My Opinion

If the American people were simply to accept the USA Patriot Act for what it was intended to be, a protective device, then some turmoil would disappear. The bill has already passed through Congress,therefore it is very dificult for it to change. If the American public was to let the bill run its course and let it expire soon as a result of the sunset clause, another controversy would be solved because the bill would be over and done with, in a few years.
On the other hand the USA Patriot Act was formulated as a solution to quiet American cries as to why the government had not been able to prevent the September 11 attacks. However, as a resolution, the American people and the government should work together to achieve a peaceful decision on the USA Patriot Act issue. Lastly, if the government were to promise the people that it would not take any measures to get in the way of Americans’ Constitutional rights in exchange for national security, then all sides of the issue could be successfully resolved.


“It is each individual's responsibility to take the initiative to become an active and correctly informed member of a democracy and that call is issued to all Americans now”.

Those Against The Injustice

In over all, the main concern of the people against the Act is due to the law that is enforced by it. It forces U.S. citizens to give up way too many personal freedoms and constitutional rights in exchange for any level of "safety" the law may provide. They are also worried that it would fundamentally change American society by all the procedures and investigations which violate our privacy.
Many have even compared this to a novel written by George Orwell in 1984 called "Big Brother". The book Orwell introduces the afflictions of a totalitarian government known as "Big Brother," by describing a negative utopia in which the government monitors and regulates all aspects of life. The "Big Brother" concept elicits suspicion among all members of society, and often leads to false accusations of crime and unlawful punishments. Opponents of the act state that the mishandling of it could possibly lead to similar effects. Although the act may some day expire as a result of its sunset clause, they argue that the act will "provide a basis for future laws that contravene on civil rights".

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/civil_liberties.htm

http://www.thehoya.com/images/103103/patriot%20act%20rally%20-%20rafferty.jpg

Supporters of the injustice...

Believe it or not as much as people were against it, others such as attorney general Ashcroft were for it. Others said the law is necessary in the War Against Terrorism and that the world forever changed on September 11, 2001 -- starting a new war, with new rules of engagement. They also said that it is the "very freedoms that American cherishes so dearly, that allows those who would kill us to move and operate so easily among us". As for Ashcroft, he believed the Patriot Act "reflects the stakes America has in the war on terror. When American lives are at stake, we need to have all the capacities to disrupt and to defeat terrorism that we've been successfully using over the last 28 months."
Furthermore they reflected on the fact that there are compromises to make in order to establish a better good—and that compromises are called for in these circumstances. Ultimately, the purpose of the act, supporters say, is to temporarily increase national security and act as a shield between the American public and terrorist organizations. Supporters in addition, claimed that the act cultivates cooperation between the FBI and CIA, allowing officials to easily obtain information about individuals suspected to be threats to national security. In this way, the two organizations work together in an unprecedented fashion to stop criminal activity, including terrorist plots.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1209/dailyUpdate.html

http://theheretik.typepad.com/the_heretik/images/the_patriot_act_for_dummies_heretik_0616_1.jpg

The Law Challenged In Court

When the act was signed and in effect in spite of all the disagreement, the Americans and Muslims did not stay with their arms crossed. As a matter of fact after it was established there were lawsuits made, regardless of the fact that they were dismissed, people still fought against it. In Detroit, Michigan; the ACLU National Media Relations director Emily Whitfield reports that more than 230 communities around the country, most recently Los Angeles, have passed resolutions calling for the repeal of certain controversial sections of the act.
In that effect, Provisions of the law are being challenged in court on their constitutional merits.
The ACLU filed a lawsuit which was the first direct challenge to the provision of the act that gives federal agents unlimited authority to secretly seize library reading lists and other personal records. Also A federal judge in Los Angeles struck down a provision the Act that prohibits providing "expert advice or assistance" to designated international terrorist organizations, because it is a violation of the First and Fifth Amendments and because it was too vague.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11770

http://en.epochtimes.com/news_images/2005-3-1-supreme-court.jpg

The House of Representatives vs. The Senate

In overall Bush’s outlook on the Patriot Act was for it to be a compromised version of the ATA. However the Senate and the House each approved very different versions of the legislation to reauthorize the Patriot Act. Here are some differences between the bills passed between them:

• The Senate version gives new, four-year sunsets for sec. 215 (the “library records” provision) and sec. 206 (expanding the use of roving wiretaps). The House bill uses ten-year sunsets, too long to wait for congressional re-evaluation of a statute affecting constitutional civil liberties.

• The Senate revision to sec. 215 requires the government to provide specific evidence to support the suspicion that an individual has links to terrorism before allowing seizure of business records about that individual. The House version does not require this factual showing, retaining the guideline that the government must merely state for the court that the search is “relevant” to a terrorist investigation.

• The Senate revision to sec. 213 (the “sneak and peek” provision) permits the government only a seven-day delay in notifying the subject of a secret search, with seven-day renewals available for good cause presented to the court. The House version sets an initial 180-day limit.

• The Senate revision to sec. 206 requires the government to identify with “particularity” the person under scrutiny and to provide an after-the-tap report to the issuing court explaining why the FBI believed that the person so identified was using the phone being tapped. The House version does not have a “particularity” standard and only requires the agent to notify the judge after-the-fact when the government changes the location of a tap.

• A National Security Letter (NSL) is an FBI demand for documents from credit reports, financial records, and phone/internet service provider records, dealt with in Patriot Act sec. 505. The Senate revision to sec. 505 authorizes the recipient of an NSL to consult with an attorney and challenge the order in court. Under the House version, the FBI can prevent this consultation and challenge by submitting to a court a (non-challengeable) certification of “harm to the national interest.”

www.evergreen.edu/.../gwbushsigningsm.jpg
www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1509&issue_id=68

Why renew the Act?

When president Bush was discussing the possibility of renewing the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, not only did it become controversial for U.S. citizens, but it was also somewhat of turmoil for the House of Representatives and the Senate as well. The Act of 2001 originally was a far-reaching legislative package intended to strengthen the nation's defense against terrorism. It also contained several provisions expanding the authority of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to monitor private communications and access personal information.
He wanted to renew it because “The Patriot Act will defend our liberty. The Patriot Act will make it able for those of us in positions of responsibility to defend the liberty of the American people. It's essential law”. (From speech on April 19, 2004 in Hershey, Pennsylvania) Another reason why Bush wanted to renew the act was because the final legislation in the ATA included a few beneficial additions from the Administration's initial proposal such as the sunset provision .The sunset provision provided several sections of the act to automatically expire after a certain time, unless they were explicitly renewed by congress.





www.aclu-sc.org/attach/p/patriot_cartoon:_ash...
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040419-4.html - 48k

The Constitution vs. The Patriot Act

The main purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to "protect minorities (racial, religious, property owners and the rich) from the tyranny of abuse via majority rule. The Constitution protects our privacy and property rights from being abridged by arbitrary “majority rule" and puts a limit or restricts the powers of the state. As clearly stated below the Patriot Act violates four of the amendments in the Constitution.
For example in the Patriot Act, Sections 203,206,213 and 218 violate the fourth amendment. Section 203 violates it because it is permiting law enforcement to give CIA sensitive information gathered in criminal investigations,including wiretaps and internet trapping. It may also be misused because no court order is required. CIA may share the information with other agencies and with foreign governments. Section 206 extends roving wiretap authority to “intelligence” wiretaps authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. These wire taps may be authorized secretly and it expands the power broadly by tapping any advice used by a terrorist suspect, regardless of who is using the device at the time.
Section 213 permits the government to search your home with no one present and to delay notification indefinitely. Unlike the "knock and announce" policy, a person whose home is to be searched cannot view the warrant to make sure the adress is correct or to make sure that the agent follows to the warrant's description of what is to be searched. Section 218 eliminates judicial supervision by giving the FBI the ability to gather "foreign intelligence information" without a warrant, unless the evidence wanted is to be used in a criminal proceeding. In other words an agent may now say that foreign intelligence is relevant or plays a part in the investigation and "probable cause" of a crime is no longer needed.





http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=7120
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=6030&id=3760
www.bluestatemedia.com