To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
The events of September 11 highlighted the susceptibility to violence from non-state actors within U.S. borders, a scenario that seemed unlikely after Pearl Harbor. These individuals were part of our communities, planning our demise, prompting the query of how to halt those who are unafraid of death. The key to stopping them is disrupting their schemes before they are carried out; this is the objective of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security. In the aftermath of September 11, America overhauled its anti-terrorism strategies to prevent future assaults by focusing on both foreign and domestic terrorists, whether identified or potential.
The USA Patriot Act, signed into law on October 26, 2001, aimed to prosecute terrorists by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.
It sought to eliminate outdated laws hindering government agencies' surveillance and intelligence-gathering efforts.
However, ongoing debates continue regarding the implications of the increased surveillance powers on civil liberties, both theoretically and in practice. (Toni Panetta)
Benjamin Franklin's well-known quote, "They who can sacrifice essential liberty for a bit of temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," emphasizes the effects of the Patriot Act on civil liberties.
Enacted in reaction to the war on terror, this legislation has sparked worries about matters like financial privacy during probes into money-laundering and bioterrorism dangers, fueling the ongoing national security versus personal freedoms discussion.
Verified writer
Proficient in: 21st Century
4.8 (309)
“ Writer-marian did a very good job with my paper, she got straight to the point, she made it clear and organized ”
(Toni Panetta)
Christipher P. Banks, a researcher from the Department of Political Science, is studying the constraints on enforcing antiterrorism laws. He is worried about the possible adverse consequences for government agencies and citizens because of inadequate oversight within these laws.
Banks emphasizes the increase in prosecutorial power after 9/11, along with decreased scrutiny from Congress and the courts.
He stresses the importance of congressional oversight to maintain checks and balances and prevent abuse of executive authority.
The FBI can request "any tangible things" under Section 215 of the Patriot Act for investigations related to international terrorism or clandestine intelligence operations, significantly expanding their surveillance capabilities over regular individuals, including US citizens and permanent residents. There is no need for probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, nor any requirement to suspect ties to a foreign power in order for the FBI to obtain records. (ACLU)
The FBI has the authority to investigate individuals in the United States, regardless of citizenship, for exercising their First Amendment rights. Those under surveillance are not informed of the privacy intrusion, which violates the First Amendment by limiting disclosure of Section 215 orders without a valid reason for confidentiality. This provision also infringes on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by neglecting to mandate notification to individuals whose privacy is compromised. The FBI can investigate American citizens for their First Amendment activities without adequate justification and non-U.S. persons solely for exercising their First Amendment rights (ACLU).
The PATRIOT Act was created to address five perceived weaknesses in preventing the 9/11 attacks by enhancing information sharing, utilizing flexible warrants, expanding wiretap authority, seizing terrorist funding, and enforcing detention and deportation for non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism (Banks, 2004).
Increased attention is being placed on the relaxation of law enforcement regulations, particularly in the wake of terrorist incidents. The disclosure that President Bush authorized the monitoring of specific US phone conversations without judicial approval has generated discussion. Supporters argue it targets potential terrorists, while critics see it as another infringement on civil rights under the Patriot Act. (SPEAK OUT)
Advocates of the Patriot Act argue that it is essential for ensuring the safety of the United States, with a primary focus on security. Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos rejects allegations of civil liberties infringements as a distraction from reality, noting no confirmed violations under the Patriot Act. Supporters also highlight the absence of significant terrorist attacks on American soil since its enactment and successful prevention of various plots. President Bush maintains that the Patriot Act is crucial for combating terrorism and averting future assaults on America.
Opponents of the Patriot Act, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and congressional leaders, believe that renewing the act puts United States' safety at risk while sacrificing freedom. Senator Russ Feingold, a prominent critic of the Patriot Act, warns that it endangers privacy and personal freedoms for all individuals, not just those accused of terrorism. In February 2005, Feingold emphasized Congress's responsibility to protect the privacy and confidence of law-abiding Americans in their government. (Speak Out)
The government can prosecute individuals suspected of crimes or planning crimes and conduct surveillance on those believed to be foreign powers or spies, even without suspicion of criminal activity. However, Section 215 undermines our privacy and freedom without necessarily enhancing security.
Coming to understand the significance of the Patriot Act was eye-opening for me. I believed I had knowledge of the law, but failed to comprehend its extent in granting authority to the government and eroding my freedoms. The notion of potential surveillance without awareness leaves me feeling powerless. I question if others once shared my previous belief that any means were acceptable in combatting terrorism. However, now I am beginning to question that perspective. My lack of understanding led me to unknowingly sacrifice certain rights. In my view, the Patriot Act is inherently flawed.
References: ACLU American Civil Liberties Union ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York NY 10004 Visit the website of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation to learn more about these two components of the ACLU.
Annenberg Classroom Resources, an organization dedicated to promoting excellent civics education, discusses the important issue of National Security vs. Civil Liberty. To learn more, visit The Leonore Anneberg Institute for Civics at http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/. Researcher Christopher P. Banks has explored the topic of Security and Freedom After September 11, specifically focusing on The Institutional Limits and Ethical Costs of Terrorism Prosecutions. For further details, you can read his articles at http://www.kent.edu/polisci/people/upload/security-and-freedom-after-911.pdf.
The article "Security & Freedom after September 11: The Institutional Limits & Ethical Costs of Terrorism Prosecutions" was published in Public Integrity: A Journal of the American Society for Public Administration (Volume 13, Issue 1, Winter) in 2010-11. It can be found on pages 5-24 and has a DOI of 10.2753/PIN1099-9922130101.
The USA PATRIOT Act, written by Toni Panetta, can be found at this link.
The Impact of the Patriot Act on Civil Liberties. (2016, Apr 14). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/the-patriot-act-and-the-homeland-security-act-of-the-21st-century-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
