Introduction
There are a number of reasons that legislatures in various countries implement Acts and laws meant to aid in the governing and maintenance of order. In the relation to the PATRIOT Act, a synonym for Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, America was responding to the unexpected attack on its land and its people on the 11th September of 2001. Considering that the terror attack had a pronounced impact to every aspect of the country including its foreign relationships with other nations and the economy, America had to take crucial steps to curb future terror activities on its people and the entire nation. Despite the efforts put forward in ensuring that the country is secure from both domestic and international terrorism attacks, the PATRIOT Act remains controversial and is a base for misunderstandings between Congress members (Rosenbach & Peritz, 2009).
The Origins and Development of the Patriot Act
Originally known as the USA-PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act), the Patriot Act was signed into law few weeks after the 911 attack by President George W. Bush. Following the refusal of the Congress to support the proposed Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 by President Bill Clinton meant to deal with issues of domestic terrorism; they had no choice but to settle for Patriot Act after the terror attack. The main reason for turning down the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 was because it required accessing every file, records, and documents of a suspected terrorist. To most Congress members this was a violation of some key Bill of Rights of most Americans considering it targeted domestic terrorism. Ironically, without opposition and a bipartisan support, the Patriot Act went through. Just like the former Act proposed by Bill, the Patriot Act entail the ability for intelligence agencies and law-enforcers to have power in surveillance and search. Consequently, the Act has had an impact on the transformation and changes of other decrees that are related to the telecommunication, internet, and other forms of electronic communications. Some of the significant laws that were amended in relation to the Patriot Act include the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The primary target of the Patriot Act is to ensure that incidences of terrorism are monitored and hindered before occurring through the authority of surveillance and of suspected individuals or agencies. As a result, the Wiretap was amended to accommodate the needs of the Patriot Act of ensuring that through a court order, the authorities involved can have access and eavesdropping on the telephones, electronic communications, or face-to-face of terrorism suspects (Abramson & Godoy, 2005).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Controversial Provisions of the Patriot Act
Considering that America as a nation has all the responsibility to protect its soil and citizens at all costs, the implementation of various laws tend to clash with existing ones or the ideologies, belief and values of various individuals and agencies. While the Patriot Act is geared to fight and protect Americans against all forms of terrorism, its implementation has created numerous controversies which have been a reason for the disconnection with other existing laws. For instance, organizations like the American Civil Liberties argue that the Patriot Act is a menace to the rights and civil liberties of the American people. While, terrorism is a security issue that requires serious allocations of the law and its enforcers, the move that the Patriot Act follows tends to have several unconstitutional aspects as argued by most critics (SFGATE, 2003).
One of the vital provisions of the Patriot Act is the fact that investigative agents and law enforcers have the authority to access files, medical records, electronic information, and DNA evidence of suspected terrorism suspects without their consent and knowledge because of the involvement of a secret court. Considering that the handling of terrorism issues is sensitive, the move of investigators to be discreet both for their safety and that of the entire nation, this move is a violation of the Fourth Amendment that protects the privacy of individuals. As elaborated by Jonathan Kim (2017), it is the right of every citizen and individuals in the soil of America to feel safe in their properties and therefore unwarranted searches and seizures shall not be conducted with no probable cause. The controversy evident in the Patriot Act bestowed on investigators is the fact that a suspect cannot be informed of the intended search despite the fact that they are protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Another evident controversial provision of the Patriot Act is the fact that a number of statutes have had to undergo immense amendments primarily to accommodate it. On the other hand, the freedom of speech and that of the press is violated on the course of unwarranted searches. Considering that the secrecy of investigation promotes the hindrance of possible jeopardy of arresting terrorists and having access to the relevant information, it has breached the First Amendments where specific authorities have the power to change the law in respect to particular establishments – in this case, international terrorism. As in the case of the Foreign Intelligence Wiretaps provision, investigators have access to essential information in relation to the case of terrorism in question. On the contrary, it is possible for involved investigators to abuse the authority allocated to them. According to critics, such abuses are hard to allocate since these intelligence activities are done in secret. Therefore, denies justice to affected individuals including the suspects.
Since the 911 attack, America has been on the lookout. It has also partnered with various foreign nations to deal with the issues of terrorism. The Patriot Act has been effective considering that there has been no international terrorist attack despite the threats. It is, therefore, a need for the country to consider working out ways in which domestic terrorism which is on the rise to be deterred.
Conclusion
Security is an essential liberty and rights entitled to every American citizen. The law enforcers and legislatures have the responsibility to facilitate and ensure that their citizens are secured from all sorts of harm. As a result, the implementation of particular laws has been a key move to ensure that the country is secured. The Patriot Act focuses on the need to deal with terrorism. While its existences, brought up hitches and controversies in various ways, it has helped in the protection of American people from various international terrorist attacks.
References
Abramson, L., & Godoy, M. (2005, December 31). The Patriot Act: Key Controversies . Retrieved November 21, 2018, from National Public Radio: https://www.npr.org/news/specials/patriotact/patriotactdeal.html
Kim, J. (2017, June). Fourth Amendment . Retrieved November 21, 2018, from Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment
Rosenbach, E., & Peritz, A. J. (2009, July). The USA-PATRIOT Act . Retrieved November 21, 2018, from Belfer Center: https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/usa-patriot-act
SFGATE. (2003, September 10). Key Provisions of the USA Patriot Act . Retrieved November 21, 2018, from SFGATE: https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Key-provisions-of-the-USA-Patriot-Act-2590084.php
