RUNNING HEAD: SAMPLE PAPER
SAMPLE RESEARCH PAPER
The Patriot Act Threatens Fundamental American Freedoms
Feross Aboukhadijeh
(Source: www.apstudynotes.org)
Forty-five days after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States,
Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, also known as the “Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism” Act, or more simply, the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was
created with the noble intention of finding and prosecuting international terrorists
operating on American soil; however, the unfortunate consequences of the Act have
been drastic. Many of the Patriot Act’s provisions are in clear violation of the U.S.
Constitution—a document drafted by wise men like Benjamin Franklin, James
Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington in order to protect American
rights and freedoms. The Patriot Act encroaches on sacred First Amendment rights,
which protect free speech and expression, and Fourth Amendment rights, which
protect citizens against “unwarranted search and seizure” (Justice). The Patriot Act
authorizes unethical and unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens with a
negligible improvement in national security. Free speech, free thinking, and a free
American lifestyle cannot survive in the climate of distrust and constant fear created
by the Patriot Act.
The great American patriot Robert F. Kennedy once said in his famous “Day
of Affirmation Address” that the first and most critical element of “individual liberty
is the freedom of speech; the right to express and communicate ideas, to set oneself
apart from the dumb beasts of field and forest . . .” Modern American politicians and
lawmakers, it seems, have lost sight of the important ideals that Kennedy spoke
about and upon which this country was founded—ideals like civil rights, personal
freedom, and the right to privacy. No longer can a newspaper editor publish an
article that is critical of the government—even if it is legal—without fear that Big
Brother may begin to survey his every thought and action. This may very well be the
most frightening aspect of the Patriot Act: the fact that the Act allows the
government to spy on any of its citizens, not just the “bad” ones. The Patriot Act
does not demand sufficient proof that alleged “suspects” are engaged in criminal
activity before authorizing government surveillance. Even upstanding American
citizens can become targets of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) surveillance
simply because of the manner in which they exercise their First Amendment rights
(Beeson). Simply put, the Patriot Act fails to secure American liberties; in reality, the
Act exposes Americans to potential abuses of power by creating an environment
that encourages government corruption, secrecy, fraud and discrimination while
using “national security” as a pretense for violating basic Constitutional rights like
privacy and free speech. As the century drags on, it is becoming painfully obvious
that the Patriot Act has actually moved the United States further away from an ideal
democratic society since its passage in October of 2001.
Ever since 1776, when American colonists first abandoned their ties with
Britain to create an independent nation, American citizens have always cherished
basic rights like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and protection from
unreasonable searches and seizures (United States). But after the unpredictable
events of September 11, 2001, many citizens began to feel that they should give up
some of their cherished rights in order to punish the perpetrators of the attacks and
avoid future tragedies. An overwhelming sense of national unity overtook the
country and Americans united to face the newly discovered threat of terrorism in a
modern age. The President’s approval rating increased from 54% to 86%—its
highest level ever—in a matter of days (Ruggles). The American people rallied
behind the Federal government and provided support. Tragically, Congress drafted
the Patriot Act and decreed that it would be the solution to America’s problems.
According to Congress, the Patriot Act would protect America from its enemies who
operated on American soil. Many Americans unquestionably accepted the Act to
avoid the risk of being labeled “unpatriotic.” However, thousands of far-seeing
Americans publicly questioned the actions of the government, but their cries were
not heard. When the House of Representatives sent the Patriot Act to the Senate, it
passed with a vote of 96-1. Peter Justice put it best when he said that “. . . the climate
of fear in the weeks after the September 11 attacks and the haste with which the
Patriot Act was passed allowed some of its more controversial aspects to escape
adequate congressional scrutiny.” Clearly, the “fear frenzy” that took place after the
September 11 attacks caused Americans to sacrifice essential civil rights in
exchange for a sense of security.
The only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act was Senator Feingold.
Feingold is significant because he was the only Senator to fight against the Patriot
Act before it was signed into law. The arguments that he made against the Act
during September and October of 2001 continue to point out the negative effects the
Act has had on American life and will continue to have moving forward in the
twenty-first century. When asked why he voted against the Patriot Act, Feingold
responded that “we [Americans] will lose that war [on Terrorism] without firing a
shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people.” Essentially, Feingold
argued that the Patriot Act is counter-productive: if government “security” is meant
to protect American liberties, then the American people should not have to sacrifice
their liberties to purchase security. What purpose will “security” serve if there are
no liberties left to defend? If the Federal government curtails American liberty, then
security is rendered worthless. Colonial statesman Benjamin Franklin once said that
“those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.” According to Franklin, real American patriots
constantly question their government’s intentions in order to ensure that their
elected politicians are keeping the “core of American values and principles” at heart
while in office (Justice). The Patriot Act does not keep the interests of American
citizens in mind because it sacrifices crucial civil rights that have been guaranteed
by the Bill of Rights ever since 1776 (United States).
There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates
the fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power.
Normally, the government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without
obtaining a warrant and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has
committed (or may commit) a crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth
Amendment by allowing the government to conduct searches without a warrant—
for just about any reason. If the FBI is ever questioned about such activity, shrewd
FBI officials simply state that the investigation is crucial to national security, and
they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more recent years the
situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a search, the
FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by
the Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has
only rejected six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s
creation (“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a
certain American citizen, it will most likely be able to do so, even without sufficient
evidence.
Certainly, the United States government needs to have the power to monitor
suspected terrorists—no upstanding American citizen is arguing about that—but
the problem lies in the manner in which government monitoring occurs. The Patriot
Act fails to strike a desirable balance between protecting American lives against the
threat of terrorism and protecting the rights of Americans against potential
government abuse (“Reform”). Particularly upsetting about the Act are several
critical provisions designed to widely expand government power with limited
“checks and balances” and nearly limitless potential for abuse.
Section 213 is one such provision which greatly expands the power of the
Federal government. Section 213 of the Patriot Act authorizes law enforcement
agents to conduct “sneak-and-peek” operations in a U.S. resident’s home. This
provision violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to require that those persons
who are the subject of search orders “be told that their privacy has been
compromised” (“Reform”). If an individual does not know that the government has
been in his home then he will be unable to verify that the government conducted a
reasonable search using a valid warrant. If the government indeed did overstep its
bounds, the individual will have no means to take recourse against the government.
After all, how can a person protect their rights if they do not know that their rights
have been violated? Section 213 erodes the “sacred rights of western society” as
described by Kennedy, and reduces U.S. civil rights to nearly the same level as those
of the Nazi Socialists in Russia during the 1930s and 40s.
Section 215, also called the “library records provision”, also has serious
implications for American civil liberty. Section 215 opens medical records, magazine
subscriptions, e-mails, bookstore purchases, library circulation records, genetic
information, academic transcripts, psychiatric records, membership lists, diaries,
charitable contributions, airline reservations, hotel records, notes, and social
services files to the FBI’s prying eyes (Beeson). For example, the FBI can request the
names of all the patrons that have checked out a certain book from the library,
simply because they do not like the topic of that particular book. Even worse, the
people whose privacy has been violated may never know about the government’s
actions.
Section 505 is another particularly threatening provision of the Patriot Act.
Section 505 facilitates the use of “national security letters”, or NSLs, in federal
investigations. NSLs are a form of administrative subpoena that legally compel an
entity or organization to turn over personal records and information about certain
individuals. Previously, the FBI could only use NSLs to access records of foreign
agents and known terrorists, but Section 505 of the Patriot Act adds non-terrorism
suspects to the list of entities that the FBI can use NSLs to spy on (“Controversial”).
The problem with this is that NSLs are substantially easier to obtain than regular
subpoenas; NSLs do not have to be authorized by a judge like normal subpoenas—
they merely must be signed by certain key FBI agents. This means that the FBI can
use NSLs to illegally obtain information about an American citizen who may be
involved in some sort of crime. While many Patriot Act supporters may argue that
Section 505 is beneficial because the FBI can more easily obtain information about
all types of criminals, the truth is that Section 505 violates the Fifth Amendment’s
“due process of law” clause. According to the Fifth Amendment, no person should be
“. . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .” Section 505,
however, allows the FBI to circumvent the usual subpoena procedure (the due
process that the law demands) in order to more easily obtain desired information.
This means that NSLs can legally be used to obtain information about ordinary
criminals like robbers, shoplifters, and drug users—and even people who have
presented little or no evidence of wrongdoing. NSLs are extremely serious legal
weapons and should be reserved for only the most serious of crimes, like terrorism.
While the potential for government abuse of the Patriot Act is all too clear,
another alarming fact is that the Patriot Act fails to secure American liberties—
proving that the Act has failed in its purpose. According to Donna Lieberman,
Executive Director of the NYCLU, “Effective law enforcement in the aftermath of
September 11 does not call for a return to the bad old days when there was open
season on dissent and dissenters . . . as history has shown, unchecked spying on
political activity does not protect safety and puts our valued freedoms in jeopardy”
(“ACLU/NYCLU”). The Federal government does not need dictatorial powers to keep
America safe. Kennedy would have opposed the Patriot Act for the same reasons
that he opposed communism. Kennedy said “I am unalterably opposed to
communism because it exalts the state over the individual . . . and because its system
contains a lack of freedom of speech, of protest, of religion, and of the press, which is
characteristic of a totalitarian regime . . .” It is frighteningly un-American to assume
that giving politicians authoritarian powers will make America safer. Furthermore,
Kennedy would have argued that the way to oppose terrorists is to “enlarge
individual human freedom”—not take it away. By allowing the Federal government
to take away freedoms and civil rights, Americans are actually helping the terrorists
to erode the ideals of the American system. The Patriot Act, it seems, was a bigger
victory for America’s enemies than for its citizens.
Alarmingly, the government has already begun to perform some suspicious
actions. The FBI is keeping secret “even the most basic information” about FBI
surveillance (“Reform”). For example, the FBI classified information that should
have been available to the public—information that would have shown how often
the FBI has spied on people based on the manner that they exercise their First
Amendment rights. Although this action in and of itself does not prove that the FBI
or the Federal government has explicitly broken the law, it does hint that the
government is trying to hide its activities from public scrutiny. The American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote that “. . . the few known cases of rights violations
under the Patriot Act are likely the tip of the iceberg in terms of abuses of the
investigative powers the government has under the Patriot Act because most such
investigation is conducted secretly.” In other words, the few verified cases of
government abuse of the Patriot Act may indicate many more abuses which are not
disclosed to the public.
Although some Americans may say, “I don’t mind the Patriot Act because I
have nothing to hide from the government”, this thinking is flawed for several
reasons. First of all, if the American people know that their actions and
communications are being monitored they will feel less comfortable expressing
their thoughts and exercising their rights to free speech and free thinking; this is
especially so if the person’s thoughts are not what the government wants them to
think. Second, by eroding American civil rights in order to obtain a sense of security,
Americans are actually helping the terrorists to achieve their mission of destroying
democratic ideals in the western world. The last and most compelling reason to
oppose the Patriot Act is the fact that it is a direct attack on American ideals. The
Patriot Act essentially destroys the protections offered by the First and Fourth
Amendments and exposes Americans to potential abuses at the hands of Big
Brother.
Protecting Americans from foreign threats is critical; the Federal government
should do whatever it takes to keep its citizens safe, but it should never infringe
upon their civil rights. No doubt, the Patriot Act represents an emerging trend in
American government today—a trend of sacrificing the American Creed’s ideals in
exchange for security. Americans fought the Revolutionary War to earn basic
liberties that they felt were their God-given rights—rights that no humans should
live without. Americans should not so easily relinquish the rights and liberties
cherished for so long as the cornerstone of American society for the mere illusion of
security.
References
"ACLU/NYCLU Mobilize Members and Supporters to Keep America ‘Safe and Free’."
NYCLU. ACLU Foundation. 5 Mar. 2007
<http://www.nyclu.org/safe_free101602.html>.
Beeson, Ann, and Jameel Jaffer. "Unpatriotic Acts: the FBI's Power to Rifle Through
Your Records and Personal Belongings Without Telling You." ACLU. July
2003. ACLU Foundation. 25 Feb. 2007
<http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/spies_report.pdf>.
"Controversial Provisions of the USA Patriot Act." Facts on File News Services. 14
Apr. 2006. 5 Apr. 2007
<http://www.2facts.com/ICAH/Search/has00001371.asp>.
Feingold, Russell. "Senator Feingold's Speech Explaining Why He Voted Against the
Patriot Act (Excerpts)." Facts on File News Services. 12 Oct. 2001. 8 Feb.
2007 <http://www.2facts.com/ICAH/Search/had00000278.asp>.
Justice, Peter. "USA Patriot Act." Facts on File News Services. 14 Apr. 2006. 8 Feb.
2007 <http://www.2facts.com/ICAH/Search/haa00001370.asp>.
Kennedy, Robert F. "Day of Affirmation Address." University of Capetown,
Capetown. 6 June 1996. 5 Apr. 2007
<http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/
Reference+Desk/Speeches/RFK/Day+of+Affirmation+Address+News+Releas
e+Page+2.htm>.
“Newstrack - Top News." United Press International 26 Dec. 2005. 5 Apr. 2007
<http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2005/12/26/
bush_was_denied_wiretaps_bypassed_them/>.
"Reform the Patriot Act: Section 215." ACLU. ACLU Foundation. 25 Feb. 2007
<http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/215.html>.
Ruggles, Steven. "Historical Bush Approval Ratings." 5 Mar. 2007. University of
Minnesota. 5 Mar. 2007
<http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm>.
United States. The Bill of Rights. 5 Mar. 2007
<http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm>.