As you have probably gathered, I will be arguing the 'pro' Patriot Act side of the argument as to whether the Patriot Act was (and is) a necessary piece of legislation and whether or not it takes away civil liberties.
~~
My first argument, and the strongest, is that the Patriot Act removes restrictions from government officials about gaining intelligence in order to combat the terrorist threat. High ranking government officials are now able to issue Security letters, which provides them with Internet and phone usage information, financial records, credit information and travel records that may cue them into terrorist activities or connections. The groups and people that can have access to these letters are reasonably small, and judge's go-ahead is still needed.
~~
Another way in which the Patriot Act allows government officials to more easily access information is by making the laws for gathering intelligence on terrorist activity more similar to the laws used for gathering information on the fight against illegal drugs, through the use of such technology as roving wire taps. (Authorities can adjust wire taps to what the person is using at that time. For example, rules for wiretaps used to mandate that authorities would need to get a new warrant for each new phone that the individual used. The law was update to that used for the war on drugs, that authorities can use a single warrant for all of the communicative media the person chooses to use.)
~~
Similarly, the Patriot Act allows for nationwide search warrants, another tool that was previously used in the war on drugs, to help expedite the time officials spent obtaining warrants. Previously, officials would need to apply for a new warrant each time their suspect entered a new jurisdiction, but the Patriot Act took away this need.
~~
In addition to these two specific examples the Patriot Act also incorporates several other laws to update the laws on terrorism to modern technology. Many of the laws had been made many years ago, and did not account for the large expanse of communication media that would become available. The Patriot Act helps to modernize these laws in reference to terrorism, and clarifies the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
~~
It must be kept in mind when considering these increases in the ability of the government to get information that judicial review is still required for a vast majority of the legal tools granted by the Patriot Act, and that probable cause is still needed for wiretaps and searches.
~~
Sorry this was late, I was sick yesterday! If you have any questions let me know!
2 comments:
I can understand why people would be apprehensive about a law/act that allows the government to access personal things such as phone calls, emails, etc. This can seem like an invasion of space yet the government has always been able to access personal information, for example through the IRS. From what you have written it seems there are clear cut rules for agents to be able to wire tap etc, seeing they need the approval of a judge. They couldn't legally just ease drop on their next door neighbors. Have they clearly stated in the Act that these boundaries will go no further, or will they expand them if necessary?
Hey Erica
In response to your question, the boundaries are laid out within the law about use and misuse of the Patriot Act (more about that will come in my third subtopic), so I'll save most of that discussion for when we get there. Like anything, the law is pretty clear with boundaries that neither of us would really understand not being lawyers. The various acts of the Patriot Act could be legally expanded, i suppose, through more legislation, just as any law could be updated by a new bill. Many of the articles of the Act, however, do have specific dates where they either get tossed or must be revoted in (quite a few of them have already passed), so in that regard the more controversial segments would need re-approval for use to continue.
Hope that cleared it up?
Post a Comment