A Look at the Patriot Act

Freedom, it is the philosophy on which our country is founded. In many ways freedom means being able to do and go as you wish; however in the United States we are born with certain rights, which are granted to us and protected by the United States Constitution, these rights include amendments to the constitution such as the freedom of speech, press, and religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of assembly, the freedom to petition, and the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and compelled self-incrimination. Over time, changes also known as amendments to the Constitution have been necessary and the U.S. Supreme Court has held the responsibility to decide on fair and balanced amendments.

After the brutal terrorist attacks of September 11,2001 there was a feeling of insecurity in many Americans, and the government was under pressure to provide tighter security along with the feeling of security that Americans have become accustomed. On October 11, 2001, exactly forty five days after September 11, 2001 congress approved the USA PATRIOT Act; this stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" (107th Congress, 2001). "Its goals are to strengthen domestic security and broaden the powers of law-enforcement agencies with regards to identifying and stopping terrorists" (Grabianowski, 2007).

Immediately the Patriot Act generated much controversy and confusion; due to the sense of urgency to secure the country against future terrorist attacks it was seen as rushed thru with little debate. Critics fear that the Patriot Act contradicts or reduces many civil rights/amendments enjoyed in the United States which are guaranteed by the Constitution, such as the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, since the government is now able "intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism/computer fraud and abuse offenses" (107th Congress, 2001). Some critics have even taken their opponent to court. "An unnamed plaintiff sued Attorney General John Ashcroft over a NSL (National Security Letter). A federal judge ruled that the recipient of an NSL has the right to contest it; the ruling automatically applied to all NSLs, deeming them an unconstitutional restriction on free speech" (U.S. District Court, 2004).

The debate of safety vs. freedom is a delicate and complex argument; I am going to attempt to explain and demonstrate the necessity of counter-terrorism legislation. The theory of the Patriot Act is that when America is challenged with the threat of terrorism, Americans must balance safety and freedom. Implementing a reasonable balance between safety and security is in my opinion one of the most difficult challenges Congress has had to face in my lifetime due to the complexity of terrorism. Many would agree that it would be reckless to do nothing and continue without some sort of counter-terrorism legislation. The successful terrorist attacks in New York as well as the Pentagon which resulted in the deaths of 2,998 people (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, 2004) along with multiple bombings of U.S. embassies; demonstrate the necessity of counter-terrorism legislation as well as a counter-terrorism law enforcement agency such as the FBI. Most great nations such as Canada, Germany, UK, China, and Australia among others, have adopted similar counter-terror legislation. Terrorism is a real threat that all Americans face, and we must consider the consequences of an additional terrorist attack, however we must also adhere to our moral obligation to preserve freedom for future generations.

As time has gone by and people have started to disregard the terrorist attacks we experienced as a nation, more and more Americans have became upset with the Patriot Act and felt as though the government was trying to take away their rights. Many Americans have blamed the war on terror along with the terrorist attacks on president bush but according to reports "al Qaeda's jihadists were killing Americans years before George W. Bush was President and before anyone invaded Iraq. Remember, too, that planning for 9/11 began when Bill Clinton was President" (Caldwell, 2006). It is exceedingly important for our government to exhaust all reasonably possible options to prevent future terrorist attacks; nevertheless it is also equally important for our government to respect and value the freedoms and rights for future generations. We are placed in a difficult position where we are obligated to provide law enforcement with the tools they need to be proactive against the threat of terrorism; but unfortunately these tools come with a price, in both treasure and certain civil liberties.

Among the most prevalent arguments supporting the ratification of the Patriot Act is the claim of 12 foiled terrorist attacks, by the U.S. Department of Justice. "At least 3 of which were of 9/11 proportions, against the U.S." (U.S.D.J., 2004) Attorney General John Comey testified before Congress stating that "Prior to 9/11, 17 persons in four different judicial districts were charged with offenses relating to material support to terrorists and terrorist organizations. Since then, however, 135 people in at least 25 different judicial districts have been charged with material support-related offenses. Of the 152 people charged both before and since 9/11, 70 have been convicted or pleaded guilty, and many more are still awaiting trial" (J Comey, public presentation, 2005 8, 06).

It can easily be seen that one of the most challenging aspects of balancing safety and freedom, comes when trying to determine the appropriate level of authority the government needs to actively combat terrorism while preserving civil rights; and many people will have varying opinions on methods to accomplish this goal. However I feel that in several ways the Patriot Act is a suitable beginning to an ongoing campaign against terrorism; with policies such as "(biannual)Congressional reviews of the government's use of records retrieved by the act, to discourage abuse of powers" (107th Congress, 2001). Another system we could use to accomplish this goal is to make sure that, if possible, the most burdensome laws are enacted only temporary and to some degree this is true, in the Patriot Act there is something called a sunset clause, which is essentially a law that must be renewed by Congress every four years so that we may free ourselves of it; if at some point it is no longer considered necessary (Congressional Research Service, 2005).

Even though it is unfortunate that we must pass laws that could affect law abiding citizens negatively, something must be done to safeguard our country and I feel the most promising aspect of the Patriot Act is the ability for it to change. Since it passed there has been numerous revisions to the act; I believe that this is the most important aspect of the legislation, the fact that it can be changed and contested as necessary to ensure the most effective act 107th Congress.

(2001). USAPATRIOT ACT (pg. 271). U.S. Government Printing Office.

Grabianowski, E (2007, July 06). How the Patriot Act Works. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from How Stuff Works Web site: http://people.howstuffworks.com/patriot-act.htm

107th Congress. (2001). USA PATRIOT ACT (sec. 215). U.S. Government Printing Office.

Marrero, V (2004). John Doe and ACLU vs. John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller, Marion Bowman. In V. Marrero U.S.D.J. (Ed.), United States District Court Decision (pp. 1118). New York, NY: United States District Court Southern District of New York.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2004). Report From the Field: The USA PATRIOT Act at Work (pg. 3).

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. (2004). 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 214).

Caldwell, R.J. British Terror Plot Shows Why U.S. Needs the Patriot Act.. (2006, 08 21). Human Events, p. Vol. 62 Issue 28, p16-16, 2/3p. (J Comey, public presentation, 2005 8, 06)

107th Congress. (2001). USA PATRIOT ACT (sec. 215). U.S. Government Printing Office.

Congressional Research Service. (2005). The Senate's Byrd Rule (pg. 10). Washington, DC: The Library of Congress