Terrorism is one of the greatest challenges that the US continues to face. In an effort to insulate the nation against terrorist attacks, the government has pursued a number of initiatives. Congress has particularly been active in presenting solutions that promise to keep Americans safe. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) is one of the initiatives that Congress has adopted. Enacted in 2004, the primary purpose of this act is to empower law enforcement and intelligence agencies so that they are better equipped to tackle terrorist threats.
Purpose of Act
As pointed out above, the key purpose that the IRTPA hoped to fulfill is to make the American people safer. To achieve this purpose, the act included provisions which authorized such agencies as the FBI to engage in various activities. For example, the IRTPA permitted the FBI to conduct wiretaps in an effort to track down terrorists with no direct connections to state sponsors of terrorism. The Act also established new positions whose main mandate was to collaborate with various intelligence and law enforcement agencies to counter terrorism. For example, the Act created the position of the Director of National Intelligence. Some of the roles that this official was expected to perform include budgeting, personnel management, and acting as a foreign liaison (Collins, 2004). Overall, IRTPA was enacted for the purpose of enhancing America’s efforts to tackle terrorism.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Designed Aim of Statute
When he signed the IRTPA into law, President George W. Bush hoped that the act would accomplish a number of goals. Among the main aims of this act was to introduce organizational and leadership changes (Collins, 2004). The creation of the office of the Director of National Intelligence is among the measures that the act instituted to achieve this goal. Promoting collaboration in such issues as intelligence sharing among various agencies is another aim that the act sought to accomplish. Thanks to this act, the National Counterterrorism Center was established. Working with other agencies, this organization was tasked with the mandate of monitoring terrorist threats against the United States. The National Counterproliferation Center is another agency that the act established. The act empowered this agency to partner with other organizations for the purposes of halting the spread of nuclear weapons (Rosenbach & Peritz, 2009). Perhaps the most important aim of the IRTPA was to protect the American people against government over-reach. This act contains provisions which explicitly require government agencies to respect the privacy of the American people (DNI, n.d). The aim of these provisions is to limit government power so as to safeguard privacy rights.
IRTPA and Civil Liberties
As stated above, protecting the privacy rights of the American people is among the goals of the IRTPA. To achieve this goal, the act has provisions which guarantee civil liberties. One of the provisions is the stipulation that the Director of National Intelligence should appoint an officer whose main mandate is to protect civil liberties (Collins, 2004). Furthermore, the act mandates the president to work with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to ensure that intelligence and information gathering activities do not violate the privacy rights of the American people. While the act addresses civil liberties in general, it has provisions that relate to specific liberties. For example, privacy is among the liberties that the act protects. It has a provision which provides that the Civil Liberties Oversight Board should ensure that all laws and policies that the executive adopts while securing the country against terrorism do not violate privacy rights (Collins, 2004). Another provision of the act is that all government agencies which are involved in counter-terrorism efforts should appoint officers whose main responsibility will be to safeguard privacy and other civil liberties. Overall, the IRTPA is extensive in its guarantees of civil liberties.
IRTPA Protecting Civil Liberties
The IRTPA was designed to protect civil liberties. However, questions can be asked about whether the provisions of the act do enough for civil liberties. As made clear in the discussion above, the act contains a number of provisions designed to protect such liberties as privacy. However, a critical scrutiny of the act reveals that there are serious flaws that may be exploited to strip the American people of their civil liberties. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) captured most of these flaws in its letter to Congress regarding the need to secure civil liberties. One of the flaws of the act is gives too much power to the Director of the National Intelligence. In its report, the ACLU cautioned that the vast resources and manpower that this official has empowers him to spy on the American people, thereby violating privacy rights (“Letter to Congress, 2004). Another flaw in the act is that it robs the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board of its independence. The members of this board are presidential-appointees and since they serve at the pleasure of the president, their objectivity and independence is compromised. The IRTPA authorized law enforcement and intelligence agencies to conduct wiretapping operations (“Letter to Congress, 2004). These agencies could abuse this authority to spy on Americans and foreign nationals. Information sharing and the detention of suspects are other provisions of the IRTPA which violate civil liberties. This act allowed agencies to collect and share personal details of Americans and foreigners (“Letter to Congress, 2004). Through this power, the agencies may violate privacy rights and hold suspects without following due process.
From the discussion above, it is evident that the IRTPA fails to adequately protect civil liberties. It is true that some of the act’s provisions are clear in their intent to guarantee civil liberties. For example, mandating the appointment of privacy and civil liberties officers is aimed at ensuring that government operations are in line with constitutional requirements. However, since they serve in federal agencies, these officers are compromised and cannot be trusted to defend civil liberties. It appears that the IRTPA was primarily designed to empower law enforcement agencies in their counter-terrorism efforts. As they become empowered, these agencies gain the authority to spy on Americans and strip them of other civil liberties. If the drafters of the IRTPA were truly concerned about securing civil liberties, they should have included provisions which clearly limit the powers of agencies. Overall, the IRTPA is inadequate as it does not go far enough in protecting civil liberties.
In conclusion, the US has faced a crisis requiring it to balance the need to protect the country and the importance of preserving civil liberties. The IRTPA is among the initiatives that sought to boost counter-terrorism efforts while protecting civil liberties. The provisions of the act are rather basic. When scrutinized closely, it becomes clear that the act is not an effective tool for ensuring civil liberties. There is an urgent need for the act to be revised. Legislative efforts should be aimed at limiting the powers of federal agencies while empowering the officers in charge of guaranteeing privacy and other civil liberties.
References
Collins, S. M. (2004). Summary of the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004. Retrieved June 5, 2018 from
https://fas.org/irp/congress/2004_rpt/s2845-summ.pdf
Director of National Intelligence (DNI). (n.d). Civil Liberties Privacy Office. Retrieved June 5, 2018 from https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ic-legal-reference-book/intelligence-reform-and-terrorism-prevention-act-of-2004
Letter to Congress regarding conference report on S. 2845, the “intelligence reform and terrorism Prevention act of 2004”. (2004). ACLU. Retrieved June 5, 2018 from https://www.aclu.org/letter/letter-congress-regarding-conference-report-s-2845-intelligence-reform-and-terrorism
Rosenbach, E., & Peritz, A. J. (2009). Intelligence reform. Retrieved June 5, 2018 from https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/intelligence-reform
