Criticism of the Patriot Act

Just after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Congress passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, also alluded to as the USA PATRIOT Act (Lind, 2015). The bill garnered overwhelming support from Congress as only one stateman (Wisconsin’s Russ Feingold) did not vote for it. In this manner, the Patriot Act became a process of significant expanse in the government’s surveillance capacities as it covered considerable grounds, and while some of its provisions have been eliminated by the court, others have turned out to be part and parcel of the undertakings of the Department of Homeland Security. Among the primary provisions of the law entailed amendments of the Wiretap Act, which banned spying by the administration on private mobile, electronic, as well as direct communications unless approved by direct order of the court in specialized situations in instances of severe crimes. Sections 202 and 201 also added terrorist and computer crimes to the list of the severe offenses whereby the law enforcement would be allowed to eavesdrop or spy on individuals. The 209 section claims that voicemail would not be entitled to similar safeguards which governed conversations on the telephone, while section 210 added the individual subscriber’s bank account or credit card to archives that can be gathered from the provider of a communication service via a subpoena. Segment 216 allows for the utilization of trap-and-trace strategies as well as pen registers in a bid to surveil and monitor electronic communications, including web browsing and email. In the same manner, the court orders for this particular method of investigation did not necessitate probable cause, but only government documentation that the information pursued was to be used in a criminal inquiry. To allow for cooperation between intelligence agencies and law enforcement, particularly in the case of extremism, section 203 provided government lawyers with the capacity to reveal issues before a federal court. In section 213, sneak and peek searches were allowed, whereby the search notification is deferred until the examination has been accomplished. Other provisions made alterations to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was founded in 1978 to permit electronic surveillance that targets international powers and their representatives. Segment 218 eliminated the necessity that the administration certifies its surveillance requests for the surveillance experts that the aim of the inquiry was to obtain information on overseas intelligence. In other alterations, section 215 eliminated the provision that limited record types, which the government could require some organizations to produce, including any tangible item comprising of books, papers, documents, and records. In the same manner, the same section also proscribed third parties from the disclosure of any information that reveals that the FBI (Federal Bureau Investigation) has obtained or sought information (Duignan, 2020). A related section, segment, authorizes the FBI to provide subpoenas on the basis of documentation in which the evidence pursued was pertinent to an international terrorism investigation or foreign intelligence. Such a provision also referred to as National Security Letters, provided gag orders on those who received them. The Patriot Act also incremented the Secretary of the Treasury powers in fighting against money laundering and also increased border control, established new terrorism rules for the detention of culprits, increased customs service, and also included novel terrorist crimes such as attacks on mass transportation systems. Lastly, to dispel the legislators’ apprehensions for some of the provisions, section 224, also referred to as ‘Sunset,’ postulated that 16 segments and two sub-segments of the Act would expire on the 31 st of December, 2005. Some of the scholars criticize the Patriot Act because several of the parts were considered to be unconstitutional, including the following (Abramson and Godoy, n.d). Section 215 of the Act violated the Fourth Amendment’s privacy protection as it allowed for warrantless examinations and did not necessitate the notification of the individual under study. This section was also criticized as it undermined the First Amendment, which is the freedom of speech, as it allowed for searches to be undertaken partially based on the individual’s exercise of his/her rights, and it also has a gag order even though it is not required. Segment 218 permitted the FBI to undertake scrutiny of Americans without proving the probable cause of felonious actions. This led to a myriad of unwarranted investigations and spying and thus violated several rights and freedoms of Americans. The sneak-and-peak investigations permitted by section 213 are unreasonable, especially when perceived from the Fourth Amendment case law. Critics thus show concern for this provision because they believe that investigators already had the capacity to undertake secrete searches in counterespionage and counterterror investigations. The primary concern is that it is authorized to use this provision for any crimes, even if they are minor. They thus claim that this method should be used in instances where investigations would be jeopardized by immediate notice. Section 505 violates the first amendment rights in a vigorous manner since it allows for searches based on the activities of the First Amendment, and it also imposes a gag order without the requirement of a judicial review. Regarding roving wiretaps, surveillance experts and critics posit that criminal wiretaps ought to ascertain whether the individual that is being investigated is going to be utilizing the device prior to the tapping. Civil liberty groups also claim that the language utilized in the Patriot Act is vague in such a manner that it would lead to violations of privacy for individuals that come into casual contact with the suspects. Therefore, they want Congress to specify the device that is being tapped or that the suspect is identified vividly in a bid to safeguard the innocent ones from unnecessary investigation and snooping. While some of the provisions in the Act have been established to protect the citizens, others are very intrusive and are more of a liability than an asset to the citizens as some of their rights and freedoms under the constitution are violated. However, ever since it was enacted after the 9/11 attacks, it has undertaken a significant role, and typically the primary role, in a plethora of efficacious maneuvers to safeguard American citizens from fatal terrorist strategies which are aimed at the destruction of American lives. Therefore, the Act has brought about a lot of success in thwarting terrorist actions in the US, and thus the reduction in the number of terrorist attacks on US soil can be used as a measure of its success. 

References 

Abramson, L., and Godoy, M. (n.d). The Patriot Act: Key Controversies. Retrieved the 23rd of May 2021, from https://legacy.npr.org/news/specials/patriotact/patriotactdeal.html 

Duignan, B. (2020). USA PATRIOT Act. Retrieved the 23rd of May 2021, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/USA-PATRIOT-Act 

Lind, D. (2015). Everyone’s Heard of The Patriot Act. Here’s What It Actually Does. Retrieved the 23rd of May 2021, from https://www.vox.com/2015/6/2/8701499/patriot-act-explain