The U.S.A. Patriot Act, also called The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Obstruct Terrorism Act, is one of the most controversial pieces of legislation to come after the attacks on America.  Many criticisms against the U.S.A. Patriot Act have recently inspired debate. One criticism is the lack of due process of law[1] for detainees, or people suspected of terrorist activity. This criticism arose from the detention of individuals with expired visas that were detained for an indefinite amount of time; however, none of those one thousand violators were ever charged with any involvement with terrorist activity, nor were their names disclosed for the public[2].  Anthony D. Romero, executive of the American Civil Liberties Union, also discussed many flaws in the document. He broadly defines terrorism as “activities dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws” and continues to explain domestic terrorism when he defines it as “they appear to be intended to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion.”[3]  Romero argues that this definition is so broad that organized, peaceful protestors could be charged as terrorists[4].  He also disagrees with the indefinite detention described in the act because it does not leave room for judicial review to act as a buffer against abuse by executive officials[5]. Putting violators of expired visas in custody without access to lawyers or trials leaves the judicial branch powerless to protect people from abuses of executive power.

Romero also opposes the expanded wire tap authority, because law enforcement is not required to specify the phone that they are going to tap or that only the conversations on which they eavesdrop[6].   Kathleen Sullivan[7], dean of Stafford Law School, agrees with Romero. She mentions that the three largest negative tendencies in the act are “… proposed use of technology that tend in the direction of general searches…, the measures that require us to make personal data more readily available to the government, and the measures that make it easier for the government to spy on us by lowering the justification for surveillance”[8].

            Those in favor of the U.S.A. Patriot act believe that in wake of the attacks on September 11, Americas should be willing to relinquish some freedoms in the name of safety.  Charen, a conservative, states “What liberals are urging is that suspected terrorists, here or abroad, be accorded the full panoply of rights we give to ordinary criminal defendants.”[9]  She believes that those suspected of terrorism, even though not proven guilty, do not deserve the same rights as any other criminal.  Those for protection of civil liberties disagree with this because this attitude goes against the American principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”   Another argument she asserts is that “the war powers of the presidency, long respected by the courts, permit special action in the case of war.”[10]  Although the president does possess the power to declare war, with congressional approval, and act as commander and chief of the military, he also should respect the rights of individuals in the policies he chooses to support.  Also, those in agreement with giving up liberties argue that it is important to make the job of law enforcement as easy as possible when trying to catch terrorists.  They believe it is okay to lower the standards, as done in the Patriot Act, to catch criminals if it will make law enforcement’s job easier.[11]  All can agree that it is ideal for law enforcement to catch all possible terrorists, and that this is what the American people want, but lowering standards in searches is not the way to do this. Instead, training law enforcement with new tactics and different skills may possibly do a better job. 

A possible tool in helping catch terrorists would be a national ID card. Alan M. Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard Law, argues “First, we already require photo ID’s for many activities, including flying, driving, drinking and cash checking. And fingerprints differ from photographs only in that they are harder to fake…A national card would be uniform and difficult to alter. It would reduce the likelihood that someone could, intentionally or not, get lost in the cracks of multiple bureaucracies.”[12] This idea is just one of the many ways we can improve our security while avoiding unconstitutional methods such as racial profiling and lowering standards for searches as done in the Patriot Act. 

The U.S.A. Patriot Act is not the best way to protect our nation and is a symbol of a new American mentality regarding liberty.  This act, so quickly passes after September 11^th, is one of the most debated Acts to come out of the attacks on America.  As United States citizens, it is our job to make sure that our liberties are protected and acts such as this one that deny us that freedom, are abolished.  There are alternatives to the Act that should be discussed and new innovations offered to improve our security.  

Previous             Home             Next