The surge in terrorism activities has forced nations to reconsider and restructure the existing legislation related to national security. The infamous 9/11 terrorist attack, in particular, forced the US government to enact legislation that would seal the existing security loopholes. The most notable enactment is the USA PATRIOT Act, an acronym Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. The Act, which became effective on October 26, 2001, aimed to tighten the US national security to curb foreign terrorism. Notably, the Act permitted law enforcement agencies to listen to domestic and international telephone conversations to intercept terrorist plans and attacks. Similarly, the Act enhanced interagency communication, thus allowing for effective use of resources by federal agencies in countering terrorism. So far, the Act has been successful, considering that national security agencies have managed to disrupt terrorism plans, apprehend suspects and convict them. Nonetheless, the Act has had significant societal implications, primarily when law enforcement agencies rely on existing stereotypes to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights.
Societal Implications of the USA PATRIOT Act and Related Legislation that Limit Daily Behaviors
The USA PATRIOT Act has significant effects on immigrant rights, national security, and civil rights, thus limiting and interfering with individuals' daily behaviors. Essentially, the law provides law enforcement agencies with more leeway to develop and effect antiterrorism policies. These policies mean that these agencies can monitor, apprehend, and detain citizens who have been suspected of being linked to or sympathizing with individuals or organizations tied to terrorism. This nature of leeway means that individuals have to be keen about what they say or talk with to avoid being categorized as a terrorist. The Act empowers the government to conduct surveillance in four areas which are intelligence, secret, records and trap, and trace searches (Tauber, 2019). These searches mean that the government can search private property, communications, and documents without necessarily giving notice to the owner.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Act nullifies fundamental human rights in the US constitution, most notably privacy considering that the government can access personal records that third parties are holding. Notably, Section 215 of the Act guarantees the FBI to force libraries, doctors, universities, internet providers, and bookstores to provide clients' records and confidential information. This provision means that people can no longer claim to be free in their nation, neither can they trust the government with their confidential information. Liu & Doyle (2015) note that the Act paves the way for unchecked power if the government is free to go through one's medical history, library usage, internet usage, travel patterns, and all activities that involve records. Such a provision means that individuals will be forced to adopt a different approach to their daily lives not to become the target for government surveillance. This assertion is because surveillance orders may be based on the websites one has visited, books they read, messages they write, or places they often visit.
The Act contradicts the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments that guarantee fairness in the due process through the indefinite detention of non-citizens. The problem with this detention is that the government is not required to provide evidence that the suspects are gets of a foreign power. This provision disenfranchises the judiciary, considering that the government does not prove that the detainment meets statutes' criteria. More so, judges cannot reject applications to detain individuals suspected of being affiliated with terror groups. According to Rajah (2019), such a provision means that citizens and non-citizens alike conduct their daily activities with caution since their freedoms are no longer guaranteed. Overall, this Act forces citizens to adopt entirely new behaviors at their homes, schools, workplaces, streets because they do not know when they will become terror suspects.
Concerns Related to Race, Ethnicity, Gender, Age, and Religion as They Relate to Law Enforcement and Security Services
The PATRIOT Act was enacted to allow security agencies to conduct surveillance on national and foreign communications and, in this way, disrupt possible terrorist attacks. The Act was aimed at applying to all citizens equally since this would make it more effective in the war against terror. In retrospect, this Act disproportionately targets specific groups based on their ethnicity, race, age, gender, or religion. Race and ethnicity are some of the most notable factors that security agencies rely on while determining the individuals that they will target in their surveillance operations. Nielson (2017) notes that racial profiling is not a new concept considering it has been there since slavery, where slaves would be executed if they failed to produce a pass. Similarly, the FBI relies on racial profiling to target ethnic minorities in their enforcement and surveillance efforts outlined in the PATRIOT Act. This targeting has paved the way for a surge in hate crimes, with minority ethnicities being viewed as a threat to national security.
Section 102 of the PATRIOT Act is crucial in this dialogue, considering it condemns discrimination against Muslims and Arab Americans. While this provision points to a nation determined to achieve national unity, it paves the way for discrimination on religious grounds when implementing the Act. Welch (2016) asserts that the PATRIOT Act's policies have generated have perpetuated and normalized associating Islam with terrorism. This association means that security agencies are more likely to conduct intensive surveillance on Muslims than others who subscribe to other religions. Recent reports on the allegations provided by the Act indicate that most of the complaints are made by Muslim Americans. The victims claim that they are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement agencies who beat and abuse them while claiming to implement the Act. Similarly, financial institutions are quick to blacklist Muslims held accounts, which is considered an extreme interpretation of the Act. These institutions engage in such actions because the victims' names match those that appear on the government's master list. While this action may be justified in pursuit of national security, these institutions must confirm with the account beholders before denying them the services that they deserve.
Law enforcement and security agencies are obligated to protect the rights of all Americans despite their gender and age. The PATRIOT Act was an opportunity for these agencies to prove that they can maintain national security in an era marked by a surge in terrorism activities. However, these agencies apply the provisions therein disproportionality by targeting the youth and men they consider more prone to engage in terrorist activities. Young adults ranging from 18 to 25 years are victims of media and political rhetoric that links them to terror acts, especially if they are drawn from minority groups (Welch, 2019). The advancement of this rhetoric increases the likelihood of being placed under intense surveillance, thus impacting their interactions and relationships. Overall, the PATRIOT Act has become a tool for advancing institutionalized racism and ageism as it targets individuals from minority groups. Law enforcement agencies and services depict high levels of bias since they have been made to believe that citizens from minority groups are more likely to enhance in crime to deal with rampant inequality.
The Impact of Technology and Globalization on the Balance of Individual Rights and Public Safety
Technological advancement and globalization are significant factors in the national security discourse since they either hamper or improve security agencies' ability to fight terrorism. The PATRIOT Act is a technology-enabled undertaking considering it empowers security agencies to intercept national and foreign communications. Thus, an investment in effective technology ensures that these agencies do not miss out on any information that could arrest suspects or disrupt planned attacks. However, the application of modern technologies to achieve this objective interferes with individuals' right to privacy due to eavesdropping on the government. According to Rajah (2019), the PATRIOT Act is the most blatant breach of one's constitutional rights since individuals have to adopt new behaviors to avoid being labeled as terror suspects. In retrospect, technology may hamper efforts to maintain national security, especially if terrorist organizations revert to cyberterrorism. Marsili (2019) notes that cyberterrorism is a new form of threat where criminal elements intrude into government computer systems and retrieve crucial intelligence. Essentially, terrorists rely on sophisticated technologies to establish security loopholes that they exploit, thus facilitating terror attacks.
Globalization which has been facilitated by technological advancement, is an essential factor that moderates against public safety and individual rights. The US is mainly in a peculiar position as a global powerhouse and its stand on terrorism, meaning that it is prone to terror attacks. Tauber & Banks (2019) note that its unique position means that people worldwide move to this nation for economic and educational progression. The surge in immigrants moving into this country creates a dilemma since the country has to promote its rights and maintain public safety. This reality means that law enforcement and security services would be forced to forego individual rights to protect most citizens. Thus, the PATRIOT Act provisions become the most effective framework that the government uses to disproportionally scrutinize immigrants and foreigners since they pose serious security threats. However, globalization has helped promote individual rights in an era of increased government scrutiny thanks to civil societies that function across borders. Thus, the US government may be forced to factor in individual rights while conducting surveillance as espoused in international human rights agencies.
The Influence of Domestic and International Terrorism as it Relates to Government Agencies and Private Security
Terrorism, whether domestic or international, is a source of concern, considering that it disrupts national security and negatively impacts a nation's productivity and growth. The infamous 9/11 terrorist attack is an example of the devastating effects that are associated with terrorism. Apart from financial losses, terrorism causes the loss of lives and livelihoods, slowing a country's economic growth and stability. Nations experiencing perennial terrorism such as Iraq and Baghdad have lowered gross domestic product per capita due to instability. Similarly, citizens have to move to refugee camps meaning that they would not be able to engage in sustainable activities (Lai, 2017). Moreover, terrorism, whether domestic or international, disrupts and destroys crucial infrastructural networks that support the local and global economies. As a result, governments are forced to use a significant portion of budgetary allocations to repair them instead of investing in projects with more economic value.
Countries under threat of terrorist attacks such as the US face unique challenges while defending their national and international interests. Notably, the US is the largest military spender globally, considering that it spent $778 billion in 2020, 39% of the total global budget (Szmigiera, 2021). This money goes into procuring and developing ultra-modern equipment and technologies capable of conducting global surveillance to intercept attacks. The budget goes towards funding international military missions in pursuit of a world that is free of terrorism. There are thousands of US soldiers in conflict zones worldwide, an undertaking that severs family ties and social cohesion. The money spent on military activities and intelligence collection indicate that the fight against terrorism is costly. This money could have been used to improve the well-being of American citizens through funding critical economic projects. Overall, terrorism in all its forms is associated with negative social, economic, and political impacts considering that it disrupts public peace and safety.
Conclusion
Law enforcement and security agencies face a dilemma while balancing between public safety and promoting individual rights that have been enshrined in the US constitution. The 9/11 attack forced the US Congress to enact a law that would ensure that its security agencies would have the right to collect intelligence to revert future attacks. The US PATRIOT Act, the resultant legislation, has been received with mixed reactions, considering that the provisions therein contravenes civil liabilities. Notably, this Act gives the government the power to conduct surveillance on all domestic and foreign communications. This surveillance is crucial since it helps security agencies to eavesdrop, meaning that there is a likelihood of intercepting attacks before they happen. Similarly, the Act empowers the US government to request documents, web searches, and medical histories from third parties without consent from customers and clients. While these provisions guarantee US citizens of public security, it is criticized for violating their right to privacy and speech. Racial profiling, which targets American Muslims and other minority groups, is the most outright form of discrimination that PATRIOT ACT has propagated. Financial institutions are on record for blacklisting American Muslim account holders for having similar names with individuals on the US crime watch list. The disproportionate application of the PATRIOT Act points to a nation that is willing to fight terrorism but uses the wrong approach. Meanwhile, terrorist groups invest in high-end technologies to infiltrate the government computer system to establish vulnerabilities. This reality means there is a need to review the Act to ensure that there is a balance between citizens' civil liberties and public safety.
References
Lai, B. (2017). Terrorism and foreign policy . Oxford University Press.
Liu, E. C., & Doyle, C. (2015). Government collection of private information: Background and issues related to the USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization in brief . Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R44042.pdf
Marsili, M. (2019). The war on cyberterrorism. Democracy and Security, 15 (2), 172-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/17419166.2018.1496826
Nielson, E. (2017). I am not a terrorist: Racial profiling in a post-9/11 world. Journal of Global Peace and Conflict, 5 (2), 15-38. https://doi.org/10.15640/jgpc.v5n2a2
Rajah, J. (2019). Law, politics and populism in the USA PATRIOT Act . Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 26 (1), 61-86. https://doi.org/10.2979/indjglolegstu.26.1.0061
Szmigiera, M. (2021, May 7). Countries with the highest military spending worldwide in 2020 . Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/
Tauber S., & Banks, C.P. (2019). Civil rights and liberties with national security. In Shor E., and Hoadley, S. (eds) International human rights and counter-terrorism (pp. 451-471). Springer.
Welch, K. (2016). Middle Eastern terrorist stereotypes and anti-terror policy support: The effect of perceived minority threat . Race and Justice, 6 (2), 117-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368715590478
Welch, K. (2019). Race, ethnicity, and the war on terror. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 13 (4), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.335
