Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are the ones associated with authors and do not 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 many concerns about whether or not it infringes on the civil liberties of the people with this nation. Looking back of all time, our past presidents developed laws that were the stepping stone for the ideas that created the Patriot Act. The government’s job will be protect the people, however it has a bigger job which can be to protect the world. This has raised many issues involving the Patriot Act and whether or perhaps not it is more detrimental to us than it 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 September 11, 2001 the United States (US) experienced the unthinkable when terrorists attacked the united states by itself soil. This is a eye that is serious or can I say reality check for the united states. The usa has some of the very counter that is sophisticated on earth but was unable to prevent such a tragedy. Why didn’t it is seen by them 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) through the House of Representatives (House) and the Uniting and Strengthening American (USA) Act from the Senate, was merged together creating the Patriot Act. Relating to Lemieux, previous developed laws created by previous presidents to eliminate conflicts were like the Patriot Act they simply had different names Lemieux, M. (n.d.). Reputation for the USA Patriot Act. Retrieved 9, 2011, from http://www.constitutiondenied.com/Media/History-Patriot-Act.pdf april. The Aliens and Sedition Act of 1798 was developed through the war with France as the US was afraid for the country plus the people and wished to make sure the enemy did not sleep amongst us. The president was able to have anyone that was believed to be a threat to the government would be arrested and deported with this power. Throughout the Civil War the president suspended Habeas Corpus for the safety advantages of the country, giving the government the ability to imprison someone without sufficient evidence. During World War II, the President ordered over 10,000 American citizens that had not shown any disloyalty towards the united states of america into confinement camps because they were of Japanese descent Lemieux, M. (n.d.). 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 introduction of the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act has been around since as an answer into the tragic events of 9/11. The bill that could come to be referred to as Patriot Act was introduced to Congress just days after 9/11. It had been revised as a result of concerns from many congressmen that the balance allowed for too broad of a scope of power to authorities that are federal. Eventually following the bill was revised and reintroduced, Congress passed it with little opposition on October 26, 2001. Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI), would up being the only senator to vote contrary to the Patriot Act. Although the Patriot Act failed to enter into existence until after 9/11, it will have roots in earlier legislation. On 25, 1996, President Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act into law april. The bill because of this statutory law was introduced following the Oklahoma City Bombing. The most important provision associated with act managed to make it 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 an excessive amount of power to authorities. The bill needed to undergo major modifications before it absolutely was passed in 1996. The balance that ended up becoming law was reported to be a “watered down version” of the original that President Clinton wanted passed. Strangely enough, it had been this act that was broadened and revamped to generate 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 https://domyhomework.services/ were unconstitutional because they were too vague plus in violation of this First and Fifth Amendments. Another criticism associated with Patriot Act is the fact that it generally does not guarantee enough oversight to ensure that the ones 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 signing statement in that he said which he would ignore specific mandates printed in the balance that will give more judicial and Congressional oversight to agencies authorized utilization of the act. The Attorney General at the time, requesting to have the administration rescind the signing statement since they do not have force of law in late March, letters were written to Alberto Gonzales. 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, if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it. before it become a Law, be presented towards the President of the United States;’ Alberto Gonzales and President Bush both ignored the letters and never responded. Their argument was that the president could not change legislation that had been passed by Congress and say which he would ignore element of it which he would not agree with. On December 10, 2007, an appeals court upheld the 2004 ruling that parts of the Patriot Act were unconstitutional. Within the ruling, the court stated that a statute must provide for a person of average intelligence to be able to read and comprehend the law. They unearthed that certain components of the act were too vague. They concluded that in the event that law was worded in a way that the typical average person could not understand, then your average person will never determine if they certainly were committing a crime (Creative Commons, n.d.).
Even though many genuinely believe that our threat that is terrorist from countries is great, there is the fear of terrorist attacks from the US by its very own citizens. The Oklahoma City Bombing is a example that is tragic. In some instances, there is a necessity for the government to suspect an American citizen and do surveillance to safeguard the united states from another such tragedy. The us government has been doing espionage work for longer than many people think. It is really not a new practice, however with the technology we now have today, it is easier for authorities to get intelligence. And even though they have this technology at their disposal that will not mean that the Constitution could be ignored when you look at the name of protecting the US.
One of these of the Patriot Act getting used this kind of a way is in the case of Jose Padilla.
He was a Puerto Rican born citizen who later in the life transformed into Islam. He traveled throughout the Middle East and allegedly plotted with al Qaeda terrorists to detonate a “dirty bomb” in a US city. As soon he was detained as he stepped off a plane in the United States. The Bush Administration claimed which he might be detained and even though he had been an American citizen because he previously been deemed an “enemy combatant” by the president. 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 wanting to elicit information from him. At that moment, he was not charged with any crimes although it was said there is overwhelming evidence against him. He had been also cut off from all communication with his family and attorney (Martinez, 2007).