The written response, to the 9/11 attacks, was presented by the United States Government in the form of the USA Patriot Act, or Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism ( USA Patriot Act Sec. 215, 2006). Since being established, October 24, 2001, the USA Patriot Act has brought a bitter-sweet controversy into the hearts of Americans.  Such controversy is rooted in the ever popular debate between individual rights versus public order.  While National security is the primary purpose of the Justice Department, individual rights remain the foundation of American freedom.

Advantages

After the catastrophic events of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, no doubt remained in the minds of the American people that swift action must precede.  With little, to no, hesitation Congress passed the USA Patriot Act; and dually recognized the need for stronger laws to apprehend and prosecute terrorist.  The first, and most noticeable, advantage of the Act is the filling of the gap in federal law enforcement agencies.  The Act provided and mandated a line of communication between the FBI and CIA, to share intelligence previously separated between agencies (Ashcroft, 2005).  “The walls between those who gather intelligence and those who enforce the laws prevented action that could save lives (Ashcroft, 2005).”  The second advantage of the Act would further fill the gaps between law enforcement, by collaborating efforts among federal, state, and local law enforcement; thus forming a Joint Terrorism Task Forces in an effort to streamline efforts  (Ashcroft, 2005).  The third advantage is the strengthening and clarification of law designed to aid prosecution and investigation of suspected terrorists.  For example, wire taps orders could now be obtained to follow the suspect, as opposed to previous law which required a new order for every phone used by the individual in question (Ashcroft, 2005).  Additionally the Act clarifies what is considered material support, concerning funding given to terrorist groups and organizations.  Prior to 9/11 laws pertaining to terrorist funding were vague and limited, giving law enforcement limited legal means to enforce and investigate terrorist activity  (Ashcroft, 2005).  Such changes have proven successful “Between September 11, 2001 and May 5, 2004, the Department charged over 50 defendants with material support offenses in 17 different judicial districts (Ashcroft, 2005).” 

Disadvantages

The disadvantages of the USA Patriot Act may simply be due to misconception and sensitivity of semantics.  One disadvantage is the fear or threat that our basic foundation of freedom and constitutional rights are on the verge, if not already, of violation.  Individuals have become paranoid, so to speak, that the United States Government has set up a type of surveillance of the public at large (Gerdes, 2005).  The second disadvantage is the division among the American people in reference to the conflict of individual rights and public order.  The third disadvantage is financial, due to the overload on corrections based agencies and employees. According to the National League of Cities (NLC), “Municipal government budgets across the nation are strained and these added duties constitute unfunded mandates on cities’ police departments, libraries, universities, etc. that cities cannot financially absorb…. (Gerdes, 2005).”

Center of Conflict

Many misconceptions and misinformation surround the USA Patriot Act (Ryan, 2006).  Those who oppose the Act support argument and opposition based on a threat to individual rights.  According to Kevin Ryan (2006), the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California, “The Patriot Act simply took existing legal principles and retrofitted them for the challenges posed by a well-financed and highly coordinated global terrorist network… “   The most controversial sections of the Act, sections 215 and 505, are those concerning and providing formalities for search and seizure (USA Patriot Act Sec. 215, 2006).

Section 215 and 505 

Section 215 allows the FBI an extended reach by allocating the retention and collection of information, both business and personal, “…about persons not accused of any crime ( USA Patriot Act Sec. 215, 2006).”  Prior to 9/11 the FBI was responsible for the investigation of crimes committed, and was not given the legal backing to investigate persons without probable cause (Youngs, 2003).  In addition, section 215 allows for records searches, including library and internet search records; without giving the source of the record formal or legal reasoning, probable cause, for the search (USA Patriot Act Sec. 215, 2006).  Such a request for information is thus made legally possible by provisions made in section 505.  Section 505 allows for the FBI to request documents and records by issuing a National Security Letter in lieu of a court order or warrant (USA Patriot Act Sec. 215, 2006).

While the language of Section 215 is vague, many privacy and civil liberties advocates claim that authorities may obtain records about who has been borrowing or buying which books or using which Internet resources.  Further, the act prevents librarians and booksellers from revealing that they have had to supply records to the FBI-what has been called the “gag provision” of the bill. (USA Patriot Act Sec. 215, 2006, ¶ 2).

  The advantages and disadvantages are not polar opposite, yet parallel.  For individual rights advocates the idea of the government being able to legally access sensitive and personal information appears as a threat and a violation of rights.  Parallel are those who advocate public order, thus the idea of intense and extended government access is welcome; to ensure the protection of our nation.  In a perfect world the following statement could possibly drive the nation towards unification of definition, in reference to the USA Patriot Act, “The prevention of future terrorist attacks is a critical national priority, but it is equally important to preserve the fundamental civil liberties and personal freedoms embodied in the Bill of Rights over 200 years ago… (Gerdes, 2005).”  While vitally meaningful and well said, September 11th marked the beginning of a new war funded and fueled by a new predator; mandating change in legislation and calling for public order to take precedent over individual rights in order to preserve freedom.   

References

Ashcroft, J., (2005).  The Patriot Act Was Necessary.  In Louise I. Gerdes Opposing Viewpoints: The Patriot Act.  San Diego: Greenhaven Press.  Retrieved April 19, 2008, from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/ips/start.do?prodId=IPS           

Gerdes, Louise, I., (2005).   U.S. Cities Oppose Sections of the Patriot Act.  In Opposing Viewpoints: The Patriot Act.  San Diego: Greenhaven Press.  Retrieved April 16, 2008 from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/ips/start.do?prodId=IPS

Ryan, Kevin, V., (2006).  The Patriot Act Does Not Threaten Human Rights. In Tom Head At Issue: What Is the State of Human Rights?  San Diego: Greenhaven Press.  Retrieved April 19, 2008, from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/ips/start.do?prodId=IPS

USA PATRIOT Act, Section 215. (2006). Government, Politics, and Protest: Essential Primary Sources, (pp. 212-215). Detroit: Gale. Retrieved April 17, 2008 from Gale Virtual Reference Library via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/ips/start.do?prodId=IPS

Youngs, J. (2003).  Contemporary Issues In Criminal Justice.  University of Phoenix Edition.  USA:  Prentice Hall Inc. A Pearson Custom Publishing company.