Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those associated with authors and don’t necessarily reflect the views of LawTeacher.
The USA PATRIOT Act (Patriot Act) was established after 11, 2001 (9/11) when terrorists attacked the United States september.
The Patriot Act has raised concerns that are many whether it infringes from the civil liberties of those of this nation. Looking back ever sold, our past presidents developed laws that were the stepping stone for the ideas that developed the Patriot Act. The government’s job will be protect the social people, nonetheless it has a bigger job that will be to safeguard the nation. This has raised issues that are many the Patriot Act and whether or not it really is more detrimental to us than it really is helpful. The american people should be concerned with how much power our government has when developing laws governing our civil liberties in relation to the Patriot Act and how it deprives those accused under it of Constitutional rights.
On 11, 2001 the United States (US) experienced the unthinkable when terrorists attacked the country on its own soil september. This was a serious eye opener or should I say reality check for the united states. The usa has some of the very most sophisticated counter intelligence in the world but was struggling to prevent such a tragedy. Why didn’t they view it coming? Plenty of thing could be today that is different that question could half been answered prior to 9/11.
This act was compiled from two documents, the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) from the House of Representatives (House) additionally the Uniting and Strengthening American (USA) Act from the Senate, was merged together creating the Patriot Act. According to Lemieux, previous developed laws created by previous presidents to solve conflicts were much like the Patriot Act they simply had different names Lemieux, M. (n.d.). History of the united states Patriot Act. Retrieved April 9, 2011, from http://www.constitutiondenied.com/Media/History-Patriot-Act.pdf. The Aliens and Sedition Act of 1798 was created through the pugilative war with France because the US was afraid for the country therefore the people and desired to make sure the enemy failed to sleep amongst us. With this power the president surely could have anyone who was thought to be a threat towards the government will be arrested and deported. The president suspended Habeas Corpus for the safety benefits of the nation, giving the government the essaywritersite.com log in power to imprison someone without sufficient evidence during the Civil War. The President ordered over 10,000 American citizens that had not shown any disloyalty into the united states of america into confinement camps simply because they were of Japanese descent Lemieux, M. (n.d.) during World War II. Reputation for the USA Patriot Act. Retrieved 9, 2011, from http://www.constitutiondenied.com/Media/History-Patriot-Act.pdf april. They are the stone that is stepping the development of the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act came into existence as a reply into the tragic events of 9/11. The balance that will turned out to be referred to as Patriot Act was introduced to Congress just days after 9/11. It was revised because of concerns from many congressmen that the balance allowed for too broad of a scope of capacity to authorities that are federal. Eventually after the bill was revised and reintroduced, Congress passed it with little to no opposition on 26, 2001 october. Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI), would up being the senator that is only vote against the Patriot Act. Although the Patriot Act would not enter into existence until after 9/11, it does have roots in earlier legislation. On April 25, 1996, President Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act into law. The bill because of this law was introduced following the Oklahoma City Bombing. The most important provision for the act caused it to be illegal to provide support that is“material to any organization banned because of the State Department. The balance was greatly criticized by Republicans for granting power that is too much authorities. The balance had to undergo major modifications before it absolutely was passed in 1996. The bill that ended up law that is becoming reported to be a “watered down version” of the original that President Clinton wanted passed. Strangely enough, it absolutely was this act that was revamped and broadened to produce the Patriot Act (Creative Commons, n.d.).
The Patriot Act has been highly criticized for being extremely broad and too open for interpretation since becoming law. In 2004, a judge ruled that areas of the Patriot Act were unconstitutional simply because they were too vague as well as in violation regarding the First and Fifth Amendments. Another criticism for the Patriot Act is that it will not guarantee oversight that is enough be sure that those that are given power by the act do not misuse it. On March 9, 2006 President Bush signed the Patriot Act Reauthorization, but attached a statement that is signing which he said which he would ignore specific mandates printed in the balance that will give more judicial and Congressional oversight to agencies authorized use of the act. In late March, letters were written to Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General at the time, requesting to really have the administration rescind the signing statement given that they would not have force of law. In those letters, they cited Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution which states that ‘Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President associated with the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall send it back.’ Alberto Gonzales and President Bush both ignored the letters rather than responded. Their argument was that the president could not change legislation that were passed by Congress and say that he did not agree with that he would ignore part of it. On December 10, 2007, an appeals court upheld the 2004 ruling that components of the Patriot Act were unconstitutional. The court stated that a statute must allow for a person of average intelligence to be able to read and understand the law in the ruling. They discovered that certain elements of the act were too vague. They determined that then the average person would not know if they were committing a crime (Creative Commons, n.d.) if the law was worded in a way that the average person could not understand,.
While many think that our terrorist threat from other countries is great, there is also driving a car of terrorist attacks from the US by its own citizens. The Oklahoma City Bombing is a example that is tragic. In some instances, there was a necessity when it comes to government to suspect an American citizen and do surveillance to protect the united states from another such tragedy. The us government has been doing espionage work for longer than a lot of people think. It’s not a new practice, but with the technology we now have today, it is easier for authorities to collect intelligence. Even though they usually have this technology at their disposal that does not mean that the Constitution could be ignored in the name of protecting the usa.
One example associated with the Patriot Act getting used in such a real way is within the case of Jose Padilla.
He had been a Puerto Rican born citizen who later inside the life changed into Islam. He traveled through the entire Middle East and allegedly plotted with al Qaeda terrorists to detonate a bomb” that is“dirty a US city. As soon he was detained as he stepped off a plane in the United States. The Bush Administration claimed though he was an American citizen because he had been deemed an “enemy combatant” by the president that he could be detained even. He was then held in a brig that is military three and a half years and was allegedly subjected to torture as a result of US officials trying to elicit information from him. In those days, he had been not charged with any crimes although it was said there was overwhelming evidence against him. He was also cut off from all communication together with family and attorney (Martinez, 2007).