The US PATRIOT Act, enacted in reaction to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, has been opposed by both liberal and conservative groups because they perceive it to violate the civil liberties of American citizens. However, there has been no credible evidence presented that this Act violates any constitutionally guaranteed rights. The Act prohibits discriminatory practices such as racial profiling, illegal wiretaps, and all other unlawful actions which are generally deemed improper. The PATRIOT Act was enacted to protect US citizens by augmenting the tools by which law enforcement agencies fight crime and improve communication capabilities between these government agencies and despite the prevailing majority opinion, protects, not degrades civil liberties.
The name itself, the PATRIOT Act is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.
According to the Justice Department, the PATRIOT Act gives support to and encourages enhanced sharing of information among various law enforcement agencies at the local, state, and federal levels. In addition, this law assists law enforcement in their efforts to “connect the dots” from a wider scope of agencies when assembling evidence so as to “develop a complete picture” regarding possible threats from terrorists. The Act also allows law enforcement officials more latitude when attempting to intercept transmissions of suspected terrorist’s discussions via electronic surveillance. (Ward, 2002). Since the PATRIOT Act was enacted in October of 2001, it has been an essential instrument in ensuring the safety of American citizens in the ongoing ‘War on Terror.’ The more conducive sharing of information augments the same, constitutionally lawful, forms of law enforcement that had been employed to apprehend and prosecute criminals before 9/11. In addition, the legislation has increased the effectiveness of the U.S. Department of Justice in its efforts to interrupt terrorist actions while simultaneously and earnestly defending the civil liberties of American citizens. “America still faces dangerous enemies, and no priority is more important to the President than protecting the American people without delay” (“US PATRIOT Act”, 2006).
The contentious debate regarding the PATRIOT Act among those in the public and private sector alike was sparked predominantly by left-wing propaganda which has continuously falsely characterized the intent and language of the Act. Newspaper and television reports have used phrases such as ‘unlawful use of authoritative powers by the executive branch’ which has been a factor in the widely distorted perceptions regarding the Act. Interestingly, the portions of the Act that have generated the loudest objections are the ones that merely provide law enforcement officials an enhanced communicative benefit in concert with the identical methods that have been utilized to fight crime for many decades. As an example, media outlets have continued a prolonged and vociferous campaign that has warned against government intrusion into the lives of private citizens allowed by Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act because it allows for library records to be scrutinized by more efficient means by government officials. What the media doesn’t report is that library records had routinely been subpoenaed as evidence in criminal cases well before 2001. Library records were subpoenaed in the 1996 Unabomber case and in 1997 to help solve the Gianni Versace murder (Carafano & Rosenzweig, 2005). This law enforcement tool, because of the PATRIOT Act, is now used more effectively in the fight against terrorism yet the practice is decried and falsely linked to the Act. It is interesting to note that to date; no library records have been requested by the authority of the provisions stipulated in the PATRIOT Act. The ability to subpoena all relevant records is essential to police work and should not be abated especially as a result of fear-mongering tactics by the press.
PATRIOT Act opponents also identify Section 213 and invoke the term ‘sneak and peek’ to characterize law enforcement officials’ added ability to conduct searches authorized in the Act which summons images of excessive use of governmental power, a concept dreaded by both liberal and conservative alike. The Act allows for a postponement of search notification to the person being investigated. Of course, as before, a search warrant must first be authorized by a judge before being executed. As in library records, the postponement of notice to suspected criminals before a lawful search is conducted had been a law enforcement tool for many years before 9/11. Without this method, which was upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional, Mafia boss John Gotti may not have been prosecuted. Searches of this type are hardly a recent phenomenon and have generally been utilized in solving multifaceted, long-standing cases involving many suspects, some of which may yet to be identified which accurately fits the characteristic expected when attempting to locate terrorists operating within the country (Moschella, 2003).
Despite the vehement opposition to the PATRIOT Act, its critics even acknowledge that it has been effective in building a more cohesive link between all levels of law enforcement including the intelligence agencies. The Act does not give away the civil liberties that were earned by the bloodshed of our predecessors as some would and have said, rather, it augments the law enforcement tools already in place to protect the citizens of the US which is the first responsibility of the federal government. Because some of the languages in the Act have been unclear to some, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has asked Congress to write more explicit language into the Act. However, the provisions of the Act or the Act itself should not be done away with as it is important to the security of the nation and its citizens.
Works Cited
- Carafano, James Jay & Paul Rosenzweig Winning the Long War. Heritage Books, 2005. Web.
- Moschella, William E. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs. (2003). Web.
- “(The) U.S. PATRIOT Act.” The White House. 2006. Washington D.C. Web.
- Ward, Elaine N. “USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.” The University of Texas at Austin.