The Patriot Act is often thought to be a breach of civil liberties but in reality it is just an extension of laws that already exist. The Patriot Act allows investigators to use the tools that are already available in the investigations of counter terrorism within the world of organized crime and drug trafficking. The Acts also updates current laws to reflect new technologies and new threats. There are laws within the act that are commonly misunderstood. Such as telephone tapping and things like such and seizure. It seems that the author is trying to prove all the misconceptions of the Patriot Act. It seems that there are too many people that believe the Act is a violation of the constitution. The Patriot Act is not a violation but in fact a vital means of counter terrorism and it simply allows investigators to use all the tools that already existed to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking. Many of the tools the Act provides to law enforcement are to fight terrorism that have been used for decades to fight organized crime and drug dealers that have been reviewed and approved by the court.
[...] [In the case of accessing a suspected terrorist's Patriot Act 5 computer hard drive], the judge will likely allow a delay, since notice of the search could seriously jeopardize the investigation and would likely result in evidence tampering, witness intimidation, [or] the immediate deaths of the “infidel” who provided information to investigators. [In this way] The Patriot Act carefully balances traditional expectations of notice and the imperatives of preemptive terror and crime investigations. But that's not how left- and right- wing libertarians have portrayed it… They call it a radical new power. [...]
[...] As a result I believe the Patriot Act is not only constitutional in most respects but also essential to preserving the Western way of life. Patriot Act 11 References American Civil Liberties Union (2003, February 11). www.aclu.org. American Civil Liberties Union (2003, April 15). “ACLU's Latest Ads Highlight New Law Enforcement Powers To Conduct Secret ‘Sneak and Peek‘ Searches of Private Homes.” www.aclu.org. Congressional Record (2001, October 25). “The Testimony of Senator Joe Biden,“pg 65, National Archives and Records Administration. [...]
[...] “Internet Surveillance Law After the USA Patriot Act: The Big Brother That Isn't.” Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 97., p. 14 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=317501 as referenced in “Preserving Life and Liberty,” U.S. Department of Justice (from Felix G. Woodward Library) MacDonald, H. (2005, May 3). “Testimony, Oversight Hearing on the Patriot Act before the United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.” Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, pgs 27-28 http://www.manhattan- institute.org/html/mac_donald05-03-05.htm. U.S. Department of Justice (2001, October 26). [...]
[...] (Idem) There are other anti-Patriot Act arguments that do not hold up to examination. For example, the ACLU states that the Patriot Act's “domestic terrorist” section allows prosecution of peaceful protestors such as the group, Greenpeace (2003). But the fact is, the Patriot Act specifically states that “peaceful groups that dissent from government policy“ shall not be investigated. In order for a group or individual to be labeled a domestic terrorist, it or he must be in violation of criminal law and doing something dangerous to human life (USA PATRIOT Act, 2001). [...]
APA Style referenceFor your bibliography
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee