The USA PATRIOT Act: Civil Liberties vs. National Security

Introduction: The PATRIOT Act and Its Origins

The USA PATRIOT Act, commonly referred to as the PATRIOT Act, was signed into law on October 26, 2001 — just 45 days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. The Act expanded the authority of U.S. law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute terrorism. Many of the Act's provisions were set to sunset on December 31, 2005.

Given the horrific shock and fear following September 11th, the perceived need for an immediate response to terrorism, and perhaps the feeling that the Act could be corrected later because of the sunset clause, the PATRIOT Act received overwhelming endorsement — even though it greatly weakened civil liberties provided by the U.S. Constitution. With the firm conviction that less freedom means greater safety, lawmakers have ignored the Constitution and written what they believe should be the appropriate process for dealing with terrorism.

Arguments in Favor of the PATRIOT Act

The PATRIOT Act received broad support across the political spectrum, passing in the Senate by a vote of 98 to 1 and in the House by a vote of 357 to 66. Advocates such as the Department of Justice argued that the Act made changes necessary to combat terrorism, including allowing the use of electronic surveillance, enabling information sharing across agencies, and imposing stiffer penalties.

While law enforcement could engage in electronic surveillance to investigate crimes by the mafia and drug dealers, it could not use that same surveillance for many terrorist crimes — such as the use of weapons of mass destruction, financing terrorists, and chemical-weapons violations. The PATRIOT Act removed these restrictions. It also facilitated information sharing and cooperation across government agencies by removing the legal barriers to such communication that had existed before its passage. Additionally, the Act increased penalties for acts of terrorism such as arson, providing material support to terrorists, and the destruction of national-defense materials. It also made the harboring of terrorists a criminal offense.

Some supporters acknowledge that provisions such as Section 213 and Section 215 do not fully comply with the Fourth Amendment, yet still support the Act overall. On the matter of constitutional protections, defenders have argued:

Civil Liberties Concerns: Section 215 and Secret Warrants

"The balance between civil liberties and security is not a zero-sum game. Thus, it is vital to realize that there are significant factors weighing on both the civil liberty and national security sides of the scale. That is why, for example, the courts have recognized that in the national security context, the requirements of the Fourth Amendment apply somewhat differently than they do in the context of domestic law enforcement." (Rosenzweig, Kochems, and Carafano, 2004)

Post-September 11th, there is a strong feeling among those in favor of the PATRIOT Act that how our law enforcement system operates must change to meet new realities. There is the belief that "we simply cannot afford a rule that 'better 10 terrorists go undetected than that the conduct of 1 innocent be mistakenly examined.'" (Rosenzweig, 2004)

Those opposed to the PATRIOT Act are deeply concerned that it threatens basic constitutional rights guaranteed to American citizens and disturbs the system of checks and balances. Critics argue it does so by: diminishing personal privacy through the removal of important checks on government surveillance authority; expanding the definition of "terrorism" in a manner that threatens constitutionally protected rights; and seriously eroding the right of all persons to due process of law (Strom, 2004).

Conclusion: Fear, Freedom, and Constitutional Balance

While there are certainly some long-needed changes brought about by the PATRIOT Act, it is clear that it went too far in weakening civil liberties. The passage of the Act is reminiscent of the creation of Japanese internment camps during World War II, when the United States was in a frenzy following the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Only much later would Americans come to recognize the tremendous injustice done to the civil liberties of those U.S. citizens. Fear drove that overreaction, and fear has once again asserted itself in the aftermath of September 11th. Following that tragedy, it became acceptable to remove constitutional protections such as probable cause and due process, with the assumption that the alternatives would be far more injurious to Americans.