm than good.
Rose, Carol. "American Civil Liberties Union." American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., 08 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks US Congress passed legislation known as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 commonly known as the USA Patriot Act. This paper will attempt to prove that not only is the USA Patriot Act unconstitutional but many of its provisions do nothing at all to protect Americans from the dangers of terrorism.
Richards, Neil M. "The Dangers Of Surveillance." Harvard Law Review 126.7 (2013): 1934-1965. Academic Search Elite. Web. 8 Feb. 2014.
Is the patriot act necessary if it protects but threatens our civil liberates? The patriot act threatens civil liberates. The U.S. is spying without the people’s consent. The patriot act will prevent terrorist attacks on the United States. The patriot act can be used to catch wanted criminals. The patriot act protects the people from danger but jeopardizes their civil rights.
Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up one value in order to gain another. This concept of individual right goes beyond the simple idea of “individual comfort.” Personal liberties cannot be surrendered and are not to be compromised since these liberties are intangible. Individuals should not have their personal liberties exchanged for national security because individuals are guaranteed protection to these rights.
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.
Adam Penenberg’s “The Surveillance Society” reminds Americans of the tragic events of September 11, 2001 and the instant effects the that attacks on the World Trade Center had on security in the United States. Penenberg discusses how the airports were shut down and federal officials began to plot a military response. Although those were necessary actions, they were not as long lasting as some of the other safety precautions that were taken. The Patriot Act, which makes it easier for the government to access cell phones and pagers and monitor email and web browsing, was proposed. Politicians agreed that during a war civil liberties are treated differently.
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.
The Web. 4 Dec. 2013. Calamur, Krishnadev. A.P.S. & B.A.S. 5 Things To Know About The NSA's Surveillance Activities. NPR.com - "The New York Times" NPR, n.d. -
ACLU. "What's Wrong With Public Video Surveillance?" American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., 25 Feb. 2002. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.