This is certainly a good example essay on aftereffects of The Patriot Act.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are the ones regarding the authors and never necessarily reflect the views of LawTeacher.

The USA PATRIOT Act (Patriot Act) was established after 11, 2001 (9/11) when terrorists attacked the United States september.

The Patriot Act has raised many concerns about whether or not it infringes regarding the civil liberties of those of this nation. Looking back ever sold, our past presidents developed laws that were the stone that is stepping the ideas that created the Patriot Act. The government’s job is to protect the social people, nonetheless it has a bigger job which is to protect the country. This has raised many issues involving the Patriot Act and whether or otherwise not it really is more detrimental to us than it is helpful. Pertaining to the Patriot Act and how it deprives those accused under it of Constitutional rights, the American people should be focused on just how much power our government has when developing laws governing our civil liberties.

On September 11, 2001 the United States (US) experienced the unthinkable when terrorists attacked the country by itself soil. It was a eye that is serious or should I say reality look for the united states. The usa has many of the most extremely counter that is sophisticated on earth but was unable to prevent such a tragedy. Why didn’t it is seen by them coming? Lots of thing would be today that is different that question could half been answered ahead of 9/11.

<

This act was compiled from two documents, the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) from the homely house of Representatives (House) therefore the Uniting and Strengthening American (USA) Act from the Senate, was merged together creating the Patriot Act. Based on Lemieux, previous developed laws created by previous presidents to solve conflicts were like the Patriot Act they just had different names Lemieux, M. (n.d.). History of the united states Patriot Act. Retrieved 9, 2011, from http://www.constitutiondenied.com/Media/History-Patriot-Act.pdf april. The Aliens and Sedition Act of 1798 was created during the pugilative war with France because the US was afraid when it comes to country and the people and desired to make sure the enemy would not sleep amongst us. The president was able to have anyone that was believed to be a threat to the government would be arrested and deported with this power. The president suspended Habeas Corpus for the safety benefits of the nation, giving the government the power to imprison someone without sufficient evidence during the Civil War. During World War II, the President ordered over 10,000 American citizens that had not shown any disloyalty into buy essay the united states of america into confinement camps since they were of Japanese descent Lemieux, M. (n.d.). Reputation for the united states Patriot Act. Retrieved April 9, 2011, from http://www.constitutiondenied.com/Media/History-Patriot-Act.pdf. These are the stepping stone behind the introduction of the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act came into existence as a response towards the tragic events of 9/11. The bill that will turned out to be known as the Patriot Act was introduced to Congress just days after 9/11. It was revised due to concerns from many congressmen that the balance allowed for too broad of a scope of capacity to federal authorities. Eventually after the bill was revised and reintroduced, Congress passed it with little opposition on 26, 2001 october. Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI), would up being the only senator to vote contrary to the Patriot Act. Even though the Patriot Act did not come right into existence until after 9/11, it does have roots in earlier legislation. On April 25, 1996, President Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act into law. The balance with this statutory law was introduced following the Oklahoma City Bombing. The major provision of the act caused it to be illegal to offer “material support” to any organization banned because of the State Department. The bill was greatly criticized by Republicans for granting way too much power to authorities. The balance needed to undergo modifications that are major it absolutely was passed in 1996. The balance that ended up becoming law was reported to be a “watered down version” regarding the original that President Clinton wanted passed. Strangely enough, it had been this act that has been revamped and broadened to produce the Patriot Act (Creative Commons, n.d.).

The Patriot Act has been highly criticized for being extremely broad and too open for interpretation since becoming law. In 2004, a judge ruled that areas of the Patriot Act were unconstitutional because they were too vague as well as in violation regarding the First and Fifth Amendments. Another criticism for the Patriot Act is the fact that it will not guarantee enough oversight to be sure that those that are given power by the act do not misuse it. On March 9, 2006 President Bush signed the Patriot Act Reauthorization, but attached a statement that is signing which he said that he would ignore specific mandates printed in the bill that would give more judicial and Congressional oversight to agencies authorized utilization of the act. In late March, letters were written to Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General at the time, requesting to truly have the administration rescind the signing statement because they don’t have force of law. In those letters, they cited Article 1, Section 7 regarding the Constitution which states that ‘Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives while the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the united states of america; If he approve he shall sign it, however, if not he shall send it back.’ Alberto Gonzales and President Bush both ignored the letters and never responded. Their argument was that the president could not change legislation that were passed by Congress and say which he would ignore element of it that he failed to agree with. On December 10, 2007, an appeals court upheld the 2004 ruling that parts of the Patriot Act were unconstitutional. The court stated that a statute must allow for a person of average intelligence to be able to read and understand the law in the ruling. They found that certain elements of the act were too vague. They determined that if the law was worded in a fashion that the average person could not understand, then the average person will never determine if these were committing a crime (Creative Commons, n.d.).

While many believe that our threat that is terrorist from countries is fantastic, there’s also the fear of terrorist attacks in the US by its very own citizens. The Oklahoma City Bombing is a tragic example. In some cases, there clearly was a necessity when it comes to government to suspect an American citizen and do surveillance to guard the united states from another tragedy that is such. The federal government happens to be doing espionage work for extended than many people think. It is really not a practice that is new but with the technology we now have today, it is easier for authorities to collect intelligence. Despite the fact that they have this technology at their disposal that will not imply that the Constitution could be ignored in the true name of protecting the US.

One example regarding the Patriot Act being used in such a way is in the case of Jose Padilla.

He was a Puerto Rican born citizen who later inside the life changed into Islam. He traveled throughout the Middle East and allegedly plotted with al Qaeda terrorists to detonate a “dirty bomb” in a US city. As soon he was detained as he stepped off a plane in the United States. The Bush Administration claimed which he could be detained even though he was an American citizen because he had been deemed an “enemy combatant” by the president. He had been then held in a military brig for three . 5 years and was allegedly subjected to torture at the hands of US officials attempting to elicit information from him. During those times, he was not charged with any crimes although it was said there was clearly evidence that is overwhelming him. He was also cut off from all communication along with his family and attorney (Martinez, 2007).