Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those 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 concerns that are many whether or not it infringes from the civil liberties of those of the nation. Looking back of all time, our past presidents developed laws which were the stepping stone for the ideas that developed the Patriot Act. The government’s job is always to protect the people, but it has a more substantial job that will be to guard the world. It has raised issues that are many 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 usa (US) experienced the unthinkable when terrorists attacked the country by itself soil. This is a serious eye opener or must I say reality look for the US. The US has many of the most counter that is sophisticated in the field but was not able to prevent such a tragedy. Why didn’t they notice it coming? Plenty of thing would 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 also the Uniting and Strengthening American (USA) Act through the Senate, was merged together creating the Patriot Act. According to Lemieux, previous developed laws created by previous presidents to eliminate conflicts were just like the Patriot Act they just had different names Lemieux, M. (n.d.). Reputation for the united states Patriot Act. Retrieved 9, 2011, from http://www.constitutiondenied.com/Media/History-Patriot-Act.pdf april. The Aliens and Sedition Act of 1798 was created during the war with France as the US was afraid when it comes to country in addition to people and desired to make sure the enemy would not sleep amongst us. With this specific power the president managed to have anyone that was believed to be a threat into the government would be arrested and deported. The president suspended Habeas Corpus for the safety benefits of the nation, giving the government the power to imprison someone without sufficient evidence during the Civil War. The President ordered over 10,000 American citizens which had not shown any disloyalty to the United States into confinement camps simply because they were of Japanese descent Lemieux, M. (n.d.) during World War II. History of the united states Patriot Act. Retrieved April 9, 2011, from http://www.constitutiondenied.com/Media/History-Patriot-Act.pdf. They are the stone that is stepping the introduction of the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act has been around since as an answer to your tragic events of 9/11. The balance that could turned out to be referred to as Patriot Act was introduced to Congress just days after 9/11. It absolutely was revised due to concerns from many congressmen that the bill 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 to no opposition on 26, 2001 october. Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI), would up being the senator that is only vote up against the Patriot Act. Even though the Patriot Act would not essay writing enter into existence until after 9/11, it will have roots in earlier legislation. On April 25, 1996, President Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act into law. The balance with this statutory law was introduced following the Oklahoma City Bombing. The most important provision for the act caused it to be illegal to supply “material support” to your organization banned because of the State Department. The balance was greatly criticized by Republicans for granting power that is too much authorities. The bill had to undergo major modifications before it absolutely was passed in 1996. The balance that finished 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 has been revamped and broadened to create 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 parts of the Patriot Act were unconstitutional simply because they were too vague as well as in violation for the First and Fifth Amendments. Another criticism of the Patriot Act is that it does not guarantee enough oversight to ensure that those that are given power because of the act try not to misuse it. On March 9, 2006 President Bush signed the Patriot Act Reauthorization, but attached a statement that is signing that he said which he would ignore specific mandates written in the bill that will give more judicial and Congressional oversight to agencies authorized use 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 for the Constitution which states that ‘Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and also the Senate, shall, if he approve he shall sign it, however, if not he shall send it back. before it become a Law, be presented towards the President associated with the United States;’ 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 10, 2007, an appeals court upheld the 2004 ruling that parts of the Patriot Act were unconstitutional december. 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 unearthed that certain areas 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 genuinely believe that our terrorist threat from other countries is fantastic, there’s also driving a car of terrorist attacks from the US by a unique citizens. The Oklahoma City Bombing is a example that is tragic. In some instances, there is certainly a necessity when it comes to government to suspect an American citizen and do surveillance to guard the nation 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. And even though they have this technology at their disposal that does not imply that the Constitution could be ignored within the true name of protecting the united states.
An example of this Patriot Act being used in such a way is in the case of Jose Padilla.
He was a Puerto Rican born citizen who later in the life converted to 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 had been then held in a brig that is military three . 5 years and was allegedly subjected to torture as a result of US officials attempting to elicit information from him. At that moment, he had been not charged with any crimes even though it was said there was clearly overwhelming evidence against him. He had been also take off from all communication together with his attorney and family(Martinez, 2007).