The Patriot Act's impact on civil liberties and surveillance powers

¶ … Patriot Act

Throughout American history the power that law enforcement has over its citizens has been increasingly brought to the forefront. This is because there have been times when situations occur that the country's liberty or perceived threats to liberty could be at stake. As a result, Congress will give law enforcement greater powers, which they normally would not have under the Constitution. Where, the overall intent is to limit the scope of damage that could occur from a particular organization or foreign power. In some cases, this could involve seeing a particular group of the population subject to increased amounts of scrutiny because of these fears. A good example of this can be seen during World War II, where thousand of Japanese-Americans were rounded up, deprived of their land / liberty and were sent to internment camps scattered throughout the rural parts of the Western United States. The fear was that with the United States at war with Japan, they could have various agents infiltrate the Japanese-American community. At which point, they could engage in sabotage. In many ways, the overall affects of such actions would create a panic similar to the aftermath of September 11th. Where, no one was sure if another attack was imminent. In the case of the Japanese there were reports about the Hoover Dam being the first such target. To calm fears around the nation, the government would send all Japanese-Americans to internment camps for the duration of the war. ("Warns of Dangers to Dams in West," 1943) a similar situation occurred after the September 11th terrorist attacks, where the various officials were concerned that Al Quida could have other sleeper cells waiting to strike. As a result, Congress gave sweeping new power to law enforcement to effectively track and monitor the activities of different terrorist organizations (the Patriot Act). This was a law that allowed the police and intelligence officials to be able to quickly track as well as monitor terrorist activities, by circumventing the traditional Constitutional procedures of obtaining a warrant. As a result, both proponents and critics of the bill have been passionately debating the effectiveness or damage that is occurring to society. To fully understand both sides of the issue requires a careful examination of the Patriot Act itself, the views of proponents and the criticisms of the law. Together, these different elements will provide the greatest insights as to what affect the Patriot Act has had upon society.

The Patriot Act

Prior to the September 11th attacks, law enforcement was restricted in the intelligence that they gather from foreign intelligence agencies. Where, the information that was obtained could be used by the nation's foreign intelligence service to track suspected agents / operatives until they reached the borders of the United States. At which point, the FBI would have to take over the investigation to follow this particular suspect in the United States. This is because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) restricted how foreign intelligence was developed and utilized by law enforcement. Part of the reason for this was because of the obvious abuses that had occurred from the 1950's to the early 1970's. Where, such information was used to conduct illegal activities against foreign agents and American citizens. ("Excerpts from Court Ruling on Justice Departments Broad Powers," 2002) a good example of this can be seen with a secret program that the CIA was running from 1949 to 1973. Where the intention was to secretly test various mind control drugs on suspected foreign intelligence operatives and unsuspecting citizens to include: college students, prisoners and ordinary people. ("Alarm Sounds and CIA Wakes Up in Nightmare Alley," 1977) Because of these and other shocking allegations that had occurred, Congress passed FISA to control the overall power that the intelligence community / law enforcement would have over surveillance activities. The problem with the FISA is that it limited the overall ability of domestic law enforcement and the nation's foreign intelligence services to monitor / detect when someone is planning a major terrorist attack. As a result, the FISA allowed for rivalries to develop between the different law enforcement and intelligence agencies, which would only help terrorists to function more effectively under the radar. A good example of this can be seen with the arrest of Zacharias Moussaoui, where he was the only September 11th highjacker to be arrested. The reason why the FBI was detaining him was not based on anything involved with the September 11th terrorist attacks. Instead, he contacted a flight school in Minnesota and wanted to learn how to fly without landing the plane, which caused the owner to become suspicious (who alerted the police). As a result, the subsequent investigation showed that he was wanted on an immigration violation. Federal authorities were in the process of sending him back to France when the September 11th attacks occurred and were able to figure out the role of Moussaoui in the plot. (Dailey, 2001) This is significant because it underscores how the Congress had the best of intentions when they passed the FISA. The problem was that they restricted both intelligence and law enforcement officials' ability to track / monitor the activities of a suspected terrorist coming into the United States. Where, the CIA could be monitoring a suspect, once they reach the border is when all activity will stop. This allowed the September 11th highjackers to be able to enter the U.S. And plan their attacks with near impunity. As a result, Congress increased the ability of law enforcement to track and monitor different suspects by allowing them to have easier access to conduct surveillance, through the use of wireless warrants. This is where the police can be able to effectively tap into various telephone and internet communications to monitor the conversations of suspected terrorist. ("Excerpts from Court Ruling on Justice Departments Broad Powers," 2002)

Proponents vs. Opponents

The Patriot Act gives the law enforcement the power to conduct a number of different activities with little to no judicial oversight to include: domestic spying, roving wire taps, random searches and the monitoring of email activity. (Marcovitz, 2008) Many proponents will argue that this act is essential in ensuring that law enforcement has the tools necessary to go after those who are intending to conduct terrorist activities. While, many critics argue that the language of the law is so vague, that the different provisions of the Act can be used to go after advocacy groups and citizens / organizations that have nothing to do with terrorism.

The Patriot Act is Overstepping Legal Boundaries

The critics of the Patriot Act make a number of different arguments about how it is overstepping legal boundaries or possibly over reaching. Where they say there are a number of different ways that such incidents can occur the most notable would include: it invades the right to privacy and it can lead to other abuses. When looking at the first criticism of the Act, it invades the right to privacy; the critics fear that this provision can be used to go after innocent people. Where, if a suspected terrorist visits the home of a friend and was having a social visit with them, law enforcement could use the provisions of the Patriot Act to spy on this person. Even though, they have no idea that their guest was involved in terrorism and did not discuss anything relating to terrorism. The fact that they inadvertently knew a terrorist is justification to have law enforcement conduct a roving wire tap on innocent people. (Marcovitz, 2008)

The second criticism of the Patriot Act, it can lead to other abuses, this has stoked fears among many civil libertarians that the various provisions can be used by law enforcement, to engage in activities that are beyond the intent of the law. Where, over the course of time as the various tools of the Act are being utilized in other investigations, they can become more common in matters away from terrorism (such as investigating suspected drug dealers etc.). This, the critics argue can lead to other situations where the civil rights of the country is slowly taken away by the broad scope of the powers given to law enforcement officials. Where, they can investigate activist of groups such as Greenpeace, who are committed to the environment, yet some of their actions could be considered terrorism (such as interfering with whaling ships etc.). This is troubling because Greenpeace is not considered to be a terrorist group; however, the broad language of the Act allows the government to monitor what they are up to. Over the course of time, the critics believe that such abuses will become more common. (Marcovitz, 2008) a recent example of these fears can be seen with information that was released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials, where it was revealed that the different provisions of the Patriot Act were used in a number of criminal investigations including: the monitoring of drug traffickers, child pornographers, white collar criminals, spies, corrupt foreign leaders and money laundering. With Eric Minceberg the legal director at People for the American Way saying, "What the Justice Department has really done is to get things put into the law that has been on prosecutors' wish lists for years. They've used terrorism as a guise to expand law enforcement powers into areas that are totally unrelated to terrorism." (Lichtblau, 2003) This is significant because is underscores the legitimate concerns that civil libertarians have over the issue of increased government powers.

However, what they are not telling you is that terrorism has become increasingly interconnected. With many of the different investigations that have been conducted in other criminal matters on the surface not appearing to have anything to do with terrorist activity. Yet, when you examine the issue a little further you could see that terrorism is directly tied into some of the above mentioned activities. This is because various terrorist organizations will use illegal activities to fund their operations. A good example of this can be seen with the Taliban, where a United Nations report showed that Afghanistan was the largest producer of heroin in the world. The situation has become so large that not far from the capital of Kabul are endless fields of poppy (the plant used to make heroine). (Rubin, 2006) This is problematic because the large amounts of profits that are being made from the crops; are being used to buy influence within the Afghan government. With one drug smuggler commenting about the overall levels of corruption by saying, "I simply make a phone call. And my voice is known to the ministers, of course. They are in my network. Every network has a big man supporting them in the government." This is significant because it underscores how the critics on this point are somewhat misguided. Where, the profits from the sale of illegal drugs have become so severe that it is helping to increase the overall stability of Afghanistan. In plain economics, this allows the Taliban to pay their fighters $8.00 per day. This is double what the Afghan Army is paying their soldiers, which is $4.00. (Bhonsle, 2007) as a result, the Patriot Act has been used to track drug traffickers who could be working with terrorist organizations, to fund their operations through the sale and import of drugs.

Clearly, the Patriot Act has had a positive impact upon society. This is because the different provisions of the law have allowed law enforcement to effectively go after those individuals and organizations that are involved in terrorist activity. The way that the overall effectiveness of the law is being measured is by seeing how easily or difficult conditions have been in coordinating and conducting terrorist activities. Since there has been no major terrorist attack on American soil since the 911 terrorist attacks, shows that the different provisions of the law must be working. This is despite the fact that many critics worry that the general language could allow law enforcement to track and monitor the activities of law abiding citizens. However, when you look at how the world is changing, thanks to improvements in technology and strategies of the different terrorist groups; this shows that the Act allows law enforcement to adapt to these changes. Evidence of this can be seen with reports that the law was used to monitor the activities of drug traffickers. Where, critics will claim that such activities have nothing to do with terrorism. However, when you look a little further, organizations like the Taliban are growing, producing and distributing heroine. This is problematic because it allows them to pay their fighters / terrorists more than the police and Army make in Afghanistan, which only makes the insurgency more severe. It also highlights how the profits from the drug trade are used to buy influence within the government. What this shows is that despite the concerns, the law has proven to be effective at increasing the overall amounts of available intelligence. As a result, this has helped law enforcement to more effectively monitor for suspected terrorist related activity.