The United States Patriot Act

The United States Patriot Act remains an indispensable legislation in the war against terrorism. The Patriot Act, signed October 27, 2001, reflects upon the actions of terrorists and allows the United States government to react to these actions. Before the Patriot Act, the United States Government would have to wait for extensive, conclusive evidence before merely detaining a terrorist. In this time which the authorities would linger in the legal process, the suspected terrorist could go wherever he pleased, including out of the country to a place where he would remain a rogue menace to society. The Patriot Act, put in effect to cease the conspiring acts of terrorists and those who harbor terrorists remains useful in the just capture and punishment of all parties involved in these terrorist acts. Without the United States Patriot Act, only negligible legal consequences existed for assisting terrorists. Today, the United States government has complete ability to punish those involved in terror crimes such as those who provide weapons and other supplies to terrorists. The Patriot Act provides the United States of America with safety from terrorists and assists in tracking other criminal activities such as drug trafficking and organized crime. Moreover, the evil of terrorism stems from differences in human culture, or diversity, which also makes the world so great.

As John Ashcroft describes, "Terrorism is a clear and present danger to Americans today. (Ashcroft 3) Terrorism exists in acts committed by unrecognized militant forces against civilians who remain non-combatants. Terrorists do not describe themselves as terrorists, but usually as freedom fighters, militants, or activists. Embodying freedom fighters and the like, terrorists believe they provide assistance to the world in accordance to its needs. Terrorists view the Patriot Act as an item which robs them of their freedoms and necessities, while hypocritically; the terrorists themselves fight against freedoms which the United States represents. Critics of the Patriot Act complain it does not provide humans the freedoms which this great nation's foundation sets upon. While this thought process contains some truth, there remains a paradox created by freedom and equality for all. If one person sacrifices the freedoms of others for their own causes, the government maintains the responsibility to act and remove freedoms from those minorities of people who would otherwise remove freedoms from the vast majority of people.

Terrorists have become easier to catch because of the promptness of justice involved in their capture. "There is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. (Ball 47) This statement exemplifies how a country with greater security will allow its citizens greater freedoms, as opposed to a country with lesser security. Laurence Tribe states, "That said, some proposals, being overdue and entirely constitutional responses to technological change, must be enacted promptly. (Tribe 16) A few decades ago, there remained only certain means of transferring information which society possesses today. Along with advancements in technology, there becomes an increased risk of terror attacks because of the relative ease of organization. Tribe believes legislation must minimize this increased risk immediately. Terrorists believe all the evils of the modern world exist because of the United States; consequently, the United States government can in no way reason logically about the terrorists wants.

Terrorists consider the United States of America the source of all evils and believe freedom for all remains a preposterous ideal. "In the 1980's, Islamic religious terrorists, having declared a holy war, or Jihad, against the Great Satan, America, began to target U.S. facilities and personnel abroad. (Ball 9) Howard Ball describes the implications leading terrorists, specifically Islamic terrorists, to develop their attacks against the United States. Because of this Jihad, or holy war declared against the United States of America, terrorist supporting nations continually convince their citizens into hating the United States and its policies. The United States Patriot Act does not support this harboring of terror organizations on United States soil, or Foreign Soil. The laws regarding terrorism needed to further develop because of their vague nature. "In recognition of this, the framers [of the constitution] left most of the constitutional provisions that confer rights pretty vague. (Posner 25) The ideas of the people who formed our country's law's leaving certain laws regarding individual's rights vague leads one to believe these framers meant for the constitution to receive alterations specifically in these areas.

Additionally, the implications of the Patriot Act have minimal adverse affects to those prosecuted. Douglas Kmiec explains, "The Patriot Act does not punish those who innocently may support a front organization. (Kmiec 46) Kmiec refers to organizations, usually those involved in importation, which may assist terrorists by either funding them or importing illegal weapons. The Patriot Act has received accusations stating the Act detained innocent workers of these front organizations who may have had no idea as to if their employer made dealings with terrorists. Minimal instances of this did occur and government officials noticed them and corrected them immediately. The recent updates to the Patriot Act of March 9, 2006, include legislation to prevent any more such instances. The rulings of the Patriot Act remain fair because they do not infringe more than necessary upon the rights of those prosecuted. "All enemy combatants" not just American citizens "detained by the U.S. government have a right to contest their detention in a court of law." (Etzioni 35) Amitai Etzioni explains how the suspected terrorists always have a chance to prove themselves innocent, which very few of the detainees do, making their guilt seem obvious. Accordingly, the Patriot Act exists as a benefit to modern society.

The United States Patriot Act benefits today's modern society by way of minimizing terrorist movement and action. The terrorist attacks of September eleventh, 2001, spurred the reacting Patriot Act. However, this act did not come into existence because of a simple reaction to a single attack. The United States Patriot Act remains a well-planned, effective compilation of accumulated resources regarding terrorist attacks. Meanwhile, the implications proposed by Patriot Act remain fair because the hazard precluded outweighs the possible mistake in conviction in all scenarios. The ends justify the means. A week spent by a few in prisons corresponding to world virtually without consequences from terrorism remains an incredible compromise when analyzing the benefits to mankind.

Works Cited

Ashcroft, John D. Ed. Amitai Etzioni and Jason H. Marsh. "Clear and Present Danger Rights vs. Public Safety after 9/11. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003

Ball, Howard. The USA Patriot Act. California: ABC CLIO, 2004

Etzioni, Amitai. How Patriotic is the Patriot Act? New York: Routledge, 2004

Kmiec, Douglas W. Ed. Amitai Etzioni and Jason H. Marsh. "Confusing Freedom with License Rights vs. Public Safety After 9/11. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003

Posner, Richard A. Ed. Amitai Etzioni and Jason H. Marsh. "The Truth about Our Liberties Rights vs. Public Safety after 9/11. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003

Tribe, Laurence H. Ed. Amitai Etzioni and Jason H. Marsh. "We Can Strike A Balance on Civil Liberties Rights vs. Public Safety After 9/11. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003