One of the most controversial and debated issues facing the nation today is that of the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act. Originally put in place as a response to the 9/11 attacks, the Patriot Act was passed to counter potential terrorist attacks from both domestic terrorists and foreign enemies. In recent years the bill that was once met with strong support has come under fire for certain provisions that allow for unchecked monitoring of American people without any sort of probable cause. Many are calling for the Patriot Act to be repealed this upcoming May when it will be put to a vote in Congress. However there are also those who believe that the Patriot Act is the first line of defense in keeping Americans free from terror. The argument is also being made that now more than ever with the rise of ISIS around the world, the Patriot Act needs to be in place. There is only one clear solution here where Americans can be safe from terrorist attacks while also being safe from their government. I will discuss a policy in which the Patriot Act does stay in place, however it will become a checked system with strong guidelines and regulations set place.

When testifying before the House Committee on Intelligence, FBI Deputy Director Sean Joyce said "Our mission is to stop terrorism, to prevent it. Not after the fact, to prevent it before it happens in the United States" (qtd in Paye 129). On paper the Patriot Act works as a way to protect the American people from those who want to do us harm. However when enacted with human nature, problems begin to arise. Bobby Kennedy, one of the great lawmakers in our nation's history, once said, "Whenever men take the law into their own hands, the loser is the law. And when the law loses, freedom languishes" (qtd Thomsen 110). While Kennedy was not talking about the Patriot Act when he said this, what he said than does touch upon the idea that systematically the number one problem with the Patriot Act is how the ambition and agenda of some men and women, have lead to their taking the provisions of the Patriot Act into their own hands for their own personal or political gain. The corruption of the Patriot Act by some men and women, has certainly lead to the languish of some of the basic freedoms of the American people.

Since it was passed in 2001 the Patriot Act's use has shifted from counter terrorism to domestic criminal investigations. Congressman Bob Barr from Georgia argued this point on the floor of Congress in 2008 when he said "The department [of Justice] requested and won approval of 1,754 FISA wiretaps in 2004, up from 1,724 in 2003. A number of provisions in the law made wiretaps more intrusive and much easier to obtain outside of terrorism or espionage investigations" (Barr). Domestic criminal investigations are something that should be totally separate from counter terrorism, but the Department of Justices is one of the federal offices that falls under those who use the provisions of the Patriot Act. That is another major problem. There are several different departments that wield the power of the Patriot Act. The Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, Justice, even Commerce can put the provisions of the Patriot Act into action. The problem is that an office like the Department of Commerce has no business being involved in counter terrorism efforts, nor are they. However the Department of Commerce does have a watch list that includes countries, companies, and individuals. Under the provisions of the Patriot Act the DOC can monitor any business transactions or credit reports, that may be completely unrelated to counterterrorism, and all they would have to do is say it is in connection with their duties to enforce federal law (Ramasatry 7-9).  For example in October of 2014, the Department of Commerce placed a German Solar Energy Company, that was about to be about by American corporation SolarWorld AG, on its National Security watch list giving only the explanation of they were violating federal law and a potential threat to national security (Varadi). However many politicians and media members believe that the DOC had ulterior motives. One journalist wrote, "So why is the Department of Commerce concerned? Is it trying to protect the US electric utilities and trying to postpone the time when the 100-year-old electric utilities have to face their transformation, which the German utilities are already facing?" (Varardi). There needs to be some regulation on the how the Patriot Act is used and who can use it, otherwise the DOC can control free capitalism, behind the false claim of national security.

There seem to be only two proposed major policy solutions that pertain to the Patriot Act and both are pretty black and white. The first one is to just leave it in place as is. The second one is to repeal it. While you could make arguments for both sides that merit consideration, the reality is this issue is not clear-cut black and white. It is a gray issue. The fact is that while most people in the world are good, there are still those out there who wish to do us harm and they are not going away anytime soon. Congressman Peter King spoke directly to the American people after the Boston Bombings when he warned, "This should be a wake-up call to everyone, that the war against terrorism is far from over" (Muskal). The War on Terror is not like any war the world has seen before; it is not two nation's militaries meeting on a battlefield. For that reason it requires The United States government to take severe precautions when it comes to the defense of its citizens. As put by Christopher Banks, "the enemy is unconventional and cannot be defeated under traditional law enforcement rules" (Banks 6).  You cannot contain this war, and worst of all innocent civilians live with the threat of their own lives being at risk. As the global presence of ISIS grows there needs to be a way for the United States to gather intel and counter terrorism plots. That being said the Patriot Act does need to be reformed.  There is a principle that Americans are entitled to their privacy and should not have to give it up in order to feel safe. As Benjamin Franklin accurately put it "Those who would give up essential liberty, for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" (Smith 163).

One person who has made headlines in his effort to reform the Patriot Act is Republican Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Paul who has been a strong proponent of civil liberties has often expressed his desire to reform the Patriot Act. In 2011 Paul opened the Act up for debate in a thirteen-hour filibuster where he asked "Can we not have a debate on a higher plane, a debate over whether or not there should be some constitutional protections?" (Sonmez).  Senator Paul than proposed two amendments that would do just that. One of the amendments would lower requirements for "suspicious activity" reporting to federal agencies. The second one protected certain gun records from being viewed (Sonmez). While the proposal of these Amendments showed an attempt at reform by Congress, the Senate ultimately voted them down.  Even if the amendments had passed they would have been limited in their effect. Despite showing signs of progress, they only lessened the power of the Act, rather than solve the real problem, which is evenly distributing the powers the act provides.

The first step in reforming the Patriot Act is creating a strong system of checks and guidelines. The provisions that the Patriot Act allows are too powerful to fall into the hands of one person or concentrated group of people. In my proposed policy the Department of Homeland Security will be in charge of monitoring suspected domestic terrorist. The State Department will be responsible for monitoring suspected foreign terrorists and enemies of the state. There needs to be two different departments responsible for their respective suspects because there needs to be different protocol when it comes to investigating suspected domestic terrorists as opposed to suspected foreign terrorists. The truth is Americans have certain rights that members of foreign states do not have the luxury of having. One of these rights is protection from search without a warrant. The constitution grants u that right when it says "An application for a search warrant requires that probable cause be established for the individual in question, purporting that he has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime" (qtd in Ebenger 48). That is why the Department of Homeland Security would need to show a Supreme Court Justice that the group or Individual they are requesting to monitor poses a threat to the safety of the American people as a terrorist. While the warrant process normally involves a federal judge, if plausible a Supreme Court Justice would make more sense in this situation because it might be difficult to go to federal courts all over the country to have a warrant grated. The Supreme Court is the law of the land and has universal jurisdiction over all Americans. There would need to be some evidence shown to the Supreme Court that the American the Department of Homeland Security is requesting to monitor triggered something that warrants surveillance. Whether it is suspect travel, intelligence reports, flagged Internet searches, money transactions, or militant allegiances there needs to be a surface cause. A Supreme Court Justice must than sign off on that warrant. One of the dangers of warrantless surveillance, as touched upon by Anita Ramasatry, is there is such a broad definition of domestic terrorism something as simple as unknowingly attending a rally or protest labeled by the government as a domestic terrorist could be considered a defiant act against the United States. Under the Patriot Act, this could warrant the stripping of your American citizenship and deportation (Ramasatry 10-12). 

Another change I would make to the Patriot Act would be that provisions allowed under the Patriot Act are only effective during a time of war. National Security is obviously extremely important during wartime and the Patriot Act is a key proponent of National Security. However giving the government the power that is allowed under the Patriot Act during a time of peace is dangerous. When there is no reason for the government to suspect its citizens they should not be granted the authority to monitor them. Originally the Patriot Act was supposed to be a temporary legislation. In fact it still is, it just keeps getting renewed every four years (Lungren 430). European nations such as France and England had their own version of the Patriot Act in the early 2000's. However both nations took their act out of effect when they pulled out of the Iraq War (Paye 128).

The final change to the Patriot Act that I propose would be to close any loop holes that allows the Department of Justice to use the Patriot Act provisions in any domestic criminal investigation. Yes, drug dealers and organized crime members are menaces to society and need to be put in jail, however there is a protocol in place on how to go about arresting, indicting, and trying a criminal suspect. We cannot be part of a country where law enforcement can go rogue and abandon due process. Otherwise we may end up like the nations we spent so much time combatting in the past. Senator Rand Paul spoke on this issues when he said, "Do we want a lawless land? Do we want a land, a government without so much restraint that at any time they can come into your house?" (qtd in Sonmez).

With these changes in place, I believe that the Patriot Act can get back to its original purpose in keeping the American people safe. America has always been the model of a free world. Here we old liberty and security to be equally important and will never trade one for the other. We will always face threats from other nations and radical groups, however with the proper protocol in place the Patriot Act can help in successfully combating those attempts.
