The Usa Patriot Act 11 example essay topic

The USA PATRIOT Act The United States of America is a country that is based upon a principle of balancing the rights of an individual, while still preserving public order. The U.S. Constitution (specifically the Bill of Rights) guarantees every American certain Individual rights. Some of these rights include; freedom from unreasonable search and seizures, a right to due process of law, and protection against cruel and unusual punishment (The 4th, 5th and 8th Amendments). Historically the criminal justice system has preserved these rights of peopled accused of crimes. However on September 11, 2001, the United States became the victim of the largest terrorist attack the World has ever seen. According to Schmalleger in 2003, that attack cost almost three thousand people their lives, and an estimated two trillion dollars in damages.

However since September 11 2001, several critics have claimed that the United States of America no longer protects these rights. They argue that the United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001, violates the rights of suspected terrorists, and those of every single American. Supporters of the USA PATRIOT Act argue that the bill has been vital in arresting suspected terrorists, and it has helped deter future terrorist attacks. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism ACT of 2001, was signed into law on The USA PATRIOT ACT 3 October 26, 2001, shortly after the September 11th attacks. The act was passed in a direct response to the attacks, as a way for Law Enforcement to combat and deter terrorism.

Schmalleger (2003) on page 8 summarizes the USA PATRIOT ACT. "A federal law (Public Law 107-56) enacted in response to terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon occurring on September 11, 2001. The Law, officially titled the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, substantially broadens the investigative authority of Law enforcements agencies throughout America and is applicable to many crimes other than terrorism". Schmalleger (2003) in pages 300-301 further listed specific sections of the act that law enforcement can use to investigate terrorist activities. "Title II-Enhanced Surveillance Procedures Sec. 203.

Authority to share Criminal Investigative Information. (b) Authority to share electronic, wire, and oral interception information. (6) Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or attorney for the Government, who by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived there from, may disclose such contents to any other Federal Law Enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to the extent that such contents include foreign intelligence information, to assist the official who is to receive that information in the performance of his duties". This allows for a better sharing of information among the different division of federal, state and local law enforcement nationwide. In a large scale criminal investigation, proper communication and information sharing is vital. This act The USA PATRIOT ACT 4 has allowed information to be disseminated to law enforcement agencies throughout the country, so they can effectively work together towards the goal of arresting terrorists, and preventing another terrorist attack.

Another section of the USA PATRIOT ACT that Schmalleger (2003) quotes is Sec. 213. Authority for Delaying notice of the Execution of a Warrant. "With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be given may be delayed if (1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result. (2) The warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication, or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and (3) the warrant provides the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution". This section of the USA PATRIOT Act is a very important tool for investigations suspected terrorist activities.

When a law enforcement officer investigating terrorist activity obtains the probable cause necessary for a search warrant, and is granted a search warrant by the courts, the officer can execute the search with out having to give notification of the warrant. This act also says that the officer does not have to immediately leave a return of warrant, if the structure being searched is vacant. This would allow the officer to perform surveillance on the area that was already searched, for a reasonable amount of time, for evidence of further terrorist activity. This also allows The USA PATRIOT ACT 5 for evidence of terrorist activity to be collected, without letting the suspected terrorists know that they are being investigated. However the USA PATRIOT act does say that notification of the search warrant must be made within a reasonable time, as determined by the court. Section 219 of the USA PATRIOT Act also grants a Federal Magistrate judge in any district the authority to grant a search warrant for suspected terrorist activities for the district the serve, or any other district.

Schmalleger (2003) on page 301 also quotes section 216 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which authorizes the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices, in investigating criminal activity". (1) Attorney for the government. Upon an application made under section 3122 (a) (1), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device anywhere within the United States, if the court that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation". This section of the USA PATRIOT Act allows law enforcement to install devices called pen registers, which can recorded that number that a phone dials, but not the content of the call. The device can also monitor a computer's internet use. This act allows law enforcement the ability to use these devices anywhere in the country, to investigate criminal activity.

Law enforcement however must have probable cause for the federal court to authorize the use of these devices however. In the 21st century phone lines, and the internet are being used worldwide for communication, this gives law enforcement a very valuable tool to monitor communication between potential terrorists' cells. This ability to find out who the suspected terrorists are communicating with, and The USA PATRIOT ACT 6 where could be invaluable in deterring another attack. The information gathered from the pen registers could indicate if a potential terrorist has purchased an air line ticket, or enrolled in aviation courses, or is searching for blue prints or lay outs of potential targets.

The USA PATRIOT Act is also a controversial, and often criticized anti-terrorist legislation. The main criticisms of the USA PATRIOT Act are, the Invasion of privacy of citizen's, especially a portion of the act that requires book stores and libraries to monitor the reading habits of suspected terrorist, and the allegations of abuse of people detained as suspected terrorists. Taylor (2003) explained some of the major criticisms of the USA PATRIOT ACT. "The Patriot Act's most criticized provision, for so-called roving wiretaps, merely allows investigators to "track a terrorist, instead of having to get multiple warrants for every phone the guy uses", Mr. Coral lo explained. Still, critics say, the reason so many communities are denouncing the Patriot Act is because they believe the measure - passed in the wake of the September 11 attacks - vastly expands the power of federal investigators, not only for investigating terrorism suspects, but also for probing into the lives of ordinary Americans. Timothy H. Edgar, the legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that a far more frightening provision of the Patriot Act is one that 'allows investigators to sneak into your house with a warrant and conduct a search and not notify you until much later, if at all".

Taylor (2003) further goes on to explain, "Most of the resolutions being signed against the act, condemn its provisions that compel libraries and bookstores to assist federal investigators in monitoring the rea ding habits of suspects". Taylor (2003) also states a report from the American Civil Liberties Union (ALC U) that the PATRIOT ACT allows government access to highly personal The USA PATRIOT ACT 7 documents. "Further, according to a report issued this month by the ACLU, the act gives the FBI "access to highly personal 'business records' including financial, medical, mental health, library and student records, with no meaningful judicial oversight". Taylor (2003) also noted that 165 cities around the nation have enacted resolutions condemning the PATRIOT ACT. "About 165 communities nationwide have passed resolutions condemning the USA PATRIOT Act". The USA PATRIOT Act is also being criticized for violating the rights of immigrants, and accusations of abuse of people detained as suspected terrorists.

According to an article from the Associated Press ("Patriot Act Complaints Reviewed" 2003), "The Justice department found that 34 claims were credible of more that 1,000 civil rights and civil liberties complaints stemming from anti-terrorism efforts, including allegations of intimidation and false arrest". The Associated Press (2003) article gave several specific examples of the civil liberties complaints made by people detained as a result of the PATRIOT ACT. A Muslim inmate claimed that an officer instructed him to remove his shirt, so the officer could shine shoes with it. Another prison inmate claimed that a prison doctor told him "If I was in charge I would execute every one of you... because of the crimes you did". This Associated Press (2003) article reported that this claim was substantiated by the Justice Department. There are other allegations of prison guards being rude to detainees, and investigators planting evidence in the homes of suspected terrorists.

"The FBI was accused of illegally searching an Arab-American's apartment, vandalizing it and seizing property, later to return 'to plant drugs in the complainant's home,' the report says". (Associated Press 2003). The USA PATRIOT ACT 8 The Associated Press (2003) article also quoted Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, "There was a pattern of violating immigrants' rights by the Justice Department after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks". The criticisms of the USA PATRIOT Act, by the public and by the ACLU, must not undermine the incredible importance of this legislation. The sole purpose of the USA PATRIOT Act is to effectively investigate terrorism, and arrest the terrorists, and to prevent future terrorist attacks.

Despite the criticism the USA PATRIOT Act has been effective so far in combating terrorism, and has been extremely useful in the apprehension of several suspected terrorists. Ward (2003) writing for the Washington Times quoted U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, about the success of the USA PATRIOT Act. "The war on terror has weakened al Qaeda but has not destroyed the terrorist network, which carried out the September 11 attacks. Al Qaeda has been dealt a disabling blow, but it's not disabled or destroyed".

In an article by the Associated Press (2003) taken from MSNBC. com, Ashcroft is quoted by given specific examples of terrorists arrested as a direct result of the USA PATRIOT Act. "Ashcroft cited the arrest of three men accused of plotting to smuggle shoulder-fired missiles and the successful prosecution of a man who tried to enter Afghanistan to fight U.S. troops as examples of the law at work". The USA PATRIOT Act has not only been successful in investigating and arresting suspected terrorists, it has also been credited by top federal law enforcement officials as preventing further terrorist attacks. Anderson (2003) reporting for the Associated Press reports Attorney General Ashcroft's praise for the USA PATRIOT Act, The USA PATRIOT ACT 9 and credit's the Patriot Act with preventing further terrorism. "Attorney General John Ashcroft began a nationwide campaign to defend the Patriot Act, saying the anti-terrorism law is the chief reason America has not suffered another catastrophic terrorist attack since Sept. 11.

'We have used these tools to prevent terrorists from unleashing more death and destruction on our soil' Ashcroft said. 'We have used these tools to provide the security that ensures liberty". Anderson (2003) also reported "The Patriot Act, Ashcroft said, allows the government to 'anticipate, adapt and outthink our terrorist enemy. To abandon these tools would senselessly imperil American lives and American Liberty, and ignore the lessons of Sept. 11". Taylor (2003) also reported that FBI Director Robert S. Mueller believes that the USA PATRIOT Act and its provisions have effectively helped law enforcement prevent another terrorist attack.

"The resulting free flow of information and coordination between law enforcement and intelligence has expanded our ability to use all appropriate resources to prevent terrorism". The USA PATRIOT Act also preserves individual rights, the act still requires law enforcement and intelligence officers to obtain probable cause before a search warrant, or pen register or other surveillance technique can be employed. The USA PATRIOT Act does not violate any constitutional rights; it allows law enforcement an effective means of gathering information, and sharing information. Ward (2003) reports that Ashcroft himself says that the Justice Department is dedicated to preserving the rights of individuals. "The role of the Justice Department is to preserve individual freedoms, not take them away, Attorney General John Ashcroft said yesterday during a visit to the U.S. Attorney's office for the District of Columbia. 'We respect what people can do if their The USA PATRIOT ACT 10 Rights are protected, their responsibilities cultivated, and we make sure their rights are not infringed".

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were arguably the worst tragedy the United States has ever suffered. The United States government has an obligation to its citizens to bring to justice those who perpetrated this heinous crime, and to protect its citizens from any future attacks. The USA PATRIOT ACT protects public order, and protects the lives of Americans. The rights of a group of individuals are important; however those rights pale in comparison to the protection of millions of Americans. For the rights of an individual are meaningless if the individual is not alive to enjoy their rights. The USA PATRIOT ACT follows the U.S. Constitution, it protects the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendment rights of all Americans.

It has been argued that the USA PATRIOT ACT is an invasion of privacy. In a society that is in constant risk of another devastating terrorist act, preserving public order, and preventing a future attack, are for more important than allegations of privacy violations. On September 11, 2001 almost three thousand people lost their lives, and the effects afterwards cost thousands and thousands more to loose their jobs. Preventing another tragedy of the magnitude is for more important the loss of individual rights.

If the families of the victims could choose between having their loved one returned to them, or not allowing the government to see what books they check out at the library, I think most people would choose to have their loved one returned. In the Associated Press (MSNBC. com 2003) John Ashcroft explains the government's responsibility to protect lives. "The nation learned the cost of a poorly coordinated law enforcement community during the September 11 attacks. 'For the The USA PATRIOT ACT 11 living, those hallowed places are a warning' Ashcroft said.

'When the government falls short of its responsibility, Americans pay the price with their lives". The USA PATRIOT ACT 12

Bibliography

Anderson, C. (2003, August 19).
Ashcroft gives Patriot Act credit for post-9/11 calm. Houston Chronicle. com. Retrieved August 25, 2003, from web Press (2003, August 20).
Ashcroft mounts Patriot Act defense. MSNBC. com. Retrieved August 25, 2003, web Press (2003, July 21).
Patriot Act Complaints Reviewed. Wired News. com. Retrieved August 25, 2003, web F.
2003).
Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the 21st Century. Taylor, G. (2003, July 21).
Communities Shun Patriot Act. web Retrieved August 25, 2003, web story.
cf m? StoryID = 20030720-115938-3269 taylor, G.
2003, July 24).
FBI chief praises the Patriot Act. web Retrieved August 25, 2003, web story.
cf m? StoryID = 20030723-111557-2975 ward, J.
2003, June 18).
Ashcroft defends Patriot Act in visit. web Retrieved August 25, 2003, web story.
cf m? StoryID = 20030617-10458-2731 r.