Anda di halaman 1dari 5

Kaden Kennard

Professor Chris Bertram

Criminal Justice 1010

23 July 2017

Final Report: The USA Patriot Act

On September 11th, 2001, the United States was attacked by a terrorist group called al-Qaeda.

Shortly after the attacks on New York City and Washington D.C. the U.S. declared a war on terrorism.

Just a few weeks later, George W. Bush signed the USA Patriot Act, which stands for: Uniting and

Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.

Even though the act had passed through the House of Representatives quite quickly, it did not gain much

popularity among the American people. In fact, there was much criticism that the Patriot Act was

unconstitutional in many aspects of violating American rights. People felt that their privacy was being

invaded and that the federal government was stepping over the line. However, though the act posed as

unconstitutional, its main priority was to prevent any future and/or current terrorist activity against the

United States. It allowed the federal government to execute in a manner which the constitution would

have prevented before, such as intercept conversations over the phone and break into peoples homes

without a warrant. Therefore, though the privacy of citizens were invaded, the USA Patriot Act was

beneficial in that it sped up investigations, increased security measures, and supported American

businesses and individuals.

To begin with, the Patriot Act enabled federal organizations, such as the Federal Bureau of

Investigation and Homeland Security, to gain information on individuals suspected of terrorism. This was

helpful in decreasing the time spent on investigations of terrorist activity. Speed is a major key to any

sort of investigation into terrorism, and the Patriot Act allows for faster inquiries into potentially

suspicious activities. War criminals who are on the United States territory are no longer able to hide
behind the freedoms granted to law abiding citizens (Occupy Theory). In order to make this happen, the

government had to be granted authority to intrude the privacy of individuals. One of the most popular

methods in gaining information on suspects involved wiretapping. This makes it much easier for the

government to listen in on any conversation that they deem a threat to national security (Occupy

Theory). By understanding this concept, it is clear that though the Patriot Act crosses the line on

constitutional rights at times, it primarily aims to protect the nation. Thus, the USA Patriot Act was

crucial in speeding up investigations to protect citizens from terrorists attacks.

Likewise, the Patriot Act was helpful in preventing any potential terrorist activity by increasing

security measures throughout the country. Similar to tapping into phone conversations, government

organizations were granted authorization to people's emails and other sources of communication. If the

investigating officers uncover any sort of malfeasance or a planned attack, then they are able to strike

quickly, snuffing out a nascent threat before it has a chance to become full blown (Occupy Theory). The

U.S. government did not want to take any chances of having a similar tragedy as 9/11 occur, so they

increased security. This does not only pertain to listening in on telephone conversations, but also building

safer environments for the American people. For example, today there is more technology and processes

that occur in an airport. This is to ensure that no potential dangers can make it onto an airplane and

threaten innocent lives. Likewise, crime protection on all levels - local, state, and federal - work together

more. They help each other in assisting organizations with information and needed materials. If local

police find that greater assistance is required in an investigation, they can call on the FBI for help. Thus,

the communication between such organizations increased. Therefore, as security measures increased the

government was able to better work together and protect the nation in everyday routines.

Nevertheless, the topic of the USA Patriot Act grew to be reasonably controversial. It was passed

in order to stop terrorism and ultimately protect American citizens and their freedom. Yet, many people

felt that their freedom, specifically privacy, was being stripped from them. Citizens were frightened at the
fact that there was a possibility that someone was listening to what they were saying. A large majority of

people did not want the government to intercept and read their emails, or wiretap into their conversations.

They simply did not want the government to invade their personal lives. Critics say the language of the

act could lead to privacy violations of anyone who comes into casual contact with a suspect. They want

Congress to require investigators to specify just which device is going to be tapped, or that the suspect be

clearly identified, in order to protect the innocent from unwarranted snooping. (Abramson & Godoy).

Therefore, even though an individual may be innocent of any terrorist activity, simply any interaction

with such a person could have put them in danger with the federal government.

Nonetheless, the Patriot Act was beneficial in aiding businesses and individuals who may have

suffered from terrorist attacks. Therefore, not only did it prevent any future incidents, but it provided

support to those who financially struggled due to terrorism. Before the Patriot Act became a part of the

American justice system, American citizens who were the victim of a terrorist attack were not able to

receive the restitution they needed so that they could properly recover from such a traumatic ordeal

(Occupy Theory). The events that took place on 9/11 were detrimental. There were a couple thousand of

lives lost that day and even more that were injured. If the government had no way to compensate the

afflicted, whether they be victims or family of victims, it would take much time for people to get back to

financial stability. The enhanced funding that the Patriot Act offers to the victims of terrorist attacks and

their family members is also afforded to business owners (Occupy Theory). To ensure that the economy

does not suffer a big hit, companies received assistance to maintain their revenues after being inflicted by

a terrorist attack. It was good assurance to the nation that after such a large detriment, they would not be

left alone in getting back on their feet.

In conclusion, the Patriot Act was crucial for the United States to effectively fight a war against

terrorism. It help speed up investigations related to terrorist activity. Thus, it had a direct impact in

dismantling any type of terrorism before it could escalate. It helped create a safe environment where
proper procedures were enforced to protect the public. Likewise, it caused all levels of government and

crime protection to communicate with each other. In addition, it provided financial aid to everyday

citizens and corporations who were afflicted by terrorists. Though the ethics of the USA Patriot Act were

questioned as it posed a threat to constitutional rights, it was designed to protect the greater good, thereby

seeing that the nation would be safe from any future devastating events and ultimately securing its

freedom.
Works Cited

Abramson, Larry, and Maria Godoy. "The Patriot Act: Key Controversies." Npr.org. N.p., 14 Feb. 2006.

Web. 23 July 2017.

"List of Pros and Cons of The Patriot Act." Occupy Theory. N.p., 1 Jan. 2015. Web. 23 July 2017.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai