The US Patriot Act

Shortly after the terror attacks that stunned the nation on September 11, 2001, the USA Patriot Act passed unanimously. With this new act, which was enacted in response to terrorism, came measures and ideas of counterterrorism and gave law enforcement officials such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), extra power in the collection of evidence and interception of communication while investigating terrorist activity (Youngs, 2003).

The USA Patriot Act of 2001 was the first action taken by the government in reaction to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001. Some citizens believe that the USA Patriot Act is the answer to stopping or at least slowing down terrorist activity while others believe that it was a feel good act that was not well thought out, planned, and are angered by the fact that the USA Patriot Act could possibly infringe on the rights of American citizens. Like every issue that affects the nation's people, the debate on whether the USA Patriot Act helps or hurts American citizens continues.

The USA Patriot Act was enacted "to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes" (Electronic Privacy Information Center [EPIC], 2001, ¶1). The act enhances domestic security, surveillance and strengthens America because it gives law enforcement officials the tools they need to stop terrorism (EPIC, 2001).

Previous to the USA Patriot Act being enacted, law enforcement officials were limited in their abilities to protect American soil against terrorism because they were not permitted to investigate every lead or case that came through due to budgetary restraints. Now, with the USA Patriot Act in effect the law now allows law enforcement officials to investigate every single lead that comes through the office in efforts to not miss any information that may be a warning that terrorist activity is taking place (Department of Justice [DOJ], 2007).

Not only are they allowed to investigate thoroughly, they are allowed by law to investigate any terrorist related crimes "including chemical-weapons, the use of weapons of mass destruction, killing American's abroad, and terrorism financing" (DOJ, 2007). The USA Patriot Act allows agents to have endless resources when investigating terrorist activity.

In addition to having the advantage of endless resources, the USA Patriot Act enables information sharing and cooperation between government agencies to keep every governmental agency in efforts of keeping everyone informed so they can protect America's critical infrastructure. With information sharing and cooperation between agencies, they are now allowed to share information with each other about investigations enabling them to bring terrorist suspects to justice more swiftly (DOJ, 2007).

Another advantage to the USA Patriot Act is that it allows FBI agents to ask for permission from the courts to obtain business records of people suspected of terrorist activity or those who are believed to use their business as a front for terrorist groups (DOJ, 2007). Having this resource is valuable because it enables law enforcement officials to collect evidence of terrorist activities.

Being able to investigate an allegation fully through information sharing, cooperation between governmental entities, and obtaining information through financial records is a step in the right direction when addressing counterterrorism and the safety of the nation. However, in giving law enforcement officials extra authority and power, comes the question of whether or not this extra power violates the Constitution of the United States, along with adding other potential disadvantages of the USA Patriot Act.

People who oppose the USA Patriot Act want the act to be reformed in order to re-balance the scales of justice that are slightly tipped due to the act not being "in line" (ACLU, 2005) with the Constitutional Rights of American citizens. As discussed before, the USA Patriot Act gives law enforcement officials a great deal of power. It allows FBI to execute subpoenas and search records. However, an interesting fact of the matter is that they do not have to be investigating a crime in order to use this resource (ACLU, 2005).

The Fourth Amendment states that people have the right "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 (FindLaw, 2007)."

The USA Patriot Act clearly violates this right because of the power that had been bestowed on law enforcement officials by this act. Giving the FBI the power to obtain information without having to have it signed by a judge can lead to abuse in power and violations to our Constitutional rights (ACLU, 2005). Not only has the act clearly violated the Fourth Amendment, but affects other areas of America's daily lives.

Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act allows invasion of privacy. The act allows the federal government to make a physician or medical insurance company release medical records to them and are the barred from telling a person that the government asked for the record. In addition, it allows the government to access library records enabling the government to access information about books that have been checked out (ACLU, 2005).

Another disadvantage of the USA Patriot Act is stated in Section 505 which allows FBI to obtain financial records on anyone, without a court order. This includes the bank, hotels, travel agencies, hotels, pawn shops, or the Post office. The institution will then be barred from disclosing the information to the person in question (ACLU, n.d.).

The USA Patriot Act is needed to give law enforcement officials the tools and resources needed to stop terrorism. While the disadvantages are disturbing in that they do violate some constitutional rights; the endless resources that are provided by this act are preventative measures to ensure the safety of American people.

Those who are concerned with the act violating their constitutional rights have good reason to be concerned. However, when the FBI requests records from an institution, the institution is put under a gag order. The institution is not allowed to reveal that they were questioned about the suspect. In which case, what a person doesn't know won't hurt them and in addition, if a person is living a productive and lawful life, than giving up a little privacy in trade for preventing terrorist attacks should not be an issue.