Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and never necessarily reflect the views of LawTeacher.
The USA PATRIOT Act (Patriot Act) was established after September 11, 2001 (9/11) when terrorists attacked the United States.
The Patriot Act has raised many concerns about whether or not it infringes on the civil liberties of those of the nation. Looking back in history, our past presidents developed laws that were the stone that is stepping the ideas that developed the Patriot Act. The government’s job is to protect the social people, however it has a bigger job which can be to protect the world. It has raised issues that are many the Patriot Act and whether or perhaps not it really is more detrimental to us than it really is helpful. The american people should be concerned with how much power our government has when developing laws governing our civil liberties in relation to the Patriot Act and how it deprives those accused under it of Constitutional rights.
On 11, 2001 the United States (US) experienced the unthinkable when terrorists attacked the country on its own soil september. This is a serious eye opener or do I need to say reality search for the united states. The usa has some of the most extremely sophisticated counter intelligence in the field but was unable to prevent such a tragedy. Why didn’t it is seen by them coming? Plenty of thing would be today that is different that question could half been answered ahead of 9/11.
<
This act was compiled from two documents, the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) through the House of Representatives (House) in addition to Uniting and Strengthening American (USA) Act through the Senate, was merged together creating the Patriot Act. According to Lemieux, previous laws that are developed by previous presidents have a glimpse at the hyperlink to solve conflicts were just like the Patriot Act they simply had different names Lemieux, M. (n.d.). Reputation for the USA Patriot Act. Retrieved April 9, 2011, from http://www.constitutiondenied.com/Media/History-Patriot-Act.pdf. The Aliens and Sedition Act of 1798 was created throughout the pugilative war with France as the US was afraid for the country therefore the people and desired to ensure that the enemy would not sleep amongst us. Using this power the president managed to have anyone that was believed to be a threat to the government would be arrested and deported. During the Civil War the president suspended Habeas Corpus when it comes to safety great things about the country, giving the us government the power to imprison someone without sufficient evidence. The President ordered over 10,000 American citizens that had not shown any disloyalty into the united states of america into confinement camps simply because they were of Japanese descent Lemieux, M. (n.d.) during World War II. History of the USA Patriot Act. Retrieved 9, 2011, from http://www.constitutiondenied.com/Media/History-Patriot-Act.pdf april. These are the stepping stone behind the development of the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act had become as an answer to your tragic events of 9/11. The bill that will turned out to be known as the Patriot Act was introduced to Congress just days after 9/11. It absolutely was revised due to concerns from many congressmen that the balance allowed for too broad of a scope of power to federal authorities. Eventually after the bill was revised and reintroduced, Congress passed it with little to no opposition on 26, 2001 october. Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI), would up being the senator that is only vote from the Patriot Act. Even though the Patriot Act did not enter into existence until after 9/11, it does have roots in earlier legislation. On April 25, 1996, President Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act into law. The balance with this law was introduced following the Oklahoma City Bombing. The most important provision associated with act managed to make it illegal to give support that is“material to any organization banned because of the state dept.. The balance was greatly criticized by Republicans for granting an excessive amount of capacity to authorities. The balance had to undergo major modifications before it absolutely was passed in 1996. The balance that finished up becoming law was said to be a “watered down version” of this original that President Clinton wanted passed. Strangely enough, it was this act that has been broadened and revamped to create the Patriot Act (Creative Commons, n.d.).
Since becoming law, the Patriot Act has been highly criticized for being extremely broad and too open for interpretation. In 2004, a judge ruled that parts of the Patriot Act were unconstitutional because they were too vague plus in violation of this First and Fifth Amendments. Another criticism for the Patriot Act is the fact that it will not guarantee enough oversight to make sure that those that are given power by the act do not misuse it. On March 9, 2006 President Bush signed the Patriot Act Reauthorization, but attached a statement that is signing that he said which he would ignore specific mandates printed in the bill that would give more judicial and Congressional oversight to agencies authorized use of the act. The Attorney General at the time, requesting to have the administration rescind the signing statement since they do not have force of law in late March, letters were written to Alberto Gonzales. In those letters, they cited Article 1, Section 7 of this Constitution which states that ‘Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives plus the Senate, shall, if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall send it back. before it become a Law, be presented to the President of this United States;’ Alberto Gonzales and President Bush both ignored the letters and never responded. Their argument was that the president could not change legislation that had been passed by Congress and say which he did not agree with that he would ignore part of it. On December 10, 2007, an appeals court upheld the 2004 ruling that parts of the Patriot Act were unconstitutional. Into the ruling, the court stated that a statute must provide for an individual of average intelligence to be able to see and understand the law. They found that certain areas of the act were too vague. They concluded that then the average person would not know if they were committing a crime (Creative Commons, n.d.) if the law was worded in a way that the average person could not understand,.
Even though many think that our threat that is terrorist from countries is great, there is also the fear of terrorist attacks regarding the US by its own citizens. The Oklahoma City Bombing is a tragic example. In some cases, there clearly was a need for the government to suspect an American citizen and do surveillance to safeguard the nation from another tragedy that is such. The federal government happens to be doing espionage work for longer than a lot of people think. It isn’t a new practice, however with the technology we have today, it is easier for authorities to collect intelligence. And even though they will have this technology at their disposal that will not imply that the Constitution could be ignored into the name of protecting the US.
An example associated with the Patriot Act being used in such a real way is within the case of Jose Padilla.
He was a Puerto Rican born citizen who later in his life changed into Islam. He traveled for the Middle East and allegedly plotted with al Qaeda terrorists to detonate a “dirty bomb” in a US city. As soon he was detained as he stepped off a plane in the United States. The Bush Administration claimed which he could possibly be detained even though he was an American citizen because he previously been deemed an “enemy combatant” by the president. He had been then held in a brig that is military three . 5 years and was allegedly subjected to torture at the hands of US officials attempting to elicit information from him. At that moment, he was not faced with any crimes even though it was said there is overwhelming evidence against him. He was also cut off from all communication together with family and attorney (Martinez, 2007).