Pearl 1

David Pearl
Mr. Burchett
Honors Government 5
2 November 2015
The PATRIOT ACT: Time to Amend a Necessary Evil
The land of the brave and the home of the free might not be so for much longer. The
United States of America, self-proclaimed watchdog of the world, does not enjoy any
exemptions from global threats to peace and prosperity. Those in denial of such threats were
rudely awakened to a new reality on the morning of September 11, 2001, when terrorists struck
the American financial heart of New York. A seriously stunned country shocked by the level of
brutality quickly assembled behind President Bush to pass legislation, known as the USA
PATRIOT ACT, to tackle internal and external threats to the nation. Because this new legislation
was passed into law with extreme haste, it was controversial immediately. Even though this
legislation was passed with good intentions, and there was an absolute need to tackle threats to
the homeland, since its inception, this law has unfairly targeted U.S. residents, especially since it
allows the government to unrestrictedly monitor electronic communications, including wireless
phones, email, and the internet. The USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001 clearly violates the
constitutionally guaranteed rights of the residents of the United States and sections 215, 802 and
806 must be amended to ensure that every day U.S. citizens are not defined as terrorists, citizens
liberties are protected, and people are informed of property seizures.

Pearl 2
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT ACT expands the definition of terrorism to cover
"domestic," in addition to international, terrorism. This is a huge change in policy as it allows
for a law-abiding citizen partaking in a protest against the government to be loosely defined as a
terrorist. Section 802 states:
A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is
a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be
intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a
government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by
mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur
primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be
regarded as international terrorism. (PROVISIONS)
This definition is reminiscent of McCarthyist tactics, which accused innocent people of acts of
terrorism. This concept was a complete farce during McCarthys time and this type of language
is detrimental to everyday citizens that could now easily be accused of being terrorists for
exercising their constitutional right to freedom of speech. Section 802 does not create a new
offense of terrorism committed domestically. Its purpose is to expand the type of conduct that
the government can use to investigate domestic "terrorism" (How the USA). This new
definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of prominent activist
campaigns and organizations such as WTO, Greenpeace and Operation Rescue (PostPATRIOT) just for voicing their concerns or having a different viewpoint. Now that the
PATRIOT ACT allows the government to easily define citizens as terrorists, it begs the question:
What is worse than defining someone a terrorist who justly exercises their constitutional rights?

Pearl 3
These new terrorists, perpetrators of crimes or not, are subject to legislation that does not
follow the rules of the land.
One of the biggest critiques of the PATRIOT ACT is that it was quickly passed without
following the prescribed legislative procedure, agency review, public hearings, mark-up, floor
debate, and conference report, in both chambers and the civil liberties of United States citizens
took a back seat. Many times in the past decade and a half since the act was passed, there have
been numerous reports of the suppression of the rights protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth and
Sixth amendments of the Bill of Rights, directly threatening the freedom of association,
information, speech, and the right to legal representation as well as the right to liberty (Chang).
This is simply unacceptable. What is the point of having a supreme law of the land if we create
and ratify legislation that destroys it? For instance, in distinct violation of the Fourth
Amendment, library surveillance introduced by the PATRIOT ACT allows monitoring of public
computer terminals at libraries and the use of secret search warrants to seize any tangible thing in
a library without probable cause or court procedure. It also imposed a gag order on booksellers
and librarians to prevent them from disclosing details of surveillance (HEARING BEFORE).
The extent of investigation in libraries is just another reason Americans need to realize that their
privacy rights have been stolen from them under the disguise of the PATRIOT ACT.
Surveillance does not stop at the libraries, it has even reached our residential doorsteps without
notice. In this era of technology, most people rely on digital communication to stay connected
with the rest of the world. The PATRIOT ACT allows federal agents to monitor electronic
communications, including wireless phones, email, and the internet, without much oversight. It
also allows the government to seize business records of telecom companies and customer records
from the Internet Service Providers. In addition to the Internet, any subscriber records from the

Pearl 4
cable company, including programming details, can also be confiscated (WHAT'S WRONG).
This mass data collection, for example, approximately 500 billion communication records were
intercepted and analyzed in 2012 (Ombres), was revealed to the public by Edward Snowden in
2012, yet most people still do not understand to what extent their privacy has been compromised
by the PATRIOT ACT. Besides violating civil liberties, even defaming the meaning of liberty
itself, the PATRIOT ACT goes one-step further and allows governmental bodies to secretly seize
property that can be used to prosecute ordinary individuals - the aforementioned breaches of
liberty and flexible definitions of terrorism allow this process to be simplistic something that
can also be said about civil seizure under the PATRIOT ACT.
Seizure of property is understood as a necessary evil when an investigation is under way.
However, property taken in secret or without any warning is the reality of the PATRIOT ACT.
Under the legislation, secret warrants can be issued by the FISA court that allow property to be
seized in secret and later used against someone in a trial. All of this is made possible in Section
806, which permits civil seizure of citizens assets without a prior hearing, and without them ever
being convicted of a crime is a possibility (Rouse). It is the most significant change of which
political organizations need to be made aware of with haste. Section 806 altered the civil asset
forfeiture statute to authorize the government to seize and forfeit:
All assets, foreign or domestic (i) of any individual, entity, or organization planning or
perpetrating any act of terrorism against the United States, or their property, and all
assets, affording any person a source of influence over any such entity or organization or
(ii) acquired or maintained by any person with the intent and for the purpose of
supporting, planning, conducting, or concealing an act of terrorism against the United
States, citizens or residents of the United States or their property or (iii) derived from,

Pearl 5
involved in, or used or intended to be used to commit any act of terrorism against the
United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property. (Doyle)
This language is broad enough that the government was given the power to seize assets of any
individuals involved in protests or of any organization supporting protests in which its members
participate in, or from any individuals who support the protesters in any way. As an example,
possible supporters of protesters could include student organizations that sponsor participation in
a demonstration. This type of definition is extremely broad and serves to harm citizens rather
than help prevent or stop terrorism.
While many agree with the aforementioned issues, it is always important to consider
alternative viewpoints and their validity: supporters of the PATRIOT ACT argue that it is
essential and critically enhances our national security without violating civil liberties. The
people who believe this viewpoint argue that without the PATRIOT ACT, the country would be
unstable and terrorists would have a stranglehold on the U.S. The PATRIOT ACTs
modifications to meet the evolution of technology represent an adaptation of existing laws to
developments in international terrorism and technology (Gerdes 29). These new modifications
are hardly critical to enhancing national security. Sure, they might help to improve it, but there
are other courses that can be taken to improve national security rather than just updating
legislation with blanket terms and blas definitions of terrorism. More importantly, those who
believe that the PATRIOT ACT does not violate civil liberties of citizens are deluded. Not only
was the Act drafted, debated and passed in only 45 days, but most of those who passed the law
did not even read it (Department). Those that read the PATRIOT ACT would have realized
that it potentially violates six of ten original constitutional amendments by granting broad new
powers to law enforcement, therefore permitting law enforcement officials to sidestep or avoid

Pearl 6
entirely many traditional controls on surveillance, investigation, arrest, and prosecution of
civilians residing in the United States (Gerdes 79). Overall, while some argue that civil liberties
are protected by the PATRIOT ACT, they are not. Furthermore, it makes no sense to have to
sidestep or circumvent traditional means of enforcing legislation. If there is a problem with the
system, the system begs for reformation, not a shiny piece of legislation that is advertised as a
cure-all for inadequate enforcement of the old legislation.
It is unacceptable that the USA PATRIOT ACT has not been amended yet. It not only
allows everyday citizens to be defined as terrorists if the government disagrees with their
ideologies, but it discards individual liberties while allowing property seizures without
knowledge as an available tool to protect against homegrown terrorists. More importantly,
media outlets have done such a poor job reporting on this issue and informing the public of the
true scope of the issue. The average American has no idea what the PATRIOT ACT is or how it
could affect their lives. It is time to break down the lies created by those who grasp for more
power and amend the PATRIOT ACT before legislative change cannot undo the damages already
caused by the PATRIOT ACT.

Pearl 7
Works Cited
Internet Sources:
Abramson, Larry, and Maria Godoy. "The Patriot Act: Key Controversies."NPR. NPR, 16 Dec.
2005. Web. 01 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.npr.org/news/specials/patriotact/patriotactdeal.html>.
Beischel, Kristin, Jessica Metz, and Christine Rathbone. "PATRIOT Act." (2008): n. pag. 2008.
Web. 18 Oct. 2015. <http://www.ethicapublishing.com/ethical/3CH7.pdf>.
Chang, Nancy. "USA PATRIOT Act." Encyclopedia of U.S. Political History(2010): n.
pag. Rutgers. Rutgers, Nov. 2001. Web. 1 Nov. 2015.
<http://rci.rutgers.edu/~tripmcc/phil/chang-usapa.pdf>.
Cole, David. "It's Worse Than You Thought: NSA Spying and the Patriot Act." The Nation. The
Nation, 06 June 2013. Web. 25 Sept. 2015. <http://www.thenation.com/article/its-worseyou-thought-nsa-spying-and-patriot-act/>.
"Department of Government and Justice Studies." The USA Patriot Act. Appalachian State
University, n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2015. <http://gjs.appstate.edu/media-coverage-crime-andcriminal-justice/usa-patriot-act>.
Doyle, Charles. Terrorism: Section by Section Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act. Washington,
D.C.: Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, 2001. FPC. 10 Dec.
2001. Web. 22 Oct. 2015. <http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7952.pdf>.
"HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND
HOMELAND SECURITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF

Pearl 8
REPRESENTATIVES." U.S. Government Printing Office, 9 Mar. 2011. Web. 1 Nov.
2015. <judiciary.house.gov>.
"How the USA PATRIOT Act Redefines "Domestic Terrorism"" American Civil Liberties Union.
ACLU, n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2015. <https://www.aclu.org/how-usa-PATRIOT-ACTredefines-domestic-terrorism>.
Kashan, Sunya. "The USA Patriot Act: Impact on Freedoms and Civil Liberties." College of
DuPage. College of DuPage, 1 Apr. 2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2015.
<http://dc.cod.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&context=essai>.
Kerr, Orin S. "Internet Surveillance Law after the USA Patriot Act: The Big Brother That
Isn't." Social Science Research Network. Social Science Research Network, 2003. Web.
01 Nov. 2015. <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=317501>.
Ombres, Devon. "NSA DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE FROM THE PATRIOT ACT TO THE
FREEDOM ACT: THE UNDERLYING HISTORY, CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS, AND
THE EFFORTS AT REFORM." Seton Hall University, 22 Jan. 2015. Web. 1 Nov. 2015.
<http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&context=shlj>.
"Patriot Act 2001." Gale Opposing Viewpoints. Gale, 2014. Web. 1 Nov. 2015.
<http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/DocumentToolsPortletWindow?
displayGroupName=Reference&u=cant48040&u=cant48040&jsid=2cffb6e1b29eb2a506
5350b655ba60a4&p=OVIC&action=2&catId=GALE
%7C00000000LVYC&documentId=GALE
%7CPC3021900130&zid=f25191ffbc52b7b9538b6117e07df9e8>.

Pearl 9
"Post-PATRIOT Act Laws." American Civil Liberties Union : How the USA PATRIOT Act
Redefines "Domestic Terrorism" N.p., 6 Dec. 2002. Web. 01 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Morals%20and%20Law/M+L/How
%20the%20USA%20PATRIOT%20Act%20redefines%20Domestic%20Terrorism.htm>.
Roberts, Joel. "The Issues: Patriot Act." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 4 Oct. 2004. Web. 25 Sept.
2015. <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-issues-patriot-act/>.
Rouse, Margaret. "What Is USA Patriot Act?" SearchDataManagement. TechTarget, n.d. Web. 18
Oct. 2015. <http://searchdatamanagement.techtarget.com/definition/Patriot-Act>.
"Testimony." FBI. FBI, 24 May 2004. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.
<https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/usa-patriot-act>.
"USA PATRIOT ACT PROVISIONS." (n.d.): n. pag. Yale. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
<http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/telecom/usapatriotactprovisions1.pdf>.
"WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE PATRIOT ACT AND WHAT YOU CAN DO TO FIX IT."
WHAT S WRONG WITH THE PATRIOT ACT (n.d.): n. pag. Cdt.org. Center for
Democracy and Technology. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.
<https://cdt.org/files/security/usapatriot/brochure.pdf>.
Print Sources:
Gerdes, Louise I., ed. The Patriot Act. New York: Thomson Gale, 2005. Print.
Nakaya, Andrea C. Civil Liberties. N.p.: Greenhaven, 2006. Print.

Pearl 10
Schulhofer, Stephen J. 2003. No Checks, No Balances: Discarding Bedrock Constitutional
Principles. The War on Our Freedoms. Richard C. Leone and Jr. Greg Anrig. New York:
The Century Foundation. Print.