Hosey 1

Nicki Hosey Mr. Kendall Honors World Understanding E April 15, 2012 The Patriot Act Infringing on American Rights The war on terror has, unfortunately, been a prevalent issue throughout American and general world history. Several horrific situations and attacks have been derived from terrorism. The government has tried to utilize multiple methods in order to keep America safe; regrettably, there has yet to be an end to terror. One of the most well known systems being used to protect citizens from terrorism is the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is an extremely controversial form of anti-terrorism because many believe it to be a violation of their constitutional rights. While the intention of protecting the nation is sound, the process involved is quite intrusive. Therefore, despite the positive objective, the Patriot Act is a violation of constitutional rights through desecrating several amendments as well as assuming innocent people to be guilty which infringes on the freedom America takes pride in. The Patriot Act was originally formed following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Thousands of lives were lost as well as monumental buildings. The horrific actions that took place on that day reinforced the need for protection in the nation. In hopes of preventing future attacks, George W. Bush, the president at the time, signed the Patriot Act on October 26, 2001. This was an extremely uncommon occurrence in terms of the length of the process in which the act was signed. It typically takes much longer than a month for a bill to be passed. Normally, when bills are proposed, it must go through the approval of each of the branches of government along with a great deal of debate and consideration. This process typically requires a substantial amount of time. However, the urgency in the situation the nation was facing encouraged Bush to pass it almost immediately.

Hosey 2

The Patriot Act was uncharacteristically brought to the floor without discussion, debates, or hearings.1 The USA Patriot Act stands for the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism."2 The Act itself is 342 pages of several complex provisions and guidelines for preventing terrorism in America.3 It is a rather complicated documentation of the rights of the government in situations regarding terrorism and any other possible threats to the nation. Its intricacy makes its true allowances quite obscure to the general public. This relates to the concept of violating citizen rights through being presented in such a way that the capabilities of the government are extended beyond the knowledge of the majority of Americans. Following The Patriot Acts creation and passing, Americas security was completely corrupted in the sense that most restrictions the government had were made irrelevant. There used to be more boundaries between the citizens and what the government could learn about them. Specific investigations were only warranted under certain circumstances involving serious concern of someone being guilty. Following the Patriot Acts initiation, these policies were changed. Generally, The Patriot Act permits the government considerable surveillance privileges. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the Patriot Act records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by third parties. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the
1

American Civil Liberties Union. Available from http://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under-usapatriot-act; Internet. George W. Bush signs the Patriot Act. [Online article] ( The History Channel website); available from http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/george-w-bush-signs-the-patriot-act; Internet.
3 2

Friedman, S. Lauri, The Patriot Act: An Opposing Viewpoints Guide (Greenhaven Press, 2006), 7.

Hosey 3

collection of foreign intelligence information. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content.4 Through these expansions on the governmental power in surveillance, the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution has been violated. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that no searches will be conducted without a warrant or probable cause.5 Many of the elements of The Patriot Act directly encroach upon these rights. For example, travel has been significantly impacted by the Act. In airports, several people are searched even more thoroughly than the rest of the travelers. This has made traveling a much more complex and difficult situation for everyone. Not only has the Patriot Acts procedure made traveling a more complicated experience, but it has been intervening on people and their Constitutional rights simultaneously. While it is necessary to have general searches for all people traveling by plane, The Patriot Act has allowed the searches to surpass the reasonable searches the Fourth Amendment permits. As stated by the American Civil Liberties Union, Although it is important that Congress renew the Patriot Act, it is more important that they renew it with the inclusion of modest, but essential, privacy protections.6 Even these members who believe the Patriot Act has its legitimacy, there is still the realization that it can be far too intrusive. There is no specific warrant used for the intense searches airport security conducts on numerous people daily which

American Civil Liberties Union. Accessed from http://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under-usapatriot-act; Internet.

5

U.S. Constitution, Amend. 4. Congress Extends Patriot Act Another Five Weeks. (February 2006): Via ICONN, Coventry High School.

Hosey 4

is undoubtedly a defiance of the Constitution through its requirement of warrants on searches, especially those as severe as the ones involved in the Act. Not only are these searches unwarranted for, but they are also considerably intrusive and can be extremely uncomfortable. The searches often include exceedingly intimate pat-downs as well as images that reveal the travelers body. Even young children and teenagers can be subjected to the pat downs and invasive body scans. These searches are very uncomfortable for anyone, let alone young children who could be scarred by the experience. There should be a limit to what power the government has over its citizens. As stated by Senator Mark Udall, If we cannot limit investigations to terrorism or other nefarious activities, where do they end?7 This is a concern that greatly questions the feeling of safety that should be striven for. If the purpose of the Act is to ensure safety, people should not be made extremely uncomfortable. Regardless of the purpose of the searches, it is simply unacceptable that hundreds of people be put in such uncomfortable situations when traveling. In addition to the impact The Patriot Act has had on travel, it has also allowed other intrusions such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act it amends. According to The Washington Post, recent revisions to the Act allow wiretaps and FBI seizure of business records. It also permits tapping into phone conversations, bank accounts, and internet records.8 The government is able to spy on American citizens as well as obtain certain possessions without reason for suspicion.9 This clearly violates the Constitutional right to privacy in addition to preventing unreasonable search and seizure. Many people who are victims of these searches are
FoxNews.com Obama Signs Last-Minute Patriot Act Extension. (May 2011): available from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/27/senate-clearing-way-extend-patriot-act/; Internet. Jenny Cuff, U.S. Muslims Alienated by Patriot Act. Available from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/file_on_4/5145970.stm ; Internet.
9 8 7

American Civil Liberties Union

Hosey 5

completely oblivious to the fact that their personal information and property are being seen by people they have never encountered. The power that the government has over American citizens is frightening, not to mention the fact that so many citizens are not even aware of their capabilities. Disturbingly enough, certain government officials defend the Patriot Act and the notion that personal property can be obtained without their knowledge or reasonable suspicion. Orrin Hatch, the Judiciary Committee Chairman, claims that law enforcement officials have been allowed to inspect library records for years and there is no constitutional issue about not immediately notifying people about warrants.10 On the contrary, the Fourth Amendment does state 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.11 In other words, people have the right to maintain their possessions if the government does not have probable cause to believe that they are guilty of the crime in question. Also, if their possessions are in fact tampered with, there does need to be a proper warrant issued. Under the measure, law enforcement must either reveal the search warrant or apply for an extension within 30 day when they search through homes or businesses without revealing this fact to the property owner or inhabitants.12 Therefore, Orrins argument that the Patriot Act is justifiable is invalid due to the fact that the Constitution does in fact guarantee the rights that he has dismissed.
Daniel Pulliam, Justice Official defends PATRIOT Act, (September 2004): via ICONN, Coventry High School.
11 10

U.S. Constitution, Amend. 4 Teresa Anderson, Patriot Act. (May 2006): 98. Via ICONN, Coventry High School.

12

Hosey 6

This issue of privacy and the power of the government corresponding to the Patriot Act is quite possibly the beginning of the government gaining too much authority. While the current governmental system is a democracy, there is still the concern of governmental corruption. In Montana, Senator Elliot explained the words of Thomas Jefferson in that the states are the true protectors of liberty, and we have the obligation to tell the federal government when it has gone too far.13 This statement is clear; the federal government has gone too far and it must be put to an end. Any sole program having too much power can be significantly dangerous and have a considerably disadvantageous effect on the nation and its people. As history shows, when there is a single person or group with immense amounts of power, there is usually a great downfall of the nation and its leaders such as the fall of the Roman Empire. If the Patriot Act were less intrusive and followed the Constitution, America could hopefully avoid a dangerous increase in power that could possibly end the nation as it is. The power of the government with the Patriot Act first got out of hand when it was originally passed. Seeing as it was approved so quickly, there was a lack of truly thoughtful consideration. In fact, at the time, many Senators complained that they had little chance to read it, much less analyze it, before having to vote.14 Perhaps, if the decision had not been so hasty, there would have been a realization and consensus that what the Act permits is far too intrusive. In fact, one of the members who voted for the Act later explained how he now realizes that it has gone beyond the original intent. Little did I, or many of my colleagues know [the act] would shortly be used in contexts other than terrorism and in conjunction with a wide array of other,

Hazem I Kira. Republicans fight for passage of anti-PATRIOT Act resolution. (July 2005). Via ICONN, Coventry High School.
14

13

American Civil Liberties Union.

Hosey 7

privacy-invasive programs and activities.15 In its rapid approval, those who agreed to it admitted to not being fully aware of its true purpose and what it allowed. Currently, the citizens are also quite uninformed of the governments capabilities provided by the Act. Unfortunately, since the Act was passed, the government has only continued to gain authority and it sure will progress further if it is not put to an end soon. There is clearly an issue with the government when its officials are not allowed the proper time to give each issue the legitimate consideration it requires. This applies to all topics the government must analyze; however, the Patriot Act is particularly important to have analyzed properly with how considerable of an impact it has on American citizens as well as foreigners traveling through the nation. The Patriot Act also violates the rights provided in the Fifth Amendment. This amendment is practically disregarded with the concept that federal security and government officials have the right to hold property of the citizens. The Fifth Amendment states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.16 The contents that may be obtained as well as the information gathered through tapping into conversations and documents can be considered personal property. When these items are taken with the rights of the Patriot Act, there is no due process of law. Furthermore, due process of law is essentially the right to have proper legal proceedings prior to any sort of punishment. It includes the general rights involved in the justice system of America. This is certainly not held when many people are not even aware of what is being obtained as well as having no formal warning. Not only are people being deprived of their

15

Congress Looks at Patriot Act. (November 2003). Via ICONN, Coventry High School. US Constitution, Amend. 5.

16

Hosey 8

personal property, but it is occurring without due process of law. No formal court proceedings are included, warrants are not always issued, and many are not notified of the searches. For that reason, The Patriot Act also disobeys the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In addition, The Patriot Act and what it entails also violates the First Amendment in certain ways. Many people realize that the intrusion allowed by the Act greatly contradicts the Constitutional rights. From its inception, the laws increased surveillance powers have been criticized by liberals and conservatives alike as infringements on free speech rights and protections against unwarranted searches and seizures.17 It is rare when members of varying political spectrums share concerns on government involvement; therefore, it is evident that the Act must be quite involved. The freedom of speech the United States Constitution guarantees is withdrawn when people are deprived of the right to express their experiences with the searches when such confidentiality is not truly necessary. Also, the right to freedom of religion given in the First Amendment is another point of interest concerning the Patriot Act. This is relevant due to the amount of discrimination involved in handling terrorism. While it is not directly in correlation with the Patriot Act, it is arguable that much discrimination has been initiated from what it entails about terrorism. In other words, the issue of terrorism and being so specific with travel procedures encourages racial and ethnic profiling. Sadly, despite progress over the years, discrimination is an existing problem in the United States as well as other nations. Numerous people assume certain people to be involved in terrorism based on their appearances. One of the provisions to the Act, known as the lone wolf provision, permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. individuals without the government having to show a
FoxNews.com. Top lawmakers agree to Patriot Act extension (May 2011): available from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/19/ap-sources-hill-leaders-agree-patriot-act/; Internet.
17

Hosey 9

connection between the target and a specific terrorist group.18 Clearly, there are prejudices against those who are not American citizens. There is, unfortunately, a general stereotype of certain ethnicities being terrorists or being related to terrorism. These typecasting prejudices can be connected back to freedom of religion and expression seeing as discriminating against someone and considering them to be a threat to the nation simply because of their religion or race is truly an unnecessary violation of the Constitution. In relation to discrimination, the government has also involved becoming stricter with immigration with the Patriot Act. Certain provisions authorize the government to deny entry to foreigners because of speech rather than actions, to deport even permanent residents who innocently supported disfavored political groups and to lock up foreign nationals without charges.19 This blatant discrimination is severely unnecessary and shows how government officials can take their power too far. This is yet another reason why the Patriot Act is unjust. While non-American citizens are not protected by the rights of the United States Constitution, this treatment is severely excessive. Another primary issue involving The USA Patriot Act is the overall assumption that people are guilty. The United States of America is a nation known for its general guarantee to freedom which is a concept the government and its citizens take pride in. This concept corresponds with the freedom in being innocent until proven guilty. This phrase is quite eminent and is commonly associated with the nations justice system. Despite the fact that it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, this theory is quite similar to other rights acknowledged in the Constitution. For example, the Sixth Amendment states in all criminal
FoxNews.com. Senate Considers Patriot Act Despite Concerns (May 2011): Available from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/24/senate-considers-patriot-act-despite-concerns-723552392/; Internet.
19 18

Lauri S. Friedman, The Patriot Act: An Opposing Viewpoints Guide (Greenhaven Press, 2006), 37.

Hosey 10

prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.20 This essentially says that everyone being questioned of a crime has the right to a fair trial. This implies that there will be careful consideration taken in the situation in question; thus, it is related to the concept that people have the opportunity to show their evidence and explain their situation. This is basically what the notion of innocent until proven guilty entails. In continuation, it is vital to remember what America stands for and how assuming everyone to be guilty challenges this. Many can be insulted by the accusation of being involved in any actions that would put the nation in danger. General safety regulations are acceptable; however, what the Patriot Act allows goes far beyond reasonable limits. Only if someone has reasonable evidence to question someones innocence does it become appropriate to take such extremes as the Patriot Act permits. The Patriot Act violates this widely accepted idea of innocent until proven guilty. This attitude greatly contributes to what makes America the country that it is. Thus, the Patriot Act not only disobeys the Constitution, but distorts the general outlook the nation has of justice. The Patriot Act disregards this notion through the fact that thousands of innocent people are specifically questioned and their possessions are collected and investigated, often without justification. It may be understandable to want to keep the country safe; on the other hand, the government has gone to great extremes that are clearly assuming innocent people as guilty. [T]he FBI can demand all the records of banks, colleges, hotels, hospitals, credit-card companies and [] run credit checks and background checks and gather information about anyone who is of investigatory interest,meaning anyone the agent thinks is

20

US Constitution, Amend. 6.

Hosey 11

suspiciouswithout any evidence of criminal behavior.21 Even when there is no true evidence that someone is a threat to the nation, the government continues to question their morals and specifically searches them. It is outrageous to think that there is no need for concrete evidence before accusations and searches. Many people are against the Patriot Act; numerous others are not properly educated on the subject. From those who are aware of it, the majority of people realize how intrusive it can be. As a result, an anti-PATRIOT Act has been developed. The recent action by the Montana state legislature brings the total of anti-PATRIOT Act resolutions to seven states and 373 cities, countries, and municipalities across the country.22 This shows what a considerable impact this Act has had on people who are aware of what it entails. Seeing as so many people are against it, it is evident that there simply is not a sense of justice within the Patriot Act. The voice of the people and its power in America is what the nation is known for. For that reason, the government should consider that the people are uncomfortable with its growing power and should make the appropriate changes. As for those who are unaware or uneducated about the Patriot Act, the fault may be left to the government for indistinctly describing what the Act actually permits. In a survey that asked people about the Patriot Act and whether they thought it was good or bad, eighteen percent of those surveyed were either mixed or unsure.23 This uncertainty suggests that not everyone is aware of what the Patriot Act stands for, hence the inability to make an educated analysis. Even the government officials involved in signing the Act were unsure of its true purpose when they

21

Lauri S. Friedman, The Patriot Act: An Opposing Viewpoints Guide (Greenhaven Press, 2006), 28-29.

Hazem I Kira. Republicans fight for passage of anti-PATRIOT Act resolution. (July 2005). Via ICONN, Coventry High School.
23

22

Lauri S. Friedman, The Patriot Act: An Opposing Viewpoints Guide (Greenhaven Press, 2006), 34.

Hosey 12

voted. This uncertainty was the result of the lack of time to consider it thoroughly. Most of those who are educated on the topic realize that the Patriot Act can be far too invasive and infringes upon the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The obscurity with which the Act is enforced is yet another reason why it is unjust. The less people know, the more likely it is that it will negatively impact their lives and infringe upon their rights. A deficiency in knowledge of the topic will merely make people more vulnerable to their rights being stripped from them and taken advantage of. Overall, the Patriot Act may have been created with positive intentions; however, it truly is an unnecessarily invasive and unconstitutional pursuit to gain governmental authority. The allowances to tap into personal records and extreme searches in airport security are quite unacceptable. The First Amendment rights are violated through the restraints on speech and discrimination of certain religions and ethnicities. The Patriot Act also denies the Constitutional rights to not allow unreasonable searches without warrants seeing as the majority of those who are victim to the searches are unaware when their information is tapped into and most searches have no proper warrant. Lastly, the Fifth Amendment requires due process of law when people are deprived of their personal property. Not only does the Act contravene these constitutional rights, but it also defies many of the prominent concepts that America is known for. Assuming innocent people to be guilty and going to such extremes is simply un-American. In general, America is known for its freedom and the Patriot Act tarnishes this reputation through its unconstitutional attributes and disobeying the ideas of freedom that make America the nation that it is.

Hosey 13

Works Cited Anderson, Teresa. "Patriot Act." (May 2006): 98. Accessed via ICONN "Congress Extends Patriot Act Another Five Weeks." (Feb. 2006). Accessed via ICONN "Congress Looks at Patriot Act." (Nov. 2003). Accessed via ICONN FoxNews.com. Obama Signs Last-Minute Patriot Act Extension. May 27, 2011; available from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/27/senate-clearing-way-extend-patriot-act/; Internet. FoxNews.com. Senate Considers Patriot Act Despite Concerns. May 24, 2011; available from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/24/senate-considers-patriot-act-despite-concerns723552392/; Internet. FoxNews.com. Top lawmakers agree to Patriot Act extension. May 19, 2011; available from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/19/ap-sources-hill-leaders-agree-patriot-act/; Internet. Friedman, S. Lauri. The Patriot Act: An Opposing Viewpoints Guide. Greenhaven Press, 2006. George W. Bush signs the Patriot Act. 2012. The History Channel website. May 5 2012, 2:34 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/george-w-bush-signs-the-patriot-act. Kira, Hazem I. "Republicans fight for passage of anti-PATRIOT Act resolution." (July 2005). Accessed via ICONN Pulliam, Daniel. "Justice official defends PATRIOT Act."(Sept. 2004). Accessed via ICONN U.S. Constitution, Amend. 4 Volume Library: A Modern, Authoritative Reference for Home and School Use 1. Southwestern, 2006.

Volume Library: A Modern, Authoritative Reference for Home and School Use 3 Southwestern, 2006.