Patriot Act Cons

The author of, You decide: Current Debates in Criminal Justice asks, “Is the Patriot Act a Necessary Protection Against Terrorism or a Threat to Our Civil Liberties?” (Waller) Proponents of the Patriot Act have claim that the law is a necessary protection against terrorism. In contrast, opponents of the Patriot Act claim that it is a violation of Americans’ civil liberties. Both sides of the argument have debated valid points for and against the Patriot Act. The, U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is an acronym that stands for, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. The law’s original purpose is to, “deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world,

Accordingly, the executive branch during the Bush administration felt it was their responsibility, duty and obligation to put forth those precautionary measures to prevent domestic terrorism from repeating. Proponents, like the Former President George W. Bush, have claimed that some of the most significant improvements created are as follows: the ‘Lone Wolf’ provision; Section 6001, Information Sharing; Section 203(b) and 203(d), Roving Wiretaps, Access to Records; Section 215, Foreign Intelligence Wiretaps and Searched; Section 218, Sneak & Peek Warrants, and the extension of Material Support; Section 805 (Abramson, Larry, and Maria Godoy).

Information Sharing: Section 203(b) and 203 (d) Prior to September of 2001, there had been terroristic motivated attacks with specific intent to murder Americans and our allies. For example, “the World Trade Center (WTC) in 1993, the U.S. barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000 and the plan to use commercial airliners as weapons in 1994-95…” (Hansen) Most of the intelligence collected from the investigations of these attacks directed to the infamous terrorist, Osama Bin Laden. Proponents argued that, had there been an adequate system of intelligence sharing, then perhaps the information collected

Since the approved, the Patriot Act has granted law enforcement investigation with the “roving wiretaps.” Proponents assert that this improvement to investigative abilities is a vital key element to intercepts and prevent terrorism and is legal. In 2009, the authorizations of “Roving wiretaps” were set to expire in December of that same year. With desperation proponents like, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III urged law makers to renew what he called, “exceptional’ tools to help protect national security” (Johnson). Appreciatively, President Barak Obama renewed the law that was set to expire; “Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones” (Fflambeau). Though, opponents argue that roving wiretaps are an infringement of individual rights, proponents remain head strong that the expansion is a key element to intercept and prevent terrorism. On face value, like unwarranted searches with exceptions to the exclusionary rule, roving wiretaps remain lawful through “executive ordering”