Details
See Wikipedia and the full text of the Act for details.
History
The Patriot Act was quickly passed through legislation after the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11th, 2001. Although designed as an effort to protect and enhance investigations of possible terrorism actions, an ongoing debate into the moral and ethical and constitutional implications raised by certain parts of the Patriot Act have kept both fans and foes alike firmly aligned in their respective camps.
Party Positions
Republicans
The Patriot Act Encourages Information Sharing By Breaking Down The Wall Between Law Enforcement And Intelligence.
Before The Patriot Act, Criminal Investigators Were Separated From Intelligence Officers By A Legal And Bureaucratic Wall. The Patriot Act helped tear down this wall, giving law enforcement and intelligence officers the ability to share information, work together, and bring terrorists to justice. Information Sharing Has Made A Difference. Two years ago, FBI agents in Ohio confronted Iyman Faris, and he was charged with providing support to al-Qaida after he, among other things, agreed to take part in a plot to destroy a New York City bridge. The capture came after an investigation that involved more than a dozen agencies in the Southern Ohio Joint Terrorism Task Force that was made possible by the Patriot Act. According to one FBI agent, "The Faris case would not have happened without sharing information. We would never have even had the lead."
The Patriot Act Gave Law Enforcement Agents The Ability To Use Tools Against Terrorists That Are Already Available Against Other Criminals.
The Patriot Act Corrected Pointless Double Standards. Before the Patriot Act, it was easier to use a wiretap against a person committing mail fraud, or track the phone contacts of a drug dealer, or get the credit card receipts of a tax cheat, than to use these respective tools against a foreign terrorist. Roving Wiretaps Are Essential In Investigating International Terrorists. The Patriot Act extended the use of roving wiretaps, which were already permitted against drug kingpins and mob bosses, to international terrorism investigations. They must be approved by a judge. Without roving wiretaps, terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone.
The Patriot Act Brings The Law Into The 21st Century By Giving Law Enforcement Agents The Tools They Need To Fight New Kinds Of Crimes.
The Patriot Act Updates The Law To Meet New Threats Like Computer Espionage And Cyber Terrorism. One common-sense provision allows Internet providers, without fear of being sued, to give information to law enforcement when it would help law enforcement prevent a threat of death or serious injury.
Democrats
For
Security
Against
Civil Liberties
Critics of the "Patriot" act take issue with powers granted by the act that have no defined limits. Such open ended powers allow abuse by individuals working in the government and to do so even for self serving purposes or towards amassing further powers.
Specific examples of contested powers
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution establishes ...
- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The "National Security Letter"
- Within the Patriot Act is a “National Security Letter” provision that authorizes the FBI to demand records without prior court approval. Anyone who receives an NSL is forbidden, or “gagged,” from telling anyone about the record demand.
- Since the Patriot Act was authorized in 2001, it has relaxed restrictions on the FBI’s use of the power, and the number of NSLs issued has seen a hundred-fold increase to 30,000 annually.
- Without appropriate checks on law enforcement, the FBI and other government agencies retain the power to seek the personal records of ordinary Americans. NSL secrecy rules deny our leaders and all Americans critical firsthand information that could, and should, influence the public debate on the Patriot Act and the NSL authority itself. Source - ACLU
The First Amendment to the US Constitution establishes that ...
- Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to ... petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
General Discussion
[see Discussion tab]
Perspectives
(Share your feedback about this section's format/content on the discussion page!)
As a way of starting a deeper conversation around the PATRIOT Act, please post your "Perspective" below. This will give us a clear structure for looking at all the diverse and interesting perspectives we all hold. Each Perspective should be formatted as follows:
"I am _______, and I believe _______."
EXAMPLE: "I am a student, and I believe we should repeal the PATRIOT Act."
EXAMPLE: "I am a businessman, and I believe this is an important way to protect our national interests."
EXAMPLE: "I am an environmental activist, and believe this opens the door to target those engaged in non-violent resistance."
Let's keep this civil, thoughtful and friendly... and have fun!
What's YOUR perspective?
Remember to "sign" your comment with four tildes
- I am a psychology student and i believe that the Patriot Act should only be Used when the Majority of the population approves (Making the general population aware before rather than during or after) and its eaves dropping is watched/maintained by atleast two groups that would be temporarily elected : a) Those in Favor and b) Those against.
- I am a Technology student and I believe that the Patriot Act is the most privately intrusive act established in my lifetime and that it should be dismantled.
- I am a CS student, and I believe the Patriot Act is a danger to our civil liberties and sets a precedent for irresponsible government(most congresscritters did not even read it before voting on it), as well as establishing security as more important than liberty which will only serve to erode our rights in the name of the never ending war on terror.
- I am an Engineer, and I think that the Patriot Act is a very dangerous set of powers rolled in with some good and necessary changes. The increased interaction of different security organizations is good, but the removals of checks and balances by the Judicial branch of government is dangerous indeed. Granting more and more power to a single branch of government is a very very dangerous slippery slope to walk along. The act should be repealed, and the good parts of it replaced with targeted laws. Kbal11 17:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am a natural-born U.S. citizen and I love the U.S.A. and wish to preserve it government. I suspect that wikipedia:Sherman Austin submitted to a plea bargain to avoid the possibility of spending much of his adult life in jail because of this Act. -- 67.119.194.210 19:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am an italian student of C.S. and i believe that the PATRIOT Act with the heavvy control of the information by small group of people (like here in Italy, btw) and the lies of your government (brainwashing style) have really reduced democracy in your country. In my opinion patriotism is not too far away from nationalism, that can lead, with an accurate production of fear elements, to a regime with only economic purposes. Sorry for my bad english. -- Fstab 08:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am an european sociology student with double nationality (U.S. & Belgian) and I strongly believe the patriot act is one of the many steps on a road that leads from a democracy with real freedoms to a totalitarian state with hollow freedoms. Even now already, citizens concerned about potentially illegal activities of the governement that concern millions of people get bullied by their own president. [1]
- I am a Canadian IT student, and I believe that the PATRIOT act is a danger to every US citizen. It also makes me concerned now that a new Concervative government has taken power in Canada, that they might try to pull something similar.
- I am a proud American, yet I strongly disapprove of much of what goes on in our goverment today. I would be quite willing to give up some rights for the net benefit of our country's security. Yes, some parts of the act may seem radical, and some may seem insane, yet new attacks on our country require new types of defenses. I am critical, however, of how the country uses the knowledge that it collects - aka. it does not use most of it since the data collected is often worthless.