USA+PATRIOT+Act

USA PATRIOT Act "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001." The Patriot Act has been since its enactment a controversy. Arguments made against it consist of its action and protection of the basic civil rights. Most cases are presented because of the view that it violates these basic rights and is therefore unconstitutional. However, because of the recent events of 9-11, which spurred its birth, often rule out these cases. The claim is that in order to find the people who wish to burn and harm our country, their basic rights are taken anyway.

**History** On October 26, 2001, barely a month following the 9-11 Twin Tower bombings, President George W. Bush got Congress to accept and pass the Patriot Act. The main point of the Patriot Act was that it let law enforcement agencies look into people's e-mails, telephone calls, etc without the need of a subpeona or other kind of court order. It also eased restrictions on gathering foreign intelligence, allowed the Secretary of the Treasury to watch over finances, especially if it pertained to foreigners, and let immigrants be detained if they were thought to be terrorists. It was designed to allow federal branches to go in and apprehend potential terrorists to protect our nation's citizens. It was supported by both houses of Congress. The Patriot Act has recieved a lot of criticism from its opponents, most notably the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Their main argument is that sections and key parts of the act are unconstitutional and violate civil liberties such as the right to due process, as in a recent case with a 16 year old boy (SOURCE 21). The ACLU doesn't completely condone the act, noting that its methods are in ways both efficient and neccesary. Emerging from such arguments and cases, a bill was made to revise parts of it (after a huge controversy with the Senate and the House on how to change it). The bill was passed on March 2, 2006. The Patriot Act was set to exire at the end of 2009 but was extended on February 28, 2010 by President Obama.

**Perspective/Research/Arguments** Most of the arguments against the act come with the assertion that the act violates the constitution. It violates the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, democratic structure (“government of the people, by the people and for the people," according to Abraham Lincoln.) (They're saying that because we are violating the amendments then we are therefore violating democracy), and individual liberties (democracy should protect these) says Katarina Uhalova (Source 29). She poses very good points and questions. In an example about the Fouth Amen., the PATRIOT Act allows the FBI to search any and everything about a person without court order as long as they are a suspected terrorist. But who really cares about our favorite books and movies (Para. 7)? However, just because the act doesn't require a court order doesn't mean protocool isn't followed. Take the wiretap for example. The Patriot Act allows groups like the FBI to take action without court order, but just like in a regular case if nothing is found, the wiretap should be immedietly pulled. The ACLU, who asserts the most active arguements against the act, provides on their website both the pros and cons of the act, not fully taking one side or the other (source 28). They pose questions as to whether or not parts of the act are unconstitutional, or if the claims against the act have some truth. It does not change the fact that parts of the act are an issue. There are many people that have an opinion about the Patriot Act. Not everyone agrees on the act, and most of the public is against it often due to being misinformed since the cases involving the act restrict the people involved from talking about it. However, there are many important politicians who have expressed their views on the matter. John McCain has supported it, and wanted to reauthorize it. He also wants to make some amendments that clarified the rights of an individual. That proposal seems to be in conflict with Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner making a Reauthorization Act to get rid of provisions. Along with those who support it, Pres. Obama, who once called the act "shoddy," backed extending the act (three portions that were to expire at the end of the year) without revisions. In a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Justice Dep. said they "might consider modifications" to protect civil liberties (Source 26) which again is in conflict with McCain. Thomas D. Anderson is for the act (Source 24). He makes the argument that the Act merely alots law enforcement to use the same court approved methods they've been using without the slow obstacle of court approval. He also makes note of 310 defendants who have been found and tried for terrorism because of the PATROIT Act. In contradiction to those who are for it, ACLU Head Anthony Romero is against it. "This is a landmark victory against the Ashcroft Justice Department's misguided attempt to intrude into the lives of innocent Americans in the name of national security," he says. US District Judge Victor Marrero is also against the act. "...secrecy's protective shield may serve not as much to secure a safe country as simply to save face." In agreement, Senator Russell Feingold is against the act (Source 25). He said Americans are "afraid to read books, terrified into silence" because of the acts. Also, Residents in Brewster are against the Patriot act, fully condemning the act, saying it definitely defies rights stated in the First Amendment (or so says James Geisler, the treasurer of the Brewster Taxpayers Association). (SOURCE 27) Dick Morris, a political author, says that the Patriot Act is necessary. He says that the events on September 11 created a wall, and "the main purpose of the Patriot Act is to dismantle that wall." Therefore, he says, it is constitutional, because it is protecting the citizens. All of this is in source 31. Also in this source Rich Lowry, the editor of the magazine National Review, says ""What the Patriot Act fixed were the effects of three decades of liberal hostility to federal law enforcement and intelligence gathering" and that it is stupid to be against the act after many Americans have died.

In 1798 the Alien and Sedition Actswere made to protect the people from foreigners from enemy countries and to protect the government. We were on the verge of a war with France, similar to 9-11-01 when we were considering war with Iraq, and the acts were to search and find political connections and influences of France in our country (there was a idea that there were spies). It limited the freedom of speech by making it so no one could speak out against the government and its policies. For this reason, both founding fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were thrown in jail. In Schenck vs US, a case in 1919, Charles Schenck was denied the right of free speech against the draft in World War I. Upheld the Espionage Act, which stated that nobody can interfere with the military or support enemies and anti-military actions. The case said that this act did not violate the free-speech rights. Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus in the midst of the Civil War. Habeas Corpus protects an individual from the judicial system (imprisonment without sufficient evidence). Lincoln was forgiven, given the split state of the nation, but it is not ignored that he violated civil liberties and therefore went against the Constitution. In 1942 Franklin Roosevelt sent Japanese Americans to internment camps. They wanted to remove them because they feared of terrorist attacks because of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 to relocate the Issei and Nisei. The declaration was made merely because of Japanese Americans' roots in Japan, since the people believed that Japan might have spies in our country. It held them unlawfully against their will in these terribly kept camps, living in harsh conditions of scarce food, little clean water. The Patriot Act is currently holding people in military prisons. The people are not of American background or citizens, but the rights that have long been decided of any race or peoples' is being infringed upon.
 * Ties to History**

In 100 yrs, the debate will most likely still be there. That the creation of the act had good solid intentions, but has reported abuse by the powers that controlled it or that it violated the constitution, such as the debate now. However, like history has done with Lincoln suspending the Habeus Corpus, Bush and Obaman will be 'forgiven' considering the national crisis that had been the reason for its making. History has a nack of either completely degrading an administration or act, or finding the good and being forgiving. The Bush and start of the Obama administrations have recieved a lot of backlash from their critics and once-been followers. But history would realize that conflicts with Iran forced us to take measures that seem extreme, but as the Constitution says, governments' main role is to protect its citizens.
 * Prediction**