Complete PATRIOT Act Essay
Daniel Contreras Labels: English 101A
English 101A
Professor Robert Vasquez
20 July 2011
It would be difficult to understand the total magnitude of something if one was never affected by it. Army veteran and attorney Brandon Mayfield was an innocent victim of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism [PATRIOT] Act of 2001. At first glance, Mayfield seemed to be a normal American citizen: He joined the Army, received a college degree, was married, had children, and lived in a modest home. There was nothing out of the ordinary or remotely suspicious about Mayfield, except for one thing: his religion. It is no secret that Mayfield is a Muslim convert who enjoyed eating delicacies at the local Middle Eastern restaurant; however, that would later become a factor in determining his guilt. Few allegations spawned after the Madrid bombings of March 11, 2004 that Mayfield was the responsible man. The major determinant were the fingerprints on a bag similar to that of Mayfield's. Several Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] agents stormed Mayfield's office on May 6, 2004 in search of any evidence, later arresting him with a "material witness" warrant (Epps par.5). After over two weeks of wrongful imprisonment, Mayfield was released due to an error made by a federal agent. Mayfield, held without any rights, responded to the PATRIOT Act by saying that it "waters down the standard of the Fourth Amendment." Furthermore, he adds that "it is not the guilty who suffer, but the innocent" (Eddlem par.5).
Unfortunately, there are other cases similar to Mayfield's that reveal the abuses of the PATRIOT Act.
One question remains: should the PATRIOT Act supersede the United States Constitution? Let’s delve deeper to get a better outlook on this issue.
However, people of the United States debate whether or not the PATRIOT Act is a necessary tool or a dangerous threat. For example, in the article titled "The Patriot Act and You," by investigative reporter Michael Webster, the author asserts the fact that the PATRIOT Act was a large piece of legislation too quickly passed without much discussion. Webster points out that several of the bill's provisions grant dangerous powers to the federal government: the power to view citizens' private information, imprison citizens by labeling them suspected terrorists, and leave the accused with absolutely no rights. He goes into detail about the financial aspect of the law; additionally, Webster explains that international money laundering, by the PATRIOT Act, is considered an act of financing terrorism. Since a person transferring a large amount of money overseas will be flagged as a suspicious terrorist, Webster stresses that the PATRIOT Act is critical of many cash transactions. The author adds that not only will the suspected terrorist be flagged, but he or she may also be denied from flying on board via a special list filled with the names of suspicious persons.
In contrast, the first U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge addresses the importance and need for the PATRIOT Act originally in a speech given at the Allegheny County Emergency Operations Center on July 15, 2004. In his address titled "The Patriot Act Enhances National Security" he explains how terrorism was handled pre-September 11th. Ridge claims that terrorism was often handled ineffectively due to the constrictions within the bureaus which manage and work to correct such cases; in addition, he believes that the PATRIOT Act was a successful remedy to this problem resolving the restrains within the entities. Ridge argues that a new mindset is necessary and that the people must unite and support the nation equally. He believes that every U.S. citizen should support this act since it is helps the great cause: to prevent terrorism.
Unlike Ridge, writer Thomas R. Eddlem argues against the PATRIOT Act's provisions and legislation in his article titled "Anti-Fourth Amendment Patriot Act." While Ridges seems to prefer security over liberty, Eddlem argues that the liberties given to the people by the United States Constitution should be defended and preserved. Eddlem notes several innocent victims that were targeted by the PATRIOT Act for suspicious activity which resulted in scrutiny by the government.The author argues particularly on the behalf of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution which has been shunned and perverted by court justices to allow unconstitutional search warrants on citizens. He later mentions that the PATRIOT Act violates various constitutional rights: the right to a speedy trial, the right to free speech, guarantee of probable clause, and of involuntary servitude. Eddlem finds that three parts set to expire were recently extended which allows the government to further search and seize its citizens.
All authors presented strong arguments. For instance, Eddlem and Webster both briefly explain the sections and provisions from the PATRIOT Act that are vastly opposed by citizens and libertarians alike; in addition, Eddlem uses effective anecdotal stories which lulls the reader closer to the issue at hand. Similarly, Ridge tells of cases in which the PATRIOT Act has allowed police to successfully find a foreign terrorist. However, Ridge does not acknowledge that the Patriot Act, in many ways, supersedes the U.S. Constitution. His arguments are in a way very distant. Distant in a way that he talking in the voice of the government for the people instead of the voice of the people for the people. Although, it must have been crucial for him to leave out all the negative aspects out of his speech. While Webster's article is informative, Eddlem's article is the most versatile and compelling article of the three. Nonetheless, the PATRIOT Act still to this day creates complex debates.
The major catalyst of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism [USA PATRIOT] Act were the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center terrorist attacks. Former President of the United States George W. Bush’s remarks, in the East Room at the White House just prior to signing the USA PATRIOT ACT on October 26,2001, declared, "'These terrorists must be pursued; they must be defeated; and they must be brought to justice. And that is the purpose of this legislation'" (Bush). Approximately 2,740 American lives were lost on that day according to Joe Vajgrt author of the article titled "Column: Weighing in on the value of life" published by The UWIRE Student Media Affiliate Program (Vajgrt par.1). Since this was such a devastating attack to the United States, a call for action was necessary. Amid the aftermath, a shook up Congress joined together to swiftly pass the PATRIOT Act. The overwhelming support for the PATRIOT Act was no secret, crushing any and all who showed dissent.
Wendy Kaminer feared that giving the “'FBI unchecked domestic spying powers...instead of focusing on preventing terrorism...will revert to doing what it does best-monitoring, harassing, and intimidating political dissidents and thousands of harmless immigrants'" (Etzioni 9). ======================CONTINUE CAUSE & EFFECT PARAGRAPH==========================
Proponents argue that the Patriot Act does what it was intended to do: catch terrorists. They say that the government is not misusing its power and, in a rare case that it is, the truly innocent people should have nothing to fear. In an interview, a supporter strongly believes that the PATRIOT Act "protects the interest of Americans;" additionally, he affirms that "the PATRIOT Act has our best interests in mind because it's not the everyday American that is being traced...even if we were, what do we have to hide?" (Rodriguez). Furthermore, PATRIOT Act advocates assert that this legislation is necessary to catch terrorists in their tracks.
However, evidence reveals that the PATRIOT Act has very little to do with terrorism. Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano exclaims in an interview, "They've gotten no terrorist convictions [or]...evidence...out of the Patriot Act...They've gotten a series of guilty pleas [and] they've gotten convictions on these other crimes...but not on terror" (Kidd par. 17). Journalist Jennifer Abel points out in an article published by The Guardian magazine titled "A patriotic duty: repeal the Patriot Act" that "a department of justice official testifying before Congress in 2009 admitted that Patriot Act provisions were overwhelmingly used to go after drug dealers rather than terrorists" (Abel par.4). In regards to the surveillance of everyday American citizens, Senator Rand Paul warns that citizens should not to give in to fear and to simply not allow this invasion of privacy to proceed much farther. Paul says, "What happens when someone takes over who beliefs your religion is to be combated? Who believes your political beliefs and your literature should be combated. What happens when that day comes?" (SenatorRandPaul).
In continuation, supporters say that there are instances, such as the arrest of the Portland Seven and Lackawanna Six, that were made possible by the PATRIOT ACT. They acknowledge that the "sharing of information has directly led to...numerous arrests, prosecutions, and convictions in terrorism cases" (Ridge 2). Since the passing of the bill, Advocates argue that there has not been a second September 11 terrorist attack on American soil. Proponents remind one of the restrictions that existed within federal agencies before the 9/11 by saying, "[The] ability to fight terrorism was inhibited by the inability to coordinate within our own government," thus allowing such an event like 9/11 to occur (Ridge 2).
However, such cases would still be preventable without the intrusive provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Many suggest that the PATRIOT Act had potential, but it revealed the misuses it brought. Reformers suggest that the following are essential and beneficial portions of the bill: Efforts in stopping money laundering and improving communication between our law enforcement and intelligence activities are definitely necessary against fighting criminals. Certainly, the issue at hand is security and the Patriot Act is a part of the current solution; although, it should be stopped as soon as accomplished. The act must be reinforced with sealing of the borders, cutting treatments to opposing countries, and so on. The CIA for years has been tangled by regulations which restrains where it can get intelligence ("What's An Alternative").
Overall, the PATRIOT Act needs to be reevaluated and carefully reformed so that it does not continue abridging the rights granted to citizens by the U.S. Constitution.
Maximum security and personal freedom cannot coexist; therefore, in order to restore civil liberties, the people should take a step back and repeal the PATRIOT Act in its entirety. This legislation not only violates many civil liberties, but it also deforms our constitutional republic. The Founding Fathers of this country would be appalled by this "unpatriotic act" since it opposes everything they fought for. By removing this act, both the scope of executive branch power would be significantly reduced and our civil liberties would be restored. Representative Ron Paul sums it best when he says, "[people] must not accept that government authorities should hector us via television screens as we go about our private lives like we are living in Orwell’s 1984" (Paul par.4) In other words, a police state is imminent without civil liberties. Others, like the Constitution Project, suggest that the PATRIOT Act be at least reformed to an extent so that it secures citizens' protections while at the same time efficiently prosecuting the real criminals. They note that segments, such as the "Lone Wolf" provision, should restore safeguards or be eradicated ("Statement on Reforming").
If one chooses to ignore these issues, there will be dire consequences. A decade has passed since the passing of the PATRIOT Act and government has still not alleviated our constitutional rights; in fact, the government has gotten even more secretive with its uses of the PATRIOT Act. Because of this act, the government has the right to know what one is doing, but one does not have the right to know what the government is doing. In an episode of Uncommon Sense TV that aired on April 25th, 2004, Andy Valen and Ed Lacy compare the PATRIOT Act to the 1933 Enabling Act. Both acts were legislative responses to national tragedies in a time of fear; hence, the establishment of those laws was much easier (Kennedy1op). Likewise, Naomi Wolf informs, in the Ricki Stern and Anne Sundberg film The End of America, that measures used in pre-Nazi Germany are currently being used today: External/internal threats, secret prisons, and paramilitaries just to name a few. The PATRIOT Act is not only a threat to our civil liberties, but it is also a threat to our society. Benjamin Franklin put it best when he said, “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Works Cited
Abel, Jennifer. "A Patriotic Duty: Repeal the Patriot Act." Guardian.co.uk. Guardian News and Media Limited, 23 May 2011. Web. 11 July 2011.
"Benjamin Franklin." Wikiquote.org. Wikimedia. Web. 19 July 2011.
Bush, George W. "Remarks on Signing the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001." Presidency.ucsb.edu. The American Presidency Project, 26 Oct. 2001. Web. 6 July 2011.
"Controversial Invocations of the USA PATRIOT Act." Wikipedia.org. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Web. 19 July 2011.
Eddlem, Thomas R. "Anti-Fourth Amendment Patriot Act: Congress Is considering Extending Three Provisions of the USA Patriot Act, but They Would Do Better to Repeal the Whole Unconstitutional Law." The New American. Gale, 18 Apr. 2011. Web. 26 June 2011.
The End of America. Dir. Ricki Stern, Anne Sundberg. Perf. Naomi Wolf. Indiepix , 2008. DVD.
Epps, Garrett. "Vengeance Is Brandon Mayfield's." Salon.com. Salon Media Group, Inc, 3 Oct. 2007. Web. 18 July 2011.
Etzioni, Amitai. How Patriotic Is the Patriot Act ?: Freedom versus Security in the Age of Terrorism. New York [etc.: Routledge, 2005. Print.
Finnegan, Lisa. No Questions Asked: News Coverage since 9/11. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2007. Print.
Kennedy1op. "The Patriot Act part 1." Youtube. 10 Nov 2008. Web. 26 June 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td1mOAF1S8Q.
Kidd, Devvy. "Tell Your Sheriff: No Enforcement Of So-called "PATRIOT" Act." NewsWithViews.com. News With Views, 22 Mar. 2006. Web. 11 July 2011.
"The Patriot Act...Good or Bad?" Askville.amazon.com. Askville. Web. 16 July 2011.
Paul, Ron. "Stop the Police State, Repeal the PATRIOT Act (Rep. Ron Paul)." TheHill.com. Capitol Hill Publishing Corp, 4 Jan. 2011. Web. 17 July 2011.
Ridge, Tom. "The Patriot Act Enhances National Security." GaleGroup.com. Gale, 2005. Web. 26 June 2011.
Rodriguez, Samuel. Personal interview. 14 June 2011.
SenatorRandPaul. "Sen. Rand Paul Speaks on PATRIOT ACT." Youtube. 23 May 2011. Web. 16 July 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmjhk2-ynLo.
"Statement On Reforming The PATRIOT Act." ConstitutionProject.org. The Constitution Project, 22 Sept. 2009. Web. 13 July 2011.
Stout, David. "Bush Urges Congress to Keep Patriot Act Intact." Nytimes.com. The New York Times, 9 June 2005. Web. 11 July 2011.
Vajgrt, Joe. "Column: Weighing in on the Value of Life." UWIRE | Campus Media Network. UWIRE Student Media Affiliate Program, 24 Feb. 2011. Web. 12 July 2011.
Vlahos, Kelley B. "Critics: Patriot Act Warnings Come to Fruition." FoxNews.com. FOX News Network, LLC, 22 Nov. 2003. Web. 19 July 2011.
Webster, Michael. "The Patriot Act and You!" ArticlesBase.com. Articles Base, 21 Apr. 2008. Web. 27 June 2011.
"What’s An Alternative to the USA Patriot Act without Violating the Civil Liberties of Americans?" MyCanada.WS. Canada Immigration Work, 19 May 2010. Web. 16 July 2011.
Zajac, Andrew. "Patriot Act up for Renewal, but Law's Effectiveness Unclear." Chicago Tribune (Chicago, IL). 04 Apr 2005: n.p. SIRS Researcher. Web. 19 Jul 2011.