Against Patriot Act of 2001

Against the Patriot Act of 2001

What is the Patriot Act of 2001? The Act was passed in order to unite and strengthen the United States of America by providing all the appropriate and the necessary tools with which to fight terrorism. The President George W. Bush signed the Act on October 26th in 2001, after the devastating terrorist attacks that occurred on the nerve center of the United States of America, the World Trade Center, on September 11, 2001. (USA Patriot Act) These terrorist acts were a cleverly coordinated series of attacks on the Pentagon, which is the Headquarters of the Department of Defense of the United States of America and holds more than 23,000 civilian as well as military employees, and also more than 3,000 non-defense personnel, and on the World Trade Center, which is the center of global commerce that is responsible for providing network access to several large Corporations and to the government. It is also known as the business shopping center of a country, as it is in the United States. (The Pentagon)

The attack was carried out on September 11, and this was the first time that a foreign force had succeeded, and very well so, in attacking the mainland of the U.S.A., since the year 1814, when the famous war between Great Britain and America was fought, called the British-American War. The terrorist attack left more than 3,000 innocent persons dead, a toll that in fact exceeded that of the number of dead during the attacks on Pearl Harbor carried out by Japanese on American troops posted in Hawaii in the year 1941, and that in fact led to the entry of America into the Second World War in 1941. The strategy of the terrorists was to at first hijack four commercial airliners that were at the time of the attack filled up with jet fuel, nearly 24,000 gallons. (September11 2001, Terrorist Attacks) Once this was carried out, the flights became literal flying bombs, and two of these aircrafts were rammed into the two 110 stories high towers of the World Trade Center (World Trade Center) located in the city of New York, one flight onto the Pentagon in Virginia, (The Pentagon) and the fourth one crashed into an open field in Pennsylvania.

The number of people who died was 3,000, and quite a few important buildings were also destroyed completely or damaged partially, including the two towers of the World Trade Center that were totally damaged. In addition, five other buildings were destroyed; a subway station close to the twin towers was destroyed, and numerous buildings were destroyed in the Island of Manhattan and in Washington, the Pentagon was partially damaged by fire while another part collapsed. Soon after the attacks, the United States Government decided that the unit responsible for the terrorist attacks was the fundamentalist Islamic Organization, the 'Al-Quaeda' that had carried out similar terrorist attacks in the past under its leader, Osama bin Laden. This in turn led to the so-called 'war on terrorism' carried out by the United States on Afghanistan in October2001, then the invasion of Iraq in the year 2003, and the United States increased pressure on terrorism and terrorists and plans to cut down on the countries and the governments that encourage and harbor such terrorists in their midst in the civilized world of today. Security issues gained predominance and the Department of Homeland Security, a Cabinet level Federal Agency, was created in order to deal with these issues. (September11 2001, Terrorist Attacks)

The Patriot Act was passed as a result of the governmental increase in domestic security, and the Act states in detail that the United States of America will henceforth be protected from devastating terrorist attacks by deterring and severely punishing the offenders not only in America but also all over the world, and also for the purpose of enhancing the various investigatory tools that can be used by America in its fight against terrorism, to obstruct and prevent terrorism, as and where necessary. Under Title 1 of the Act, the means of increasing security against terrorism are included. These are as follows: there will be an anti-terrorism fund formed, and also a fund for the purpose of forming a technical support center for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Military assistance could be requested whenever necessary so that prohibition could be enforced in certain types of emergency situations, the National Electronic crime Task Force Initiative would be expanded, and the Presidential authority and stamp of approval would be available in the fight against terrorism campaign. (H. R. 3162 in the Senate of the United States)

Under Title II of the U.S.A. Patriot Act, enhanced surveillance procedures that would be made available to the governmental authorities in their fight against terrorism are detailed. These are: the government agencies involved would be granted the right as well as the authority to intercept and seize all types of communications related to terrorism, whether they were wire, or oral communications or even electronic. Similarly, the concerned authorities can seize these communications when computer fraud or any types of abuse are detected. Such criminal investigative the authorities can share information whenever necessary, and the FBI can employ such language translators as are necessary in their interpretations of certain communications by suspected terrorists. In addition, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed in the year 1978 allows 'roving surveillance' activities by a team of investigators when necessary.

Voice mail messages can be captured prior to the arrest of an individual, and subpoenas can be issued for the seizure of electronic communications, and these can be disclosed in certain emergency situations in order to 'protect life and limb'. Records and such items can be seized for investigative purposes under the FISA Act, and 'pen register' and also certain 'tap and trace' devices can be utilized by the concerned authorities. Computer trespasser communications, as well as foreign intelligence communications can be apprehended, and single-jurisdiction search warrants can be issued for suspected terrorists. (H. R. 3162 in the Senate of the United States) This comprehensive and complete Act was passed without much debate, just 45 days after the terrorist attack carried out by the Al-Qaeda group of Islamic militant fundamentalists on the United States of America, leaving thousands dead and many buildings completely destroyed, and losses amounting to more than just a few millions of dollars.

It may be true that the United States of America did feel the need for the passage of such an Act, but is it really as good as it is touted to be, and is it effective in controlling and curtailing terrorism and all its related activities, and how are the public affected by such an Act? There are many different and varied opinions on the subject. One individual opines that the Patriot Act has in fact taken away all the checks and the boundaries of law enforcement agencies. In fact, the very freedom and security that the Act purports to be protecting has become lost in its working and in its legislation because what it actually does is grant more access to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to pry and ferret out the most basic information from the private citizen of America; the Agency has been granted the right to access and invade all hitherto private information of the individual, such as medical papers, library records, student records, and other similar information. Furthermore, all this information can be accessed without even informing the person and that individual will continue his daily life without even being aware of the invasion of his privacy that had occurred.

To add insult to injury, the American government is considering the introduction of a sequel to the first Patriot Act of 2001, and this, many citizens feel, would further make life a misery as the feeling of privacy and freedom would be further invaded by the concerned authorities in the name of the law. The ACLU has been registering its protests against the Act by stating that the American Congress should have taken the time to consider whether the granting of more power to law enforcement authorities would accomplish the stated goal of fighting against terrorism; they insist that the privacy of the American citizen would be eroded by such measures, and that the Congress should have taken the fact that the Patriot Act is in reality violating the Constitutional rights of the individual before passing it. It must be re-examined, they say, in a manner that would be in keeping with the key constitutional protections that is the basic right of every citizen of the United States of America. (USA Patriot Act: American civil Liberties Union)

The provision of the patriot Act that details the anti-terrorism legislation 'Uniting and strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism' serves to limit the judicial supervision of electronic surveillance by these methods: the private Internet communications of an individual will be subject to a minimal reviewing standard, the law enforcement agencies will be given the right to issue what is known as the equivalent to 'blank warrant' in the real world to the person whose suspicious communications have been apprehended by them, wiretap orders can be issued by them without having to state any specific reasons or suspicions, wherein the place and the particular targets communications need not be specified by the officials, and the FBI is granted the right to utilize its authority based on its 'intelligence' to thwart the legally valid judicial review of the requirement of 'probable cause' under the Fourth Amendment.

It is a fact that the Federal Bureau of investigation already has the power to monitor all telephonic and Internet communications of the suspected individual, and this is within the law, as the law provides for the obtaining of wiretaps on suspected terrorist activities, and for crimes involving terrorists, including aircraft piracy and destruction. However, the underlying problem here is that the FBI can and does misuse the powers granted to them under the anti-terrorist Act and tends to invade the privacy of an ordinary citizen, or maybe a criminal but not a terrorist, and installing wiretaps and other surveillance methods on his communications to the extent that the individual feels invaded and exposed, especially since it is a fact that the law has granted the FBI with the right to intercept the communications of an individual without 'probable cause of crime' under the pretext of obtaining such information for intelligence purposes under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (How the U.S.A. Patriot Act limits Judicial Oversight of telephone and Internet Surveillance)

The law also provides that authorities can legally obtain a 'pen register' and a 'trap and trace order' against a telephone company and force the company to reveal all the 'numbers dialed' from a particular telephone by simply stating that this information is needed for 'an ongoing criminal investigation' without stating the details. The judge is generally forced to accept this minimum of detail and sign the order for permission to obtain these confidential records. This is also seen as an invasion of privacy by the ordinary citizen who may not have any criminal or terrorist links whatsoever with anyone. Similarly, this sort of low threshold of proof is extended to obtaining Internet records that in fact reveal much more than ordinary telephone numbers. It is through the Internet that e-mails are sent and received, and it is possible for the law to access these records. The entire content of an e-mail would have to be seized by the authorities when they need to, and this means that private and confidential information that has no bearing on the ongoing investigation would also be accessible to the FBI, and this is means that the private citizen would have to be very careful of what he writes in his e-mail communications with his friends and associates, when all that the law needs is the addressing information of the suspected person. This cannot be separated from the entire content of the message and therefore the authorities can read all the contents of the e-mail.

Where, then, is the privacy of the individual? Another important aspect of this type of surveillance is that the FBI not only has unlimited access to the e-mails of the suspected terrorist or criminal, but it also has access to the communications of those unfortunate people who happen by mere chance to be using the same Internet Service Provider as the targeted suspect does. This is referred to as the 'carnivore system' and is perfectly legitimate and legal, and the fact that the FBI states 'trust us, we're the government' only makes matters worse. Generally, a court order issued against a suspect would specify the exact place to be searched for the purposes of carrying about the investigation by lawful authorities. The Patriot Act, however, allows a federal judge or a magistrate in one particular area to order a pen register or a tap and trace order without mentioning therein the ISPs on which it can be served. This in turn means that that particular ISP can be used anywhere in the whole of the United States of America. (How the U.S.A. Patriot Act limits Judicial Oversight of telephone and Internet Surveillance)

The method followed is this: the judge signs the ISP, and the investigating authority just fills in the places where he wants to proceed for investigation. Here the role of the judge or the magistrate is undermined, and the investigative officer succeeds in what is otherwise known as the 'blank warrant', and this cannot be challenged in a court of law anywhere within the United States of America. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that any search warrant must specify the place that must be searched. When this is not done, it can be considered to be a violation of privacy. This serves to protect the confidentiality and the privacy of the American citizen and also helps prevent abuse of the search warrant that happens in some cases where the house of an innocent bystander is searched, instead of the suspect's.

In a similar manner, the particular telephone that must be tapped must be stated clearly in the order. However, the Patriot act eliminates this basic necessity and protection by offering the FBI and other investigators the facility of the 'roving wire tap', without showing the probable cause of crime that would allow the officer to access any telephone that the suspect 'may' use just because he is nearby. This means that the neighbor of the suspect must also submit to the wiretap so that the authorities could hear the suspect's conversations during the course of their investigations. This is a blatant invasion of privacy as far as the ordinary citizen is concerned. Why must he submit to a wiretap when he is in fact not at all a suspect in any sort of investigation? (How the U.S.A. Patriot Act limits Judicial Oversight of telephone and Internet Surveillance)

Section 412 of the U.S.A. Patriot Act states that it is within the law to detain immigrants and also other non-U.S. citizens, and there is no requirement that these detained persons be removable because they are terrorists. It also states that after the Attorney General certifies them as being in fact immigrants, they must be charged of the offense that they are detained for, and this may be either be an immigration violation or a criminal offense, within a period of seven days, and this need not be a terrorist act; it may even be a simple criminal act. When an immigrant is found to have committed a violation of his immigration status, like for example, overstaying on his visa, he will be faced with indefinite detention, especially when their own country refuses to accept them back.

Such detention is allowed under the Patriot Act if the Attorney General believes that there are 'reasonable grounds' to think that this person is capable of getting involved in any kind of terrorist activities or any criminal activities that may actually pose a danger to the national safety and security. This provision is felt to be one that is at best a 'life sentence' for the unfortunate immigrant who may be innocent of any type of terrorist activity. If this person were to be subjected to a proper hearing in a court of law where he would be able to defend and present his case, then he may have a chance at proving his innocence. Instead, the new Act does not require any proof for detention; just the certification of a minimal amount of suspicion on the part of the officer is enough to detain him endlessly. This is not right; it is in fact a violation of the very basis of freedom of the individual.

In fact, according to the case of Zadvidas vs. David, 2001, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a law that would allow the indefinite detention of an immigrant would end up as a severe violation of the Constitution of America, and pose a real problem to all concerned. The Patriot Act however takes none of this into account when it states that an immigrant can be detained without proof, indefinitely. The Zadvidas case set a test that stated that when an immigrant has in fact been detained for a period of more than six months, he is entitled to a review by the authorities to investigate whether he is continuing any supposedly terrorist or criminal activities or not. However the Patriot Act does not make any such provisions and the immigrant may be detained over an endless period of time until the investigating team feels that they have finished investigations concerning him. (How the U.S.A. Patriot Act Permits Indefinite Detention of immigrants who are not terrorists)

It is a fact that many people of America are not aware of the fact that the Patriot Act had been planned much before September 11, though it was only passed after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon carried out by the militant group identified as Al-Quaeda on September 11, 2001 created a wave of fear in the hearts and minds of the average American citizen. However, this Act has resulted in the creation of much tension in the minds of American Civil Rights advocates. This is because any sort of wrong doing on the part of the government of America can proceed and go ahead without being questioned or investigated in any way by anyone concerned. Some of the alleged wrong doings of the government as stated by an American citizen are as follows: the government takes upon itself the indefinite detention of an immigrant of America without having to prove any crime or any indulgence on his part in illegal terrorist activities.