When comparing the rights of one's safety to one's right to privacy the welfare most citizens favor public safety. Privacy is an important right that society needs to protect but not at the expense of safety. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (The USA Patriot Act) is a privilege that if used correctly and is a success in the development of such cases will prove to be a valuable service for society. Caution needs to be taken when working with a tool like the Patriot Act. Tapping phone lines, e-mail logs, and personal computers is not a privilege or tool that should be taken for granted via the Patriot Act.
[...] When entering a personal or professional space using a warrant, enough information needs to have been collected to justify the search. The tools the Patriot Act provides are valuable. The support of these tools will be given by the American society as long as one can be successful with these tools without abusing such privileges. References Abele, Robert Dr. (2002). Reasons to Repeal the Patriot Act. Information Clearing House. Retrieved from www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6902.htm Alexandrovia, Laura (2005) Democrats author 70-page dissent on Patriot Act reauthorization Retrieved from http://rawstory.com/news/2005/democrats_dissent_patriot_act_721.htm CRS Report for Congress (n.d.). [...]
[...] This includes children and spouses deported with the guilty individual. More revocations of visas are in process due to guilt by association of the suspect (Abele p. 4). The Patriot Act conflicts with the Fourth Amendment in relation to probable cause. The government must have reasonable grounds to search people, homes, and property (Abele p. 2). The Patriot Act warrants searches based on suspicion and conducts search and seizures based on investigations of national security. This conflict puts the immigrant or alien at risk (Abele, 2002). [...]
[...] The national security letter eliminates the problems associated with Due processes and violates civil rights (CRS Report for Congress, n.d.). Conclusion When the Patriot Act passed a great deal of controversy came to light. The spirit of such an act is that one wants to protect America from attacks or threats from terrorism. The prevention of terrorism in the wake of 9/11 justifies the existence of the Patriot Act. One can articulate the value of public safety and the importance of such measures to give the public the best opportunity and advantage to encourage such safety. [...]
[...] Gonzales states, "The Patriot Act is useful in finding and dismantling terrorist organizations and plots." "The success is over 150 terrorist threats and cells, disrupted and over 3000 terrorists incapacitated, five terror cells broken up within United States borders terror charges on individuals, and a conviction of 212" (Conservapedia p. In contrast of protecting public safety, section 411 infringes on civil rights by conflicting with the First Amendment based on a free society and freedom of speech. The alien or immigrant must prove their innocence of not knowing the terrorist individual or organization and does not support terrorist views. [...]
[...] Although often maligned as a violation of civil rights, there is structure to section 213 that provide for protections of innocent private citizens. A white paper issued by the Department of Justice documenting use of delayed-notification warrants reflects less than 160 instances of its use between 2001 and 2005 in relation to post 9-11 terrorism investigations and that it has been used in less than half of all federal jurisdictions (Department of Justice p. 1). Inclusion of this change to existing U.S. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
