Patriot Act

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.