The Patriot Act

Federal Acts and Social Justice – The Patriot Homeland Security Act’s
On September 11, 2001, 2,996 innocent people lost their lives and left more than 6,000 others seriously wounded. This horrendous act of terrorism waged against the United States, on American soil, forever changed the country. After the initial disbelief and shock had subsided, the anger rose and turned into rage. American citizens were united and demanded action be taken to prevent such an event from ever occurring again. Hence, the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act enactment was to protect the country against terrorism, activities within the United States that involve acts dangerous to human life.
The USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism), became law on October 26, 2001, and was signed by President George W. Bush. The law was voted in by a large margin, the House of Representatives 357-66, and nearly voted in almost unanimously in the Senate 98-1.
The act focused on four ways to improve counter-terrorism efforts. First, the Patriot Act allows investigators to use the tools that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking. It permits law enforcement officials to use surveillance against more crimes of terror, permits federal agents to track sophisticated terrorists trained to evade detection, and it allows law enforcement to conduct investigations without alerting terrorists, enables federal agents to ask a court for an order to obtain business records in cases involving national security and terrorism. Secondly, the Patriot Act facilitated information sharing and cooperation among government agencies so that they can better "connect the dots.", By removing significant legal barriers that prevented the law enforcement, intelligence, and national defense communities from talking and coordinating their work to protect national security. Thirdly, the Patriot Act updated the law to reflect new technologies and new threats; law enforcement officials were not able
to obtain a search warrant anywhere a terrorist-related activity occurred. Fourthly, the Patriot Act increased the penalties for those who commit terrorist crimes, prohibits harboring of terrorists, enhances maximum penalties for offenses perpetrated by terrorists (destruction of energy facilities, destruction of national-defense materials, arson, material support to terrorists and their organizations). Additionally, it enhances conspiracy penalties for crimes involving arson, killings in federal installations, attacking communications systems, material support to terrorists, sabotage of nuclear power plants, interference with flight crew members, and attacks on mass transit systems.
On November 25, 2002, the Homeland Security Act was signed into law. It was initiated as a result of 9/11 attacks and following the discovery of anthrax-spore mailings. The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the DHS is a federal government which is responsible for public security; mainly anti-terrorism, but also, US border security, immigration and customs, cyber security, and disaster prevention and management.
The Bill of Rights, written as a result of numerous requests from individual states; they sought greater constitutional protections for individual liberties. The Bill of Rights enumerates perspicuous limitations of governmental entities; it further defines, interprets, and clarifies constitutional rights and protections guaranteed under the US Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution addresses, search and seizure statutes, “Amendment IV, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, 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.”
According to Leonard W. Levy, a Pulitzer Prize historian, “the Fourth Amendment emerged not only from the American Revolution; it was a constitutional embodiment of the extraordinary coupling of Magna Carta to the appealing fiction that a man's home is his castle.” (Levy, 1999). The Constitution and The Bill of Rights have been contested and challenged since their inception. The Supreme Court has the legal and final authority for rulings on these constitutional rights and challenges and is responsible for settling disputes that arise out of differing interpretations.
There has been controversy regarding the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act, most notably privacy issues and surveillance by government entities. Opponents state that the Act sacrifices “political freedoms in the name of national security and upsets the democratic values that define our nation by consolidating vast new powers in the executive branch of government” (Chang, 2001). Adversaries are critical of how these acts grant the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) the power and authority to detain immigrants suspected of terrorism for lengthy periods of time. Another criticism is that the acts expands the powers of the executive and separates the exercise of these powers from judicial and Congressional oversight.
One the first significant legal challenges to the Patriot Act was initiated by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in July 2003; they oppose provisions in Section 215 and 802. The Patriot Act authorizes the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for an order to search for "any tangible things" to be searched and seized. The language as written includes almost any kind of personal property. The FBI can legally monitor and take personal records from public libraries, bookstores, medical offices, internet providers, churches, political groups, universities, and other businesses and institutions It also prohibits third parties served with Section 215 orders to inform anyone that the FBI has conducted a search of their records.
Section 802 creates a federal crime of "domestic terrorism", this term extends to "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws" if they "appear to be intended...to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," and if they "occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." The ACLU’s contention is that Section 215 and Section 802 blatantly violates both First and Fourth Amendment rights. The lawsuit states that the Patriot Act contravenes the First Amendment; guarantees of freedom of freedom of speech and association, assembly, and the right to petition. (Constitutional Rights Foundation, n.d.).
The Patriot Act did not fundamentally change the Fourth Amendment; delayed-notice search warrants had already existed before the Patriot Act.
Judges have been issuing them for decades, usually, in situations where there are critical reasons not to provide immediate notice of an impending search. These warrants have been squarely upheld by courts nationwide in a variety of cases, drug trafficking investigations to cases involving child pornography. The Supreme Court held in United States v. Dalia, that surreptitious entry, with a judicial warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment, rejecting the argument that it was unconstitutional. Since the Dalia challenge, three federal courts of appeals have considered the constitutionality of delayed-notice search warrants, and all three have upheld them. In 1986, United States v. Freitas, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the constitutionality of a search warrant allowing covert entry to find out the status of a methamphetamine laboratory without revealing the existence of the investigation, the court ruled that the search was legally permissible. Advanced technology has permanently changed our world. The world of today is continually evolving; rapid communication, state of the art technology, and the ability to travel from continent to continent. However, technology has also made us more vulnerable to weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. When the Framers of the Constitution established a system that
limited the power of the government, did it foresee a time when the government would have a duty to protect its citizens against foreign and domestic terrorism? The Framers of the Constitution, however, valued individual freedom over individual safety, and they valued the rights of individuals over the unconstrained power of government. Therefore, Congress or any other government entity cannot trump constitutional principles.

References
America's Founding Documents. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/ founding-docs
Chang, N. (2001, November). The USA PATRIOT Act: What's So Patriotic About Trampling on The Bill of Rights? Retrieved from https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/USAPAanalyze. html
Levy, L. (1999). Origins of the Fourth Amendment. Political Science Quarterly, 114(1), 79-101.
Rackow, S. H. (2002). HOW THE USA PATRIOT ACT WILL PERMIT GOVERNMENTAL INFRINGEMENT UPON THE PRIVACY OF AMERICANS IN THE NAME OF 'INTELLIGENCE' INVESTIGATIONS. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1501651. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxylibrary.ashford.edu
The Patriot Act: What Is the Proper Balance Between National Security and Individual Rights? (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/the-patriot- act.html
United States Department of Justice (DOJ), & Act, T. R. (n.d.). The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/archive/