Julia Teitelbaum

Period 7 English
4/23/07
Research Paper: The Patriot Act and Civil Liberties

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to

Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, more commonly known as the USA PATRIOT Act, or

simply the Patriot Act was signed into law on October 26, 2001, 45 days after the terrorist attacks

on September 11th. At the signing of the Patriot Act in 2001, President George W. Bush said that

the act would provide “important new tools to fight a present danger” (Gerdes). Since then, the

Patriot Act and the “important new tools” it authorizes have been subjects of intense controversy.

The debate over what the Patriot Act actually allows law enforcement officials to do, however,

centers on the balance of national security and protection of civil liberties in legislation.

In the United States, civil liberties are the rights individuals have that are free from

interference from the government or others; they include the rights listed in the Bill of Rights as

well as those protected by state or local laws (Boaz). Also, the Ninth Article of The Bill of Rights

states that “the enumeration…of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others

retained by the people”, so rights concerning privacy and “others retained by the people” can be

included under the label of civil liberties. In the past, civil liberties have been challenged and

suspended in times of war. The Patriot Act contains provisions that bring up the issue of civil

liberties during wartime. Critics call the Patriot Act “unwarranted and intrusive” (“Reform the

Patriot Act”). Still, on March 9, 2006, President Bush restated, “The Patriot Act is vital to the war

on terror and defending our citizens against a ruthless enemy” (“Preserving Life and Liberty”).

While the government calls changes to criminal procedure in the Patriot Act modest, civil

libertarians believe the changes erode individual rights. Such changes include procedures for

detention and deportation. The Patriot Act gives the Attorney General the power to detain
suspected terrorists for up to seven days, within which the Attorney General must begin

proceedings to deport, prosecute, or release the subject. In addition, under certain circumstances,

detention periods of six-month increments are permitted if releasing the subject will threaten

national security or cause harm to the community (Jenks). Civil libertarians feel such detention

without trial violates the principles of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution providing that

“no person… [shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” and

infringes upon immigrants’ rights. Defenders of the provision believe that it provides necessary

authority to detain possible terrorists before they cause harm. Also, Section 411 of the Patriot Act

allows for broader exclusion of immigrants based on their connections with terrorist

organizations. (Jenks). The provision excludes any alien determined by the Attorney General and

the Secretary of State to have been associated with a terrorist organization and intending to

commit terrorist acts in the United States, as well as their spouses and children (“The USA

PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty”). Civil libertarians feel that the provision would

allow for discrimination and exclusion of immigrants based on their ideologies. However,

defenders of the act feel that the admission of the terrorists responsible for the attacks on

September 11th was evidence that U.S. immigration policy needed to be reformed (Gerdes).

The provisions allowing increased surveillance within the United States are at the

forefront of many disputes over the Patriot Act (Lewis). Section 213 of the Patriot Act allows for

delayed notice of the execution of a warrant, otherwise known as “sneak and peek” warrants. On

its website, the ACLU claimed, “[Section 213] expands the government’s ability to search

private property without notice to the owner.” Defenders of the section believe that the

requirement of a court order and proof of reasonable cause for the delay are sufficient

precautions against abuse (“The USA PATRIOT Act: Myth vs. Reality”). Both critics and
defenders cite that “sneak and peek” warrants have existed for years; defenders citing it as a

precedent and critics claiming that previous legislation allowing for such warrants was adequate

and the provision was unnecessary (Gerdes). In addition, the Patriot Act authorizes the use of

“roving” wiretaps, additional surveillance of technology such as voice mail and e-mail, more use

of pen registers and trap and trace devices, and demands for educational and business records

(including library records). The Department of Justice justifies that such measures have been

used “for years” in criminal investigations. However, critics such as the ACLU say the secrecy

surrounding the use of such tools and lower standards for attaining the authority to use them

“represents a broad expansion of power without building in a necessary privacy protection”

(“The USA PATRIOT Act: Myth vs. Reality”).

Another highly controversial provision of the Patriot Act allows for expanded use of

National Security Letters (NSLs). The letters demand the records of individuals from an

organization without judicial review (only a signature from the Attorney General or a person to

whom he has delegated the power to sign NSLs), have an automatic gag order, and have specific

penalties for non-cooperation or unauthorized disclosure. NSLs existed prior to the Patriot Act,

but did not have a penalty for non-compliance and were not widely used; in 2000, prior to the

Patriot Act, the FBI issued approximately 8500 NSLs, between 2003 and 2005 the FBI issued

143,074 (Fine). In a report on March 9, 2007, the Inspector General of the Justice Department

cited multiple abuses of the NSL authority by the FBI and inaccuracies in keeping records of its

use. In addition, only one NSL was proven to have led to a terrorism investigation. The report’s

revelations only added to the controversy over NSLs, but the government says they “streamline”

the information attaining process and that speeding up that process reduces the possibility of a
terrorist attack (“The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty”). Civil libertarians feel

that the value of the provision does not outweigh the value of civil liberties (“5 Myths About”).

In the provisions of the Patriot Act and in general, legislators must find a balance between

adequate protections of civil liberties and adequate protection of the nation as a whole.

Supporters and critics of the Patriot Act both present legitimate arguments that examine the

powers of the act to the utmost. Some defenders of the Patriot Act claim that critics’ hypothetical

uses of the Patriot Act are far-fetched (Gerdes). In the case of Section 215’s use in libraries, for

example, the ACLU alleges that “The secrecy that surrounds Section 215 leads us to a society

where the thought police can target us for what we choose to read” while defenders retort “the

library habits of ordinary Americans are of no interest to those conducting terrorism

investigations.” (Department of Justice Website). As heated as debates over the Patriot Act and

authorities of the government during wartime may become, such discussions are the best

guarantees that neither national security nor individual liberty will be neglected when

considering legislation like the Patriot Act.