Defining the Problem
After the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, the American nation was considerably distraught and shaken. With many people having never imagined that such an event would occur, the government officials quickly attempted to impose countermeasures so that such a tragedy may not happen again. The same month as the event itself, president George W. Bush has signed into power the “Patriot Act”, designed to prevent future instances of terrorism. The bill was designed to improve homeland security in various ways, including the use of surveillance, wiretaps, the usage of delayed search warrants, and an overall increase in the police and investigative power connected with possible terrorist attempts.
May
- Biblical Guidelines: According to the principle of Sphere Sovereignty, existing as a part of Christian Democracy, the government’s job is to safeguard its citizens and guarantee their comfortable living. In this regard, the act supports efforts of preventing possible tragedy and combating the terrorist threat. On the other hand, the bible itself also mentions the importance of privacy, which is one of the foundational rights of the American people. As noted by Proverbs 25:9, “Argue your case with your neighbor himself, and do not reveal another’s secret” meaning that people should not reveal or know about other people’s affairs without permission. The use of wiretapping surveillance in cases of suspecting a terrorist can easily violate this principle.
- Constitutional Guidelines: Analyzing the constitution’s view on the issue, one can also find it to be divided on the subject. Article 4, Section 4 of the constitution specifically highlights the government’s responsibility to protect its citizens, putting an emphasis on the threat of invasion. While Terrorism is somewhat of a different issue, the section is still relevant, as it dictates the government’s responsibilities before its people. While the constitution does not explicitly mention an individual’s right to privacy, the 3rd amendment protects people and their property from unreasonable searches. As the Patriot Act permits law enforcement to provide a warrant after the search, it seems to contradict the 3rd amendment.
Can
- Political Feasibility: The bill has amassed a lot of controversy over its existence. Passed during the height of the terrorist panic, it introduced serious measures towards preventing possible crime. As the initiative mainly focuses on prevention, not remedy, it is difficult to determine its effectiveness. The power it gave to law enforcement was used both for crime prevention and for violating the rights of innocent people.
- Practical feasibility: The patriot act has expanded the capabilities of law enforcement, giving them more opportunities to investigate, track, and prevent terrorism-related crime. The police and government agencies have been actively using their surveillance and wiretapping techniques to investigate potential suspects (Myths and Realities About the Patriot Act). “sneak and peek” searches of people’s property are also being conducted, and many of them lead to uncovering criminal activity of various kinds.
Should
The patriot act passes the May part of the analysis halfway, largely due to the clash between its intended purpose and the methods it endorses. While both the bible and the constitution support the government protecting its citizens, the use of surveillance and non-warranted searches is highly questionable. The Can section is easier in this regard, as the act has been passed (with its share of controversy) and brings tangible results. Overall, the sentiments covered by the act are legitimate, but the approaches it uses are harmful to the privacy of America’s citizens, making it a poor choice for solving the issue.