20 May Response PADM-07
The USA Patriot Act of 2001 aims at eradicating terrorism and details methods that can be used to ensure America is safe from such acts. This focus on fighting terrorism came after the New York bombings in 2001 that left many dead and changed the country’s course of history. Through analyzing areas such as money laundering that finances terrorism internationally the American Intelligence has been able to drastically reduce the chances of a terrorist attack. This paper will, therefore, discuss the effects of the Patriot Act and how it influenced the passing of the Freedom Act.
The Act was made with good intentions to safeguard the American citizens but has had some disadvantages as well. It has been beneficial in helping the security officials in intercepting many people and some even got convicted especially after the 2001 terrorist’s attacks. Procedures such as surveillance and strict regulations implemented under the Act have made it harder for a potential terrorist to succeed. Security officials such as The FBI were under the Patriot Act allowed to have access to the phones of suspected individuals and other citizens (Boykin, 2015). The government was able to increase investments on security and communication within the nation that allowed them to be more aware of what was going on.
On the downside, there was the invasion of privacy through tapping of phones. Majority of American citizens highly criticized this act of invasion where they felt that some security agents can misuse the information they get to set others up (Boykin, 2015). This lack of privacy and tapping by the government can probably be described as the biggest disadvantage of the Patriot Act that in some ways violates certain freedoms of the citizens. The intelligence agencies under this Act were permitted to have access to any records whether an organization or person who was deemed suspect (Boykin, 2015). They could dig up almost anything on them even information that was not necessarily relevant to the case. Racial profiling was also a big disadvantage of this that allowed suspected immigrants to be detained for long periods of time which has not been always done fairly. This is especially on tourist and immigrants trying to attain the American dream and profiling goes against their rights.
The Freedom Act of 2015 that was proposed in 2013 was meant to block the security officials from tapping Americans phone calls every day (Newman, 2015). Under the Patriot Act the intelligence official could get access to phone calls or even business records when it was deemed relevant to an investigation. The intelligence security officials who insisted to the congress that having access to the citizen’s phone logs and all other organizations allowed them to create links and stop attacks from happening on American soil fell in deaf years as the freedom act was passed to reduce their access to the citizens. Under the Freedom Act the Patriot Act was to be constrained. This therefore means that the National security agency could now only get access to the one person’s information that they are looking for and they must first show how this person is associated with a terrorist group.
Therefore, phone call tapping of every citizen was stopped and only suspects are tapped. This Act also requires the intelligence community to show how much information they are collecting and will be beneficial in allowing technology companies to show how often they send information to the security people (Newman, 2015). This Freedom Act was beneficial and important in helping Americans citizens feel more private.
We can see the impact of the Patriot Act that helped change the intelligence sector all in the hopes of ensuring that terrorist do not attract. The Patriot Act has been useful in keeping the security officials aware of any suspicious people in the country but has also been criticized for invading in the privacy of Americans by tapping their phones. This problem was solved by the Freedom Act of 2015 that helps safeguard the personal information of innocent civilians and help in the crackdown on suspected terrorists.
References
Boykin, S. A (2015). The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Separation of Powers. The University of Arkansas as Little Rock Law Review.38 (1). Retrieved from http://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview
Newman. Lily (2015) Senate Approved USA Freedom Act, Which Ends NSA Bulk Surveillance. Slate. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/06/02/senate_approves_usa_freedom_act.html
Response two-PADM-07
The USA Patriot Act of 2001 aims at eradicating terrorism and details methods that can be used to ensure America is safe from such acts. This focus on fighting terrorism came after the New York bombings in 2001 that left many dead and changed the country’s course of history. Through analyzing areas such as money laundering that finances terrorism internationally the American Intelligence has been able to drastically reduce the chances of a terrorist attack. This paper will, therefore, discuss the effects of the Patriot Act and how it influenced the passing of the Freedom Act.
The Act was made with good intentions to safeguard the American citizens but has had some disadvantages as well. It has been beneficial in helping the security officials in intercepting many people and some even got convicted especially after the 2001 terrorist’s attacks. Procedures such as surveillance and strict regulations implemented under the Act have made it harder for a potential terrorist to succeed. Security officials such as The FBI were under the Patriot Act allowed to have access to the phones of suspected individuals and other citizens (Boykin, 2015). The government was able to increase investments on security and communication within the nation that allowed them to be more aware of what was going on.
On the downside, there was the invasion of privacy through tapping of phones. Majority of American citizens highly criticized this act of invasion where they felt that some security agents can misuse the information they get to set others up (Boykin, 2015). This lack of privacy and tapping by the government can probably be described as the biggest disadvantage of the Patriot Act that in some ways violates certain freedoms of the citizens. The intelligence agencies under this Act were permitted to have access to any records whether an organization or person who was deemed suspect (Boykin, 2015). They could dig up almost anything on them even information that was not necessarily relevant to the case. Racial profiling was also a big disadvantage of this that allowed suspected immigrants to be detained for long periods of time which has not been always done fairly. This is especially on tourist and immigrants trying to attain the American dream and profiling goes against their rights.
The Freedom Act of 2015 that was proposed in 2013 was meant to block the security officials from tapping Americans phone calls every day (Newman, 2015). Under the Patriot Act the intelligence official could get access to phone calls or even business records when it was deemed relevant to an investigation. The intelligence security officials who insisted to the congress that having access to the citizen’s phone logs and all other organizations allowed them to create links and stop attacks from happening on American soil fell in deaf years as the freedom act was passed to reduce their access to the citizens. Under the Freedom Act the Patriot Act was to be constrained. This therefore means that the National security agency could now only get access to the one person’s information that they are looking for and they must first show how this person is associated with a terrorist group.
Therefore, phone call tapping of every citizen was stopped and only suspects are tapped. This Act also requires the intelligence community to show how much information they are collecting and will be beneficial in allowing technology companies to show how often they send information to the security people (Newman, 2015). This Freedom Act was beneficial and important in helping Americans citizens feel more private.
We can see the impact of the Patriot Act that helped change the intelligence sector all in the hopes of ensuring that terrorist do not attract. The Patriot Act has been useful in keeping the security officials aware of any suspicious people in the country but has also been criticized for invading in the privacy of Americans by tapping their phones. This problem was solved by the Freedom Act of 2015 that helps safeguard the personal information of innocent civilians and help in the crackdown on suspected terrorists.
References
Boykin, S. A (2015). The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Separation of Powers. The University of Arkansas as Little Rock Law Review.38 (1). Retrieved from http://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview
Newman. Lily (2015) Senate Approved USA Freedom Act, Which Ends NSA Bulk Surveillance. Slate. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/06/02/senate_approves_usa_freedom_act.html
RESPONSE THREE PADM-07
The Patriot law (Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) was enacted few months after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as a result it prompted debates and controversies to the extent that it would have seem that Americans were between two choices, either protect the homeland or safeguard the civil rights (Etzioni, 2004). Indeed, it was a dilemma before the policymakers, but did they have a choice, but to introduce those tough measures? The political and social climate must have dictated the route for the decision. I think anyone in that situation would have taken the same decision, including the opponents.
According to Zeugmann, (2008), the disaster of September 11, was an exception to Benjamin Franklin quote ‘Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety’ (Zeugmann, 2008). I think this is what has happened with the Patriot law. Yes, there was a trade-off between liberty and security, but it was inevitable (Etzioni, 2004).
There is a rule in security that roughly says ‘Deny all access by default, then open as rights permit’. However, strict security measures in the aftermath of the tragedy should have also been expected to short live the momentum of shock and losses.
Technically, the law was wide and complex affecting changes in many other laws, and was criticized of being ambiguous as well, to the extent that some parts have been ruled to be unconstitutional. For example, the law covers monitoring and interception of all types of communication including physical wiring, all financial activities around the world, sea and air travel and shipping (Section 75 b). The law demanded amendment to the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (PUBLIC LAW 107–56—OCT. 26, 2001, section 358). According to Dolar & Shughart, the law imposed substantial compliance costs on the financial services industry as a whole (Dolar & Shughart, (2012).
The Patriot provided the law enforcement departments with semi-open authority and budget to implement antiterrorism policies. As a result, the law had illegally affected many innocent people, but fortunately these issues also led to other policy changes to restrict interrogation methods.
From the security perspective, the law has been effective in America to avoid more attacks in the country, and led to major changes in the government security organization and infrastructure. There was certainly unprecedented cost, but this had been apportioned over the years. However, the actions that the government had taken outside America proved to be costly in terms of money and on peace and stability around the world, and the tax payer is still paying this burden. The consequences have been oscillating since then; the latest being the ISIS state in Iraq and Syria, and terrorism in many other places.
Theoretically, by giving the law enforcement the ability to monitor and detain citizens that are just suspected of sympathizing with terrorists made people fear of hurting many innocent people. However, on the other side, although, the law has been criticized for being broad and ambiguous, but it recognized a very related point to the tragedy at the time. The law section 102, stressed on the condemnation of discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans. Therefore, generally there was no major drift with respect to race, religion, etc. at least from the official side.
Also, considering the ethical consequences, particularly the issues that have been ignited by Edward Snowden, many mandates of the law that were controversial were carefully implemented or shelfed. This was more or less the case at home, but internationally, the foreign policies and actions like the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the problems with Guantanamo prison, a lot of ethical moral excesses have been recorded (Michaels, 2002). There have also been many criticisms inside America.
Finally, inside the US, the Freedom Act of 2015, has restored many of the civil rights and liberties that have been affected by the Patriot law, but on individual basis, some parts of the Patriot law still have the privilege. However, generally speaking, the law has made extra ordinary damages to the image of America in many countries, though with the latest amendments, it is a necessity at home.
References:
Dolar, B., & Shughart, W. F. (2012). The USA patriot act’s differential impact on large and small banks: Evidence from california’s high-risk money laundering and related financial crime areas. Journal of Banking Regulation, 13(2), 127-146.http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy1.apus.edu/10.1057/jbr.2011.22
Etzioni, A. (2004). How patriotic is the patriot act? : freedom versus security in the age of terrorism. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu
Michaels, C. W. (2002). No greater threat : america after september 11 and the rise of a national security state. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu
Public Law 107–56—OCT. 26, 2001, retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/pdf/PLAW-107publ56.pdf
Zeugmann, C. (2008). The trade-off between civil liberties and security in the united states and germany after 9/11/01 : an analysis. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu
RESPONSE FOUR PADM-07
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 was passed shortly after the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001. The focus of the USA PATRIOT ACT was to strengthen the government Intelligence Community (IC) by enhancing the federal government’s ability to gather national intelligence. This act was very effective in increasing the IC’s ability to collect intelligence. At the time it was passed the act had a high level of social acceptability due to the united desire to prevent more terrorist attacks. However, as time went on, many began to question the USA PATRIOT ACT. Many were not sure if giving up civil liberties for protection was actually ethical (American Public University System, n.d.). Concerns were expressed that this act violated privacies granted under the fourth amendment. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, warrants, for searching anyone’s private information, could be granted just by asserting it was for intelligence activities. The judicial approval to obtain these warrants was removed making it much easier for personal privacy to be violated legally (Bob, 2014).
One of the biggest pieces of the act that was in dispute for trading between security and civil rights was public phone data collection. In 2013 it was released that the National Security Agency was collecting communication records for millions of Americans. Many responded with outrage. Shortly after, the Obama Administration released a White Paper that outlined the program details and how it was legal under the USA PATRIOT ACT section 215, stating that this section was meant to be broad. This phone data collection program was designed in 2006 to help detect terrorist threats quickly, and the White Paper stressed that this does not violate the Fourth Amendment, since individuals making phone calls do not expect to have complete privacy, and the government operates the program dutifully. However, researchers argue that the White Paper did not account that most collected records have no connection to suspected terrorism, the records are not evidence of illegal behavior, and there is not enough evidence to support that section 215 was meant to be broad by Congress. The White Paper also states that the program was meant to be secret, so it was not debated in Congress or subjected to the public when section 215 was reauthorized. For all of these reasons, there has been much controversy in terms of social acceptability and even political feasibility of this act (National security, 2014).
The USA Freedom Act of 2015 was signed to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act, but did not grant permission for the government to keep collecting phone and Internet records (American Public University System, n.d.). This allowed government officials to only be able to access these records through phone companies with approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). Many were supportive as this act allows for greater transparency and surveillance (Domestic surveillance reform, 2015). It seems that the Freedom Act did correct this major issue of individual’s private phone information being collected, which many felt was violating civil liberties. However, there are still many concerns that this act allows government officials to violate the privacies granted to U.S. citizens under the fourth amendment but others state this is necessary for protection.
References
American Public University System (n.d.) Lesson 7: Environmental and foreign policy. In PADM530: Public Policy: Winter 2018 Session B [Online Class Lesson]. Retrieved February 12, 2018 from apus.realizeithome.com.
Bob, B. (2004). USA PATRIOT Act and progeny threaten the very foundation of freedom. The Georgetown journal of law & public policy, 2(2), 385.
Domestic surveillance reform. (2015). Congressional Digest, 94(10), 1.
National security – Telephony metadata collection – White paper argues metadata collection is legal under the USA PATRIOT ACT. (2014). Harvard Law Review, 127(6), 1871-1878.
Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.
About Writedemy
We are a professional paper writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework. We offer HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE Papers.
How It Works
To make an Order you only need to click on “Order Now” and we will direct you to our Order Page. Fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Are there Discounts?
All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.