The Patriot Act: Advantages and Disadvantages

The purpose of this paper is to provide support for the use of the Patriot Act as well as support against the use of the Patriot Act. It is the goal of the author to provide a logical and sound base to see the Patriot Act from both sides. As someone who is very much against any action that may re-define or change our Constitutional rights locating arguments for the use of this Act will be an interesting challenge. So let us start with the reasons why it was formed and potential benefits to the people.

Our 43^rd president George W. Bush stated the following regarding the Patriot Act “When it came time to renew the act, for partisan reasons, in my mind, people have not stepped up and have agreed that it’s still necessary to protect the country,” Bush said. “The enemy has not gone away – they’re still there. And I expect Congress to understand that we’re still at war and they’ve got to give us the tools necessary to win this war.” (Bumiller, 2006) According to our former President, this Act is necessary for the protection of our citizens.

We look to our current president and his views concerning this Act and we see similar reasoning in place. “That is why, as it has come to time to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act, we have been working in a bipartisan way to do both, to show the American people we can track down terrorists without trampling on our civil liberties, to show the American people that the Federal Government will only issue warrants and execute searches because it needs to do so, not because it can do so.” (Obama, 2005) We can see that the reasoning is similar though even in his case he can see the potential for abuse. “Giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate suspicious activities is one thing and it is the right thing. But doing it without any real oversight seriously jeopardizes the rights of all Americans and the ideals America stands for.” (Obama, 2005)

Another argument for the Patriot Act is that by authorizing it we can guarantee that our Law Enforcement community has the proper tools to fight the potential for terrorism inside the United States. Whether this is a proper argument or not remains to be seen, it is the goal of the supporters of the Patriot Act to ensure a safer tomorrow for the citizens of this great nation. There are however many arguments that can be made for the dissolution of or against this Act.

Quite simply the greatest and easiest arguments to use against the Patriot Act can be found in our very own Constitution. That “piece of paper” that it has been claimed George W. Bush said, whether that is true the more interesting item is the simple fact that the Patriot Act effectively invalidates the Constitutional Amendments Four through Eight. By simply seeing what exactly the Patriot Act invalidates we can see whether someone who voted for or pushed for this is really thinking concerning the Constitution.

Now we can see with the original Patriot Act and the “amended extensions” passed more recently its anti-Constitution status remains true. In addition, even though the people supporting it claim it will not be used against domestic crimes, this is not the case as seen in the case of Bobbie Jo Stinnett. “Using a PATRIOT Act provision, FBI agents and examiners were able to trace Darlene Fisher’s messages to a server in Topeka, find Darlene Fisher’s e-mail address, and then trace it to a house in Melvern, Kansas. Darlene Fisher’s real name was actually Lisa Montgomery. Montgomery was arrested and subsequently confessed. Bobbie Jo’s baby, Victoria Jo Stinnett, was found alive less than 24 hours after she was cut from her mother’s womb and she was returned to her father.” (Department of Justice, 2005) Obviously, the bittersweet ending and recovering of the child was a good thing, however, this supposedly “foreign based” Act was in fact used in a non- terrorist crime. This would lead to the assumption that they can indeed use this Act no matter what to countermand ones Constitutional rights.

Section 213 of the Patriot Act allows a court to do the following. “The court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result” (FindLaw, 2001) This section specifically denies one the Fourth Amendment rights regarding search and seizure as well as the Exclusionary Law, if cause is seen by the judge and the Law Enforcement. It means that regardless of innocence or guilt one is denied a jury trial, and is in fact seen as guilty so having to prove ones innocence, which runs against every legal base we have in this nation.

Lastly, we can see that according to Section 215 of the Patriot Act, Law Enforcement personnel can request your library, phone, and other records if they “suspect” that you may be a criminal of worth. Another part of this section states the following “A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production.” (FindLaw, 2001) In addition, as we can see this also runs completely opposite to the Constitution, The Sixth Amendment clearly states the following. “To be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor” (Bill of Rights, 1791) As we can see in just these three instances the Patriot Act while having its positive benefits does in actuality represent a much greater threat to the freedoms of this country and its people.

References:

Bill of Rights, (1791). The United States Constitution.

Retrieved June 26, 2009,

Bumiller, Elisabeth (Wednesday, January 4, 2006).

June 26, 2009. from

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/world/americas/04iht- patriot.html

Department of Justice, (2005). Fact sheet:

Usa patriot act provisions set for reauthorization . from

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/April/05_opa_163.htm

FindLaw, (2001). Text of the US Patriot Act of 2001.

PUBLIC LAW 107–56—, Retrieved 2009,

Obama, Barack (2005, December 15). June 26, 2009.