USA Patriot Act: overview and implementation

Patriot Act

The U.S.A. Patriot Act was passed because of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. We realized that our current body of laws did not completely address the task of finding terrorists before they take action. The Patriot Act was passed to make it easier for us to protect ourselves from future terrorist acts. The Act has been controversial because although most people recognize the need to effectively prevent future attacks, some people feel the law has gone too far and infringed on civil liberties. Other critics contend that the law doesn't give government enough power (Doyle, 2002).

The Patriot Act makes various actions by the government when trying to identify who might be a terrorist easier to execute. It extends wiretapping to email, provides for nationwide permission to use wiretapping and related investigatory techniques rather than having to get those permissions on a state by state or municipality by munipality basis. The Patriot Act includes voice mail, and allows computer system searches under some circumstances. It allows for property confiscation and increases laws regarding money laundering. (Doyle, 2002).

It also puts restrictions on due process and allows for double jeopardy (being tried more than once for the same crime) under some circumstances. It identifies specific activities as new crimes including harboring terrorists and attacks on mass transportation (Doyle, 2002).

Since in our country laws are passed by Congress, politics has the potential to affect any law. In the case of the Patriot Act, more conservative politicians are more completely in favor of the Patriot Act, while liberal members recognize the need to fight terrorism but worry some about possible infringement of civil liberties. In particular, the practice of holding suspect aliens for extended periods of time without access to legal advice has come under fire.

The Patriot Act has affected institutions in various ways. Banks now have signs explaining that some of the things they require are mandated by this law, for instance, the requirement that people opening bank accounts provide proof of identity. This was true before the enactment of the Patriot Act but now receives added emphasis. Private institutions, particularly certain charities, have to consider where their funds come from and where they go. If they either come from or go to organizations viewed as tied to terrorism, the group has committed a serious breach of law.

The Patriot Act continues to receive criticism because it reduces some civil liberties. In one incident covered by the media, the singer Cat Stevens, now known as Yusaf Islam since his conversion to the Moslem religion, was taken off a U.S. -- bound flight because he was on a "terrorist watch list" of people who should not be allowed to enter the United States. The reason given was that some of his charity work was tied to charities with terrorist connections. Many people have found this hard to believe, but the U.S. government has few requirements on it to justify such decisions.

People who solidly back the Patriot Act do so because they believe that the actions are necessary and that we have to give up some freedoms at wartime. Those who oppose it argue that limiting freedoms in order to protect freedom isn't logical, and that we should be able to find ways to protect ourselves that don't infringe on civil liberties.

There is no doubt that we need to take effective steps to prevent terrorists from entering the country. However, it seems likely that some of these efforts go too far. I believe the government needs to have a "terrorist watch list," but that they should have solid reasons for placing people on it. Yusaf Islam recently received a major humanitarian award for his charitable work and has been an activist for peace for many decades. The government should have to justify such actions in my opinion.

It seems likely that the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission will eventually be passed by Congress. It will attempt to streamline our intelligence-gathering. This should make it easier for the government to use the information-gathering features of the Patriot Act when they need to.