USA Patriot Act
To borrow a term from Shakespeare, the arguments against the U.S. PatriotAct (USAPA) are much to do about nothing. Upon exploration of majorconcerns regarding USAPA, the arguments made are weak and often overexaggerated claims designed to inflame those concerned with protectingcivil liberties. This paper discusses the opponents' major points againstUSAPA and finds each assertion to be inane or false. The reality is thatUSAPA simply allows the investigation of all suspected terrorist activityusing surveillance common to other criminal investigations and improvedcommunication across government agencies. Opponents of the USAPA argue that the expanded definition of terrorismto cover domestic as well as international terrorism expands the type ofconduct that the government can investigate too broadly (How the USAPatriot Act redefines "domestic terrorism). They believe that thegovernment will unfairly use this broader interpretation to monitor theactivities of activist organizations such as Greenpeace and OperationRescue. And, opponents are also concerned that the government can spy orsuspected computer trespassers without a court order and can add samples to
There is also the accusation thatfederal intelligence agencies and domestic law enforcement agencies can nowcollude with one another to bypass limitations on their respectiveauthority. Ultimately, most American people are in favor of USAPA. Now, investigators can gather information forcrimes related to chemical-weapons offenses, the use of weapons of massdestruction, killing Americans abroad, and terrorism financing. Americans were responsible for approximatelyseventy-five percent of the 335 incidents between 1980 and 2000 that theFBI has classified as suspected or confirmed terrorism (American militantextremists). Those against USAPA are concerned about the expansion of the fourtraditional tools of surveillance, wiretaps, search warrants, pen/traporders and subpoena (EFF analysis of the provisions of the USA PatriotAct). About seventy-four percent support USAPA and nine out of ten people say that there hasbeen no infringement of their liberties at all (The price of progress). However, the USAPA simply allows investigators to use the tools thathave been used to investigate other illegal activities such as organizedcrime and drug trafficking. It only makes sense, that government agencies should share informationand cooperate with each other to do a better job. For example, some claim that a domestic agency can obtain afederal wiretap where probable cause does not exist. For those not supporting it, the arguments are weak and loaded withfallacies intended to generate fear in the grossly misinformed. foreign intelligenceagencies too much power by making it easier to conduct surveillance and toshare information with domestic law enforcement agencies (EFF analysis ofthe provisions of the USA Patriot Act). The government still needs probablecause and a federal judge still needs to sign a warrant. The truthis that USAPA is desperately needed to effectively combat terrorism giventhe very real possibilities of another attack. To put it bluntly,that was crazy!" (The USA Patriot Act: preserving life and liberty) BeforeUSAPA, agents could not obtain wiretaps to investigate many types ofterrorism-related crimes.
Common topics in this essay:
Patriot Act,
Act USAPA,
Herron Begley,
Ultimately American,
Operation Rescue,
Opponents USAPA,
Joe Bidgen,
patriot act,
usa patriot,
usa patriot act,
USA Patriot,
,
eff analysis provisions,
law enforcement,
analysis provisions,
domestic terrorism,
eff analysis,
provisions usa patriot,
provisions usa,
probable cause,
analysis provisions usa,
national security,
preserving life liberty,
government spy,
|
Acceptance Essays
