Patriot Act
The Patriot Act and Civil Liberties
The Patriot Act and Civil Liberties With today’s society of advanced technology, it has become imperative for the United States to develop new laws to keep up with emerging threats and to combat illegal activities within the country as well as abroad. Without the ability to monitor communications and information, the War on Terrorism becomes an unsymmetrical battle that is detrimental to the American way of life. Devoid of such significant laws, federal authorities would be at a disadvantage to terrorists as well as criminals. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act) has helped turn the tables in the War on Terrorism and is essential to the defense of the United States.
In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, it was apparent that the nation’s counterterrorism measures were not effective. These attacks established the need to better protect the country from within its own borders and casted a spotlight on government surveillance powers. Attorney General John Ashcroft advocated the need for new "tools" to hunt for potential terrorists after the attacks (Olson 2001). Within a few weeks, the United States Senate reacted by passing the USA PATRIOT Act with an almost unanimous vote; 98 members supporting the bill and only one voting against the bill. Senator Russ Feingold, the solitary vote against the USA PATRIOT Act, explained the reasons for his vote to the United States Senate:
The longstanding practice under the Fourth Amendment of serving a warrant prior to executing a search could be easily avoided in virtually every case, because the government would simply have to show that it has 'reasonable cause to believe ' that providing notice 'may ' 'seriously jeopardize an investigation. ' This is a significant infringement on personal liberty. (2001)
Even if the
The Patriot Act and Civil Liberties With today’s society of advanced technology, it has become imperative for the United States to develop new laws to keep up with emerging threats and to combat illegal activities within the country as well as abroad. Without the ability to monitor communications and information, the War on Terrorism becomes an unsymmetrical battle that is detrimental to the American way of life. Devoid of such significant laws, federal authorities would be at a disadvantage to terrorists as well as criminals. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act) has helped turn the tables in the War on Terrorism and is essential to the defense of the United States.
In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, it was apparent that the nation’s counterterrorism measures were not effective. These attacks established the need to better protect the country from within its own borders and casted a spotlight on government surveillance powers. Attorney General John Ashcroft advocated the need for new "tools" to hunt for potential terrorists after the attacks (Olson 2001). Within a few weeks, the United States Senate reacted by passing the USA PATRIOT Act with an almost unanimous vote; 98 members supporting the bill and only one voting against the bill. Senator Russ Feingold, the solitary vote against the USA PATRIOT Act, explained the reasons for his vote to the United States Senate:
The longstanding practice under the Fourth Amendment of serving a warrant prior to executing a search could be easily avoided in virtually every case, because the government would simply have to show that it has 'reasonable cause to believe ' that providing notice 'may ' 'seriously jeopardize an investigation. ' This is a significant infringement on personal liberty. (2001)
Even if the
References: Clare, M. S. (2003). The effect of the USA patriot act on workplace privacy. Practical Lawyer, 49(1), 35-45. Retrieved on November 30, 2012 from http://search.proquest.com/docview/274316503?accountid=32521. Feingold, R. (2001, October 25) Statement of Senator Russ Feingold on the Anti-Terrorism Bill on the Senate Floor. Retrieved on 29 November 2012 from http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/primary-sources/statement-senator-russ-feingold-anti-terrorism-bill-senate-floor?library_node=80244. Gallup. (2011, August 14) Civil Liberties [Graphs]. Retrieved on November 22, 2012 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/5263/civil-liberties.aspx George, H. P. (2005). PATRIOT summer: Extending the USA PATRIOT act. Information Today, 22(8), 1-1,62. Retrieved on November 29, 2012 from http://search.proquest.com/docview/214813665?accountid=32521. McKay, J. (2005). Patriot Act 's tools no different than those used to fight crime. Retrieved from http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2002331932_johnmckay13.html. Olsen, S. (2001, October 26). Patriot act draws privacy concerns. Retrieved on December 2, 2012 from http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-275026.html. Federal Bureau of Investigations. (2012). The Intel Driven FBI. Retrieved on December 2, 2012 from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/intelligence/intel-driven/intelligence-overview. U.S. Constitution. Amend. IV. United States Department of Justice. Congressional Records – Senate. The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty. October 25, 2001. Retrieved on November 17, 2012 from the Department of Justice website: http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm.