The Patriot Act

The Patriotic Act

The Patriot Act is a controversial law that affects millions of Americans. It was passed right after the September 11, 2001 attacks in response to terrorist acts against the United States. The law increases the powers of law enforcement in order to fight terrorism. Many people feel that the law is needed for the protection of the United States while others think the law gives the government too much power. The controversial issues in the law vary from people debating over security to civil liberties. The Patriot Act changes many existing laws to fight terrorism but it greatly impacts many people. The excessive changes the Patriot Act makes are dangerous to America and should be eliminated. These hazardous changes are on the issues of law enforcement, treatment of detainees, and constitutionality.

Post act changes to law enforcement are not effective in stopping terrorists, and therefore make the act useless. If the act is useless then it is not needed and should be done away with.

Supporters of the Patriot Act say it is effective in stopping terrorism by preventing future attacks. First, they argue that since the September 11 attacks there have been no reported attacks within the United States ("Updated: USA" 8). This shows how the law is helping to stop terrorism with the states. Second, the law has prevented future terrorist acts before they happen. The law prevented a group of Americans in Portland from joining Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (Jeffrey 6). The group was planning to a terrorist group in order to kill Americans. If they had not been captured then many Americans would have definitely been killed. The Patriot Act prevented this from happening on American soil. Third, the Patriot Act is effective in stopping terrorist activity by deterrence. In the Portland case, wiretaps would have useful in preventing the terrorist group from reaching Afghanistan (Jeffrey 4). The fear of being wiretapped is a big deterrence and helpful in preventing terrorism. Another case that was prevented by the act was the group supporting Al Qaeda in New York ("Updated: USA" 9). The intelligence side of the law helped criminal investigation in this one case. The act helps law enforcement work together by allowing them to share information thus stopping terrorist attacks. These cases highlight how effective the Patriot Act against terrorism.

On the other hand, the wrongful accusation of innocent people and abuse of power makes the law ineffective and should be abolished. The opponent's argument about no terrorist attacks since September 11 is a logical fallacy. It is an unknown sample because it is unknown how the sample was picked and if it was biased or not. The opponents could have defined terrorist acts as only major like the World Trade Center bombings and not include smaller ones. First, the case of an innocent person is Brandon Mayfield. Mayfield was linked to a terrorist bombing in Madrid because of wrongly match fingerprints at the crime scene ("National High" 5). In the investigation, law enforcement searched his house and took some of his property using a FISA warrant. A FISA warrant is not issue by a judge but a special court that allows for secret wiretaps and searches. The case shows the ineffectiveness of the Patriot Act and how it be abused by the government. Second, Tariq Ramadan is another case of injustice by the law. Ramadan, Muslim scholar, was scheduled to teach at the University of Notre Dame but had his visa revoked ("A Visa Revoked" A22). His visa was revoked because of a new law under the Patriot Act that targets terrorists. Ramadan was different because he wanted to patch up relations with Muslims and the West but he has "extremist" friends so the government decided to kick him out ("A Visa Revoked" A22). This is another example of how the law is ineffective at stopping terrorists and hurts innocent people. Another way the Patriot Act is not working is cases that are labeled terrorist but are not. The terms in the act are so broad that it involves innocent people (Zeljak 63). One part of the act is to get financial records involving terrorist activity. The government used that part of the law to get records on a strip club in Las Vegas that has nothing to do with terrorism (Zeljak 63). The abuse of power is evident in this case and targets innocent people. Another case of injustice includes two Russian students attending the University of Texas. They were arrested because they looked like Pakistanis (Zeljak 63). Not only is this abuse of power but it shows how the government can discriminate and profile against non-Americans. These multiple cases illustrate how the Patriot Act is ineffective and should be eliminated.

The treatment of detainees reflects poorly on the United States and a good reason why the Patriot Act should be repealed.

Proponents of the act argue the treatment of detainees is justified because they are not prisoners of war but enemies of the state and should be treated as such. The government says that prisoners caught by the military during war are "enemy combatants" instead of prisoners of war ("National High" 9). Their treatment of the detainees fits because they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions ("National High" 9). Opponents say that they are for the protection of innocents but the risk of letting guilty terrorists have freedom to do what they want is too great ("National High" 12). An example is where two detainees got released from Guantanamo Bay and then went back to the battlefield in Afghanistan where they fought against U.S. military ("National High" 12). The detainees should have not have been released because they when right back to fighting and therefore it was right in keeping them. Also, another reason why the detainees should not have any protections is because of the case of Johnson v. Eisentrager. In this case there were German spies that were captured in China during World War II ("National High" 13). The spies were put in Germany by the U.S. The Supreme Court in 1950 decided the detainee's habeas corpus did not apply because they were not with the United States ("National High" 13). Therefore, that is the reason why this should apply to the detainees in Guantanamo. Detainees are not mistreated and their treatment is within the law.

However, the treatment of detainees is an abuse of government power and the Patriot Act should be nullified. Detainee's treatment is not the first time in history where the U.S. has mistreated an ethnic minority. In the past there have been incidents where national security was at risk like it is today. During these periods, people often ignore the government abusing its powers. In World War II, Japanese-Americans

...