Patriot Act Has Generated Great

Patriot Act has generated great controversy since it was signed into law on October 26, 2001. The Act was created as a form of support for the government in the fight against terrorism and it immediately passed as a law after the tragic events of September 11. The opponents of the Patriot Act argue that the law abridges essential freedom and that it allows governmental agencies the right to break basic freedoms guaranteed through the Constitution under the pretext of fighting against terrorism. They claim that every citizen can easily become a victim under this law as it broadens too much the power of governmental authorities to invade the individual freedom.

However, the Patriot Act was designed to protect American citizens from their enemies that seem to come more from within the territory of the United States than from outside. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 were an act of war conducted by enemies of our country that operated from within our borders and it is only natural that the first step that must be taken to prevent further attacks and to punish those responsible for the attacks in 2001 is to provide security inside our nation. The terrorist attacks of September 11 were acts of war and this calls for war measures of national security. The Patriot Act was designed as a measure of fighting against terrorism considering the circumstances in which the U.S. was found. Undeniably, there are points of the Act that seem to threat individual freedom, but the basic point of the law was to protect American citizens from further terrorist attacks.

The response of the Bush administration after 9/11 was a declaration of war against terror and those that support it. America engaged in an actual war that involves military operations against terrorists and their supporters in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in order to provide the needed security to Americans against other possible attacks, measures must be taken inside our own borders, especially after it was proven that the terrorists that planned the attacks from U.S. territory. The use of military force abroad, while necessary, is by no means sufficient and domestic counterterrorism efforts by the FBI and other domestic law enforcement agencies are at least as essential to defeating the enemy.

The Patriot Act is a complex measure to boost the federal government's ability to prevent and detect terrorism. Most opponents of the Act focus on the fact that the law provides authorities with greater power of surveillance and overlook that the law also brings some much needed change in the field of intelligence in U.S.. Past laws were not updated enough to take into consideration the technological evolutions that terrorists can use and they could not provide the appropriate legal environment in which the government could conduct its anti-terrorism operations.

Those that believe that the Patriot Act represents a grave breaking of basic individual freedom ignore the fact that although governmental agencies have the right to obtain personal data about a person and to put that person under surveillance without notification, they cannot do so without the approval of a judge. The Patriot Act does not fully allow the FBI or the CIA to access personal data; it merely gives them the possibility to do so if a judge agrees that they have sufficient reason for it.

The greatest opposition against the Patriot Act provisions is centered on the fact that it allows agencies to have access to personal information, that is and should remain private. However, the Patriot Act does not break the privacy right stipulated in the Fourth Amendment because the Fourth Amendment does not refer to items disclosed to third parties. For example, a credit card user reveals his purchase to the seller and the credit card company. He therefore has no privacy expectations in the record of those purchases that the Fourth Amendment would protect. As a result, the government, whether in a criminal case or a terror investigation, may seek his credit card receipts without a traditional Fourth Amendment showing to a court that there is "probable cause" to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed. Instead, terror investigators must convince that FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court that the receipts are "relevant."