Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of this authors plus don’t necessarily reflect the views of LawTeacher.
The USA PATRIOT Act (Patriot Act) was established after September 11, 2001 (9/11) when terrorists attacked the usa.
The Patriot Act has raised concerns that are many whether or not it infringes on the civil liberties of those of this nation. Looking back in history, our past presidents developed laws which were the stepping stone for the ideas that created the Patriot Act. The government’s job will be protect the social people, nonetheless it has a bigger job which is to safeguard the country. This has raised issues that are many the Patriot Act and whether or not it really is more detrimental to us than it really is helpful. The american people should be concerned with how much power our government has when developing laws governing our civil liberties in relation to the Patriot Act and how it deprives those accused under essay helper it of Constitutional rights.
On September 11, 2001 the usa (US) experienced the unthinkable when terrorists attacked the country by itself soil. This is a eye that is serious or do I need to say reality search for the usa. The usa has many of the very counter that is sophisticated on earth but was unable to prevent such a tragedy. Why didn’t they see it coming? Lots of thing could be today that is different that question could half been answered ahead of 9/11.
This act was compiled from two documents, the Provide Appropriate Tools expected to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) through the homely house of Representatives (House) therefore the Uniting and Strengthening American (USA) Act from the Senate, was merged together creating the Patriot Act. Relating to Lemieux, previous developed laws created by previous presidents to eliminate conflicts were just like the Patriot Act they just had different names Lemieux, M. (n.d.). Reputation for the united states Patriot Act. Retrieved April 9, 2011, from http://www.constitutiondenied.com/Media/History-Patriot-Act.pdf. The Aliens and Sedition Act of 1798 was developed throughout the pugilative war with France because the US was afraid for the country and the people and desired to make sure the enemy would not sleep amongst us. Using this power the president surely could have anyone who was considered to be a threat into the government could be arrested and deported. Through the Civil War the president suspended Habeas Corpus for the safety advantages of the world, giving the federal government the ability to imprison someone without sufficient evidence. The President ordered over 10,000 American citizens which had not shown any disloyalty to your united states of america into confinement camps because they were of Japanese descent Lemieux, M. (n.d.) during World War II. History of the USA Patriot Act. Retrieved 9, 2011, from http://www.constitutiondenied.com/Media/History-Patriot-Act.pdf april. These are the stone that is stepping the introduction of the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act came into existence as a response to your tragic events of 9/11. The bill that will come to be referred to as Patriot Act was introduced to Congress just days after 9/11. It had been revised due to concerns from many congressmen that the balance allowed for too broad of a scope of power to authorities that are federal. Eventually following the bill was revised and reintroduced, Congress passed it with little to no opposition on 26, 2001 october. Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI), would up being the only senator to vote up against the Patriot Act. Although the Patriot Act did not enter into existence until after 9/11, it can have roots in earlier legislation. On 25, 1996, President Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act into law april. The balance with this statutory law was introduced after the Oklahoma City Bombing. The most important provision regarding the act managed to get illegal to present “material support” to any organization banned by the state dept.. The balance was greatly criticized by Republicans for granting a lot of power to authorities. The balance had to undergo major modifications before it was passed in 1996. The balance that ended up law that is becoming said to be a “watered down version” associated with original that President Clinton wanted passed. Strangely enough, it was this act that was broadened and revamped to create the Patriot Act (Creative Commons, n.d.).
The Patriot Act has been highly criticized for being extremely broad and too open for interpretation since becoming law. In 2004, a judge ruled that elements of the Patriot Act were unconstitutional simply because they were too vague and in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments. Another criticism associated with the Patriot Act is the fact that it generally does not guarantee enough oversight to be sure that those who are given power by the act try not to misuse it. On March 9, 2006 President Bush signed the Patriot Act Reauthorization, but attached a signing statement in that he said which he would ignore specific mandates printed in the bill that could give more judicial and Congressional oversight to agencies authorized utilization of the act. The Attorney General at the time, requesting to have the administration rescind the signing statement since they do not have force of law in late March, letters were written to Alberto Gonzales. In those letters, they cited Article 1, Section 7 for the Constitution which states that ‘Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives together with Senate, shall, if he approve he shall sign it, however if not he shall send it back. before it become a Law, be presented to the President of this United States;’ Alberto Gonzales and President Bush both ignored the letters and not responded. Their argument was that the president could not change legislation that were passed by Congress and say which he would ignore part of it which he did not agree with. On December 10, 2007, an appeals court upheld the 2004 ruling that parts of the Patriot Act were unconstitutional. Within the ruling, the court stated that a statute must allow for an individual of average intelligence in order to read through and understand the law. They found that certain parts of the act were too vague. They concluded that in the event that law was worded in a manner that the typical average person could not understand, then the average person wouldn’t normally know if they were committing a crime (Creative Commons, n.d.).
Even though many believe that our threat that is terrorist from countries is fantastic, there is also driving a car of terrorist attacks from the US by a unique citizens. The Oklahoma City Bombing is a tragic example. In some instances, there clearly was a need for the government to suspect an American citizen and do surveillance to guard the country from another such tragedy. The government has been espionage that is doing for extended than a lot of people think. It is really not a practice that is new but with the technology we have today, it really is easier for authorities to gather intelligence. Despite the fact that they have this technology at their disposal that will not imply that the Constitution may be ignored in the true name of protecting the US.
One example regarding the Patriot Act getting used this kind of a real way is in the case of Jose Padilla.
He had been a Puerto Rican born citizen who later in the life converted to Islam. He traveled through the entire Middle East and allegedly plotted with al Qaeda terrorists to detonate a “dirty bomb” in a US city. As soon he was detained as he stepped off a plane in the United States. The Bush Administration claimed though he was an American citizen because he had been deemed an “enemy combatant” by the president that he could be detained even. He had been then held in a brig that is military three and a half years and was allegedly subjected to torture at the hands of US officials trying to elicit information from him. During those times, he had been not faced with any crimes though it was said there clearly was evidence that is overwhelming him. He had been also cut off from all communication with his family and attorney (Martinez, 2007).