PATRIOT Act: Civil Liberties Vs. National Security

On September 11, 2001, the people of the United States witnessed the most extreme terrorist incident ever committed on U.S. soil. It was perpetrated by Muslim extremists using commercial airliners as projectiles of destruction. After the terrorist's airborne assault was over, nearly three thousand people were dead. Following the attacks there was much speculation as to why these attacks were not prevented from happening. In the months following the attacks, President Bush would assign Attorney General Ashcroft the task of producing legislation to assist the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement community to prevent such of an atrocity from occurring again. On October 26, 2001, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 was signed into law. This law is otherwise known and referred to as the 'USA PATRIOT Act of 2001'. This Act has been a consistent talking point for conservatives and liberals and it has "pitted national security against civil liberties" (White, 2006). In this paper I will address the provisions within the USA PATRIOT Act that benefit government agencies when tracking terror suspects, while impeding on minimal civil liberties.

After the attacks of 9/11, the American public was looking to our leadership for guidance. President Bush had garnered a high approval rating, along with the public's confidence in his ability to respond to the attacks. The Bush Administration would use this popularity to market their goal of passing new anti-terror legislation. Attorney General John Ashcroft would state in a press briefing on September 27, 2001, "We have asked Congress to enact, contains careful, considered provisions that will give law enforcement the additional tools it needs to identify, track down and neutralize international terrorist groups." (Ashcroft, 2001). Using this popular, bi-partisan support, the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 on October 26, 2001 was nearly unanimous. This would lead to sweeping reforms and provisions of current law enforcement and intelligence standard operating procedures.

One of the dominant allegations after the attacks of 9/11 was that our intelligence and law enforcement personnel were not communicating, therefore, missing key indicators preceding the attacks (Keen, 2004). Because of the fear of privacy invasion, the different federal agency databases were held on individual agency specific computer systems and were not accessible to anyone, but the owner. Having such a compartmentalized system did not give law enforcement nor intelligence the ability to assist each other in putting together potentially complex terror plots, and often the more sophisticated the terror plot, the more potential for mass killing (White, 2006). Communication is key in all parts of life, and especially important when dealing with such dire consequences. The USA PATRIOT Act, in Title VII, granted the expansion of information sharing systems in order to better facilitate communication between all agencies involved in counterterrorism. This called for the implementation of the Regional Information Sharing System (RISS) as a central database for all law enforcement to use (USA PATRIOT Act, 2001). As seen in the above example, the purpose of the USA PATRIOT Act was to fill the holes and take the necessary measures to aid in law enforcements role in the fight against terror. I will briefly illustrate the provisions of the first five titles of the USA PATRIOT Act and explain and address the opposing viewpoints of this legislation.

Title I mainly deals with the funding of counterterrorist operations and expanding and funding other essential federal departments. Most importantly, it reiterates that there should be no discrimination against people of Arab or Muslim descent, in reaction to 9/11. An example of this happened in Mesa, Arizona four days after the attacks. Balbir Sodhi, a Sikh-American, was murdered outside his convenience store. He was shot four times by aircraft mechanic, Frank Roque, who would after his arrest state, "I am a patriot" (Harshbarger, 2008). There is no opposition to the statements on hate crimes in Title I, and there should be none. Our society is built on equality and hate crimes should and will never be condoned regardless of the circumstances.

Probably the most talked about and argued portions of the USA PATRIOT Act are located within Title II of the Act. Title II attempts to improve all aspects of surveillance and also changed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), making "foreign intelligence" a significant purpose, not the primary purpose of FISA-based surveillance (USA PATRIOT Act, 2001). This would open doors to domestic monitoring for the purpose of criminal investigation, while not being limited to just intelligence gathering. Another provision removed from FISA was the requirement that the individual subject to surveillance has to be a non-citizen and work for a foreign power (USA PATRIOT Act, 2001). This would lead to much criticism about the possibility of domestic spying and impeding on the American citizen's First Amendment rights. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is the leading critic on the content of the USA PATRIOT Act. The ACLU has been very vocal on a specific section of Title II, section 215, which covers access to "Business records for foreign intelligence and international terrorist investigations" (USA PATRIOT Act, 2001). The ACLU's argument is that the PATRIOT Act dropped the wording that required law enforcement to have probable cause to obtain records in question; therefore the ability to access information is easier and more accessible (ACLU, 2003). Now, law enforcement need only to prove that the records in question are part of an ongoing terrorism investigation or in collection of foreign intelligence. With the current state of international affairs along with an ongoing battle against terrorism, the need to investigate and collect actionable intelligence is time sensitive, therefore, we do need to add provisions in order to adapt to a changing enemy.

Another highly criticized part of the PATRIOT Act is the "sneak and peek" provision (Sievert, 2007). This gives the government or its agents the ability to search without giving immediate or pre-notification of the search warrant. A judge must approve this request, after given testimony that proves that the notice of the warrant would cause an "adverse result" (USA PATRIOT Act, 2001). It is very logical why they would incorporate this provision; it inhibits the ability for the subject of the investigation to destroy evidence, notify cohorts, and in turn, compromise the investigation.

The focus of Title III is the banking sector and the prevention and detection of money laundering. It puts more stringent reporting requirements on banking institutions and encourages internal anti-money laundering programs. With these increased reporting requirements, the amount of dialogue between the banks and U.S. Government is escalated. With that, the Act also implemented stronger penalties for inconsistent reporting and not complying when asked to freeze assets and close accounts. Also, anyone caught concealing more that $10,000 upon entrance or exit of the United States is subject to a penalty of 5 years in prison and forfeiture of the property in question (USA PATRIOT Act, 2001). With these changes in place this will help impede the flow of currency to terrorist organizations, and also freeze the current assets of these dangerous groups.

Border Security is the primary goal of the changes in Title IV. It also deals with detention of aliens that are suspected to be involved with terror. The first couple sections of the Title regard manning levels and overtime compensation for the INS, Customs, and Border Patrol. Sections 401 and 402 emphasize the need for increased personnel and monitoring of the northern border of the U.S. (USA PATRIOT Act, 2001). Also, this title has new regulations enacted to upgrade criminal database access for the personnel manning the borders for the purpose of more thorough multi-agency background checks of individuals attempting entry into the country. Another widely talked about part of the PATRIOT ACT is located in this title, Section 412, "The mandatory detention of suspected terrorists" (USA PATRIOT Act, 2001). This gives border security the ability to detain suspected terrorists for a maximum of 6 months if they are a national security threat, otherwise the suspect can only be detained for 90 days. All detentions have to be certified by the Attorney General or his deputy, and then reviewed after the six-month period is completed. Once again, the ACLU raised the flag, saying that the Attorney General can detain immigrants indefinitely and decide their fate (ACLU, 2003). Yes, this is true. But, the Attorney General must review all cases semi-annually, and any detained alien must either be charged with an offense, or deported within seven days or they must be released (USA PATRIOT Act, 2001). It must still be popular in political circles to only see what the eye wants to see, the ACLU obviously did not read the checks and balances that were present.

The last title to be covered from the PATRIOT ACT is Title V, which concerns the approach and the guidelines in terror investigations. In the first section of the Title V, it issues the authority to give rewards to individuals that assist or help prevent terrorism (USA PATRIOT Act, 2001). This is a great idea that can be a manpower multiplier when searching for known terrorists, or when attempting to prevent terrorist acts from being committed. The expansion of Secret Service responsibility and the ability to seize educational records for the purpose of terror investigations are also included. National Security Letters (NSL) are used to subpoena records or data from suspects that are under investigation for terrorist activity or foreign intelligence concerns. Previously, only the deputy assistant director of the FBI could certify such requests The PATRIOT Act decreased this requirement to the Special Agent in Charge of a FBI Bureau office. This was met with accusations of abuse and violations of privacy. In 2007, the Inspector Generals Office released a report stating that there were errors in the issuance of some NSL's, but it was not because of abuse. These errors were because of typographical errors and the submitting party's good faith beliefs (Department of Justice, 2007). In this particular part of the Act, I do have some objections. There should be more oversight and judicial review of the process of issuing a NSL. This would be the subject of multiple judicial proceedings regarding certifying and use of NSL's, and Congress in a later authorization would change the guidelines for issuance.

In this paper, I explained some of the provisions of the first 5 titles of the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001. This legislation was introduced in a rapid fashion following the attack of 9/11. Because of this, it had some points of vagueness and left it open for misinterpretation. Organizations like the ACLU fed on this and released multiple reports demeaning the substance of the Act. In doing this, it introduced fear to the public that their civil liberties were being greatly compromised. In reality, the majority of the legislation is directed towards people suspected of terrorism. It gives law enforcement the tools to protect our country, to track and arrest those involved in terrorism. In my opinion, our law enforcement agency's record speaks for itself. It has been over seven years since the attacks on 9/11, and we have not had another terrorist attack of that magnitude on our soil. I am confident that the USA PATRIOT Act played an integral role in achieving that task.

Works Cited

White, Jonathan R. (2006). Terrorism and Homeland Security: Sixth Edition. California:

Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Ashcroft, J. (2001, September 27) Prepared remarks before press in a joint briefing with

FBI Director Mueller. Retrieved September 22, 2008, from

http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/ag/speeches/2001/agcrisisremarks9_27.htm

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to

Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act), H. R. 3162, 107^th

Congress. (2001).

Harsbarger, R. (2008). Sikhs and Arab still suffer since 9/11. Queens Tribune Online.

Retrieved September 24, 2008, from

http://www.queenstribune.com/news/1221767365.html.

American Civil Liberties Union. (2003). Seeking Truth From Justice, The Justice

Department's Campaign to Mislead The Public About the USA PATRIOT Act.

Retrieved September 23, 2008 from

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/16825pub20030709.html

Sievert, R. (2007, Spring 2007). PATRIOT 2005-2007: TRUTH, CONTROVERSY,

AND CONSEQUENCES. Texas Review of Law & Politics, 11(2), 319-351.

Retrieved September 22, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database.

US Departmentt of Justice, Office of the Inspector General. (2007) A review of the

Federal Bureau of Investigations use of National Security Letters. Retrieved

September 22, 2008, from

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2007/FBI-NSL-DOJ-Review9mar07.htm