Blog Post 5: Another look at the Patriot Act

In my previous post, I talked about the Patriot Act and what it is. This law has been around for quite some time and has gone through some changes. Some of the issues I will mention may not be a problem with the law today. The purpose of this post is to give an overall look at the issues that the Patriot Act has had. I mentioned that this law killed balance in our country. This balance is between national security and civil liberties. There are many issues to address with the Patriot Act since it became law. These issues will illustrate how the Patriot Act destroyed that balance. These issues are threats to the civil liberties we are guaranteed to have by the Constitution. Some of these issues will touch on due process and invasion of privacy.

Jennifer Bergen says that the designation provision authorizes the Attorney General or Secretary of State to designate a foreign organization as a terrorist group. Now these groups are supposed to be funding money and resources to terrorist. The issue is that there was no way to verify whether the designation is just because you cannot challenge or review it. The administrative records can be sealed and because of this, any challenge that could be used is ineffective. According to Jennifer Bergen, if you do manage to bring it to court, the review may not be impartial because review is limited to the District of Columbia Circuit court. There is no way for there to be some sort of oversight. An organization can be designated a terrorist group and they may not even be one. Because it is illegal to support terrorism, this group that has been designated as one could be arrested. These people that are arrested could spend the rest of their lives in jail based on the designation that may not be true. Since it cannot be challenged, due process is not found. Bergen says that because evidence is sealed, there is also another violation of rights, which is the Sixth Amendment right to confront evidence against oneself. How can you confront evidence that is sealed?

The threat to the Fourth Amendment has to do with surveillance and privacy. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA allows the gathering of foreign intelligence information. Because it only applied to foreign intelligence, you would think that the Fourth Amendment was in no danger. But under the Patriot Act, you could become a target. According to Jennifer Bergen, this means that if you speak to a friend or relative in the Middle East and that person gave money at some point to an organization that provides humanitarian aid to a group suspected of ties to terrorism, you are a legitimate target for wire, phone, or computer taps under FISA. This provision authorizes search and seizure of any third-party maintained records, which can be medical, educational and financial. It also allows for records to be obtained without even going to a court to get a warrant. Searches without a warrant were permitted with the Patriot Act to enhance national security. Jennifer Bergen says that all requests for foreign intelligence warrants to tap or search are presented to the FISA Court. This court is a secret court and the existence of such a thing is unheard of. This court would determine all requests by the FBI to wiretap or search a foreign intelligence target. But, the key here is, foreign did not necessarily mean foreigners. The target could be you or me if we were suspected in anyway to be in connection with foreign groups that were designated as a terrorist group. Probable cause is usually criteria for a search, which is ignored. In essence, the government could spy on anyone they pleased as long as they are suspected to be part of terrorism in some way.

National security letters was another issue. Sharla Cook explains that national Security Letters are self-issued subpoenas that allow investigators in terrorism and espionage cases to require phone companies, banks, credit reporting agencies and internet service providers to turn over records on Americans considered "relevant" to an investigation. These letters allowed government agencies to get anything that was needed to protect national security. According to Sharla Cook, they permitted the FBI to obtain sensitive personal records without a court order. This is an extension of the section on privacy issues. Pretty much, national security letters allowed law enforcement the ability to get records and data with ease. This was highly abused by the government to gather information to better combat terrorism. But, the problem is they were spying on people like you and me. Is it really all right to do this type of thing without the proper checks and balances? Some would say that it is just fine because national security is important and we cannot allow another incident like the terrorist attacks on 9/11 to happen again. But, we are invading into the privacy of everyone around us. We have the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure for a reason. The Patriot Act completely bypasses the Constitution and the rights it guarantees us. A good video to check out is linked here click video number four once it has opened.

The Patriot Act gave the executive branch too much power and they abused that power. In the beginning, I believe they needed this power to protect the country and gather more information. This would allow them to better combat terrorism. But, they went too far and the abuse was very apparent. Balance is very important and to have balance you need to have power equally distributed among all branches. This balance of power would also extend to the people. In a democracy, the people have a voice and it must be heard. During the Bush administration, there were a lot of things the people did not like. Regardless of that, the government continued to do whatever they wanted to do. If the proper checks and balances were in effect like they are suppose to be, this would have never happened. This is my solution to the problems with the Patriot Act. Adhere to the rule of law and apply the checks and balances that this country was founded on. To abide by the Constitution and rights that it guarantees to all of us. If the government does these things, I believe a proper balance will be created. This will provide the remedy to the issues that have come from the Patriot Act and the abuse of power by the government.

Works Cited: Bergen, Jennifer Van. The Twilight of Democracy. 2005.

Cook, Sharla. CRJ 132: Violence and Terrorism notes. CSUS. 2009. Chapter 17, Detection and Surveillance, and Detention and Treatment of Prisoners.

PBS Website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

Blog Post 4: The Patriot Act

The Patriot Act is a law that was passed in response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Those attacks shook the very foundation of our country. It made us aware that we were not as safe as we may have thought. It also made us react very quickly to protect ourselves. I will give a description of the Patriot Act to explain what it does. With all this information, we should have a better understanding of this law.

According to the Department of Justice, their first priority is to prevent future terrorist attacks. The Patriot Act has played a key part in protecting Americans from terrorists dedicated to destroying America. The Department of Justice says that Congress simply took existing legal principles and retrofitted them to preserve the lives and liberty of the American people from the challenges posed by a global terrorist network. The purpose of this law is to protect us. The law did this through enhancing national security and limiting civil liberties. This would allow the government to better protect the nation.

The Patriot Act has ten sections to it that outline the new powers that government will have. Title I enhances domestic security. White says it creates funding for counterterrorist activities, expands technical support for the FBI, expands electronic intelligence-gathering research, and defines presidential authority in response to terrorism. Title II is one of the more controversial aspects of the law. It improves the government’s ability to gather electronic evidence. For White, this means that it allows police officials expanded authority to monitor communications. It allows sharing of intelligence with federal agencies. Also, private corporations would have to share their records and data with federal law enforcement. During an investigation, these materials could be seized when it was believed that national security was in jeopardy. Title III empowered federal law enforcement to interact with banking regulators and provides arrest power outside U.S. borders for U.S. agents investigating terrorist financing and money laundering explains White. Title IV increased border patrols and the monitoring of foreigners. It also allowed detention of suspected terrorists. Title V enhanced investigative powers. It provided a reward system, called for sharing of findings among agencies, extended the jurisdiction of the Secret Service, and forced educational institutes to release records on foreign students. Title VI was created to provide compensation to the families of public safety officers killed during a terrorist attack. Title VII focused on police information sharing. This helped in the use of a nationwide police investigative network called the Regional Information Sharing System (RISS) says White. This system was only used in criminal investigations prior to the Patriot Act. Title VIII helped to define what terrorism is by defining terrorist attacks and domestic terrorism. It provided the basis to charge terrorists overseas. It criminalizes support for terrorism and cyber-terrorism, allowed investigation of terrorism rackets and it expanded bio-terrorism laws. The last two titles contain miscellaneous things that do not need to be addressed.

According to White, in 2005, the Patriot Act was scheduled for renewal. The House of Representatives voted to renew it. But, the Senate argued that it was passed too quickly and that many of the provisions expanded governmental authority too far. The Republicans wanted to pass the extension of the Patriot Act, the Democratic Senate leaders wanted to urge caution. Jonathan White says that in 2006, the White House and Congress reached a compromise. As a result, the Patriot Act was approved with new provisions. Some of these new provisions involved the use of legal counsel if one is found to be a suspect of terrorism. When the government seeks information it can be challenged. In a situation of terrorist investigations, suspects and others involved are allowed to talk about it. Regardless of these changes, the Patriot Act still provides a lot of power to the government, especially the executive branch of government. Currently, the Patriot Act is still in effect but I believe that it is going expire at the end of this year.

The Patriot Act is a law that was developed to protect our country. It greatly increased the power of government. The particular branch that got the most out of it was the executive branch of government. At the time, the executive branch had enormous power to defend national security in anyway they saw fit. When you give one branch enormous powers, the balance between the branches is broken. This made it to where civil liberties were put at risk. Making people become a victim of the very law that is suppose to protect us. That is the very reason why changes were made to the law. The idea of trying to balance the situation became an important issue to tackle. With the expiration of the Patriot Act at the end of this year, it will be interesting to see what happens. For me, balance is very important to have and the Patriot Act completely killed that balance.

Work Cited: White, Jonathan R. Terrorism and Homeland Security. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA 2009.

The Department of Justice. What is the Patriot Act. Retrieved from: http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm