Immediately following the most tragic day in the history of the United States, President George W. Bush—with nearly unanimous public and Congressional support—ratified arguably the most significant piece of legislation of the past two decades on October 26th, 2001. Less than four years later, however, public support for the same enactment, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, also known as the USA PATRIOT Act, dipped to just 59 percent, according to a poll conducted by ABC News (Langer). In February of 2011, according to the Pew Research Center, only 42 percent of American citizens believed the USA PATRIOT Act to be a “necessary tool that helps the government find terrorists” (“Public Remains Divided Over the Patriot Act”). Although public support for this statute, which focuses primarily on preventing future acts of terror, has declined dramatically, the need for it has not.

Simply put, the USA PATRIOT Act is a landmark piece of legislation that makes it much easier for the federal government of the United States to track people that are believed to pose threats to society in order to prevent acts of terror from occurring on American soil. Ever since its authorization, however, support for the USA PATRIOT Act has reduced dramatically, as many believe it to be a violation of American citizens’ constitutional rights. Furthermore, many think that it facilitates racial and ethnic profiling. Before an opinion can be made about the USA PATRIOT Act, however, one must understand why significant security measures were taken by the United States government in the first place. 

On September 11th, 2001, the lives of virtually all Americans were altered due to terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That day, 2,977 innocent men and women had their lives taken away, and over 6,000 more suffered injuries. Those without connections to the 9/11 victims all of a sudden felt a new sense of fear, unease, and vulnerability. The American people quickly realized that new, innovative steps needed to be taken in order to ensure that such acts of terror would no longer occur. Congress realized this as well, and less than two months later the House of Representatives passed a new counterterrorism bill by a 357 to 66 margin. This bill, as Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) put it, was intended to “give law enforcement the tools they need so we, to the extent we possibly can, will be able to protect our citizens from events and actions such as happened on September 11 of this year” (“Debate in the Senate on the USA Patriot Act of 2001”). Two days later, the same bill made it through the Senate with 98 votes in its favor and only one vote in its opposition. The next day, President Bush signed it, putting the USA PATRIOT Act into effect.

The purpose of the USA PATRIOT Act is to enable the government to better protect the citizens of the United States, and there are several ways that it makes this possible. One way the USA PATRIOT Act achieves a safer American society is by allowing different government agencies to “connect the dots.” Before the Act, there were laws that made it difficult for law enforcement agencies, intelligence agencies, and federal prosecutors to communicate with one another. The USA PATRIOT Act eliminates these legal barriers, allowing agencies to cooperate and share information with each other (“The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty”). Said former Senator John Edwards (D-NC), “we simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing” (“The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty”). 

The USA PATRIOT Act eliminated another impediment in the investigative process. Before 2001, laws prevented government agencies from accessing information acquired through judicial review of search warrants and grand jury testimonies (“The USA Patriot Act”), which are used to obtain probable cause, and, thus, to decide whether a defendant ought to be indicted and put to trial. Originally implemented with the goal of protecting an individual’s rights, these investigative obstacles would often put criminals—including those that have carried out or have conspired acts of terror—at an advantage. Prior to the USA PATRIOT Act, agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were denied vital and potentially incriminating information. Although some believe that such laws are necessary because they grant rights to defendants, they really only work in the favor of those guilty of committing crimes. The USA PATRIOT Act’s revised policy regarding grand juries serves to “coordinate our law enforcement, defense, and national security efforts” (Beale and Felman), as any and all incriminating evidence spoken in front of a legal body ought to be granted to those conducting an investigation, rather than erased from memory altogether. An investigative process cannot be executed to its highest ability without all of the compelling information at the investigators’ disposal. 

Perhaps the most controversial issue regarding the USA PATRIOT Act is its changes to the government’s surveillance procedures, most notably data collection. Section 215 of the Act amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to lower the standards necessary for the government to obtain a warrant in order to collect data. According to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, “The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment of the Constitution” (“One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America”). Critics of this amendment argue that this “any tangible things” provision is a looser guideline for information that the government can require businesses to share. However, there are still boundaries that the United States government has yet to overstep.

Ever since the USA PATRIOT Act went into effect, the United States government, through the National Security Agency, has gathered telephone metadata information. Although at first thought this sounds like a violation of the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which grants American citizens a right to privacy and prohibits the government from seizing information without probable cause, there truly is nothing wrong with this. Phone companies only provide information about when calls are made, to whom they are made to, and for how long they last; the contents of the calls are not collected (Stimson). Essentially, this allows investigators quick and easy access to basic telephone information after a warrant is obtained from a federal judge, not the ability to spy on every American any time they use their phones, as that would, indeed, be a violation of citizens’ constitutional rights. 

In 2013, when whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked over 9,000 classified documents from the National Security Agency, the United States government was met with a level of frustration and distrust among its citizens that it had not experienced in a very long time. However, the documents revealed little-to-no demonstration of actual abuse of investigative ability performed by the United States government. The documents did reveal that the NSA had taken the phone records of millions of law-abiding Americans, but, as previously touched upon, this was expressed in the USA PATRIOT Act to begin with. Although carefully drafted such that there would be no violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, the USA PATRIOT Act was widely antagonized, as people did not have a true understanding of what did and did not violate their rights as American citizens.

Included in the USA PATRIOT Act are provisions to monitor how collected data is used. In order to ensure that the Act does not infringe upon a person’s rights, government agencies are subject to “routine and aggressive oversight” by both Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (McNeill). Between the 9/11 terror attacks and May of 2003, 115 hearings related to the USA PATRIOT Act were held before Congress, with witnesses provided by the United States Department of Justice (“Responding to Congress”).  

Wiretapping, similar to data collecting, has been misunderstood and exaggerated, resulting in its dropping public support. It is true that the USA PATRIOT Act does, in fact, make it significantly easier for investigators to wiretap individuals. In 2001, the government began using a method known as “roving wiretap,” which allows agencies to intercept communications without specifying the piece of technology used for wiretapping. Before, the third parties in control of such communication methods (such as cell phone carriers) were required to be acknowledged, as well as required to provide assistance and cooperate with authorities. With “roving wiretap,” their obligation to help has been replaced by “unnamed and unspecified third parties” (“Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)”). Although it sounds more suspicious, this new method of studying terrorists and suspected criminals is a much better alternative, as it speeds up the investigation process significantly. Had investigators still been required to reach out to these third parties, investigations would take much longer. “Roving wiretap” allows federal agencies to act much more swiftly in their pursuit of tracking down criminals and stopping crime, creating a much safer country for the citizens of the United States. 

There is still a process that government agencies need to go through in order to be legally permitted to wiretap citizens. Just as the USA PATRIOT Act allows the easy collection of data but does not permit the utilization of such data without cause, the Act prohibits unwarranted interception of communication among American citizens. The collection of phone data and a new approach to wiretapping do not equate to a violation of an individual’s freedom, guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, as investigators looking to take advantage of these new pieces of evidence and methods still need to go through the same legal process as before. The difference is, the USA PATRIOT Act makes the process much easier once government agencies are permitted to begin investigating suspects.

One major portion of the USA PATRIOT Act that oftentimes goes unnoticed, but is nevertheless crucial to the safety and security of the United States, is the ability for the Department of Justice to detain illegal immigrants that are suspected of terror or other violent crimes for short periods of time, until more evidence is provided. According to Section 412 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the attorney general has the ability to order for an alien to be indicted for up to seven days if he or she has “‘reasonable grounds to believe’ the person being detained will commit espionage or sabotage, try to overthrow the government, commit terrorist acts, or otherwise engage in acts that would endanger national security” (Siggins). In this week-long span, illegal immigrants are humanely investigated before a decision is made to either maintain the suspect in custody or to release him or her. 

Although this can easily be pointed to as a facilitator for racial or ethnic profiling, the intentions of this provision of the Act are not to suppress certain groups. Rather, it is to keep the citizens of the United States safe from unknown men and women that may pose a threat. Although it is likely that most illegal immigrants detained derive from Middle Eastern states, it is for nothing more than the security of the United States that this section of the USA PATRIOT Act was passed. Undocumented men and women should not be allowed entry into a new country without going through the process of getting checked just as every legal immigrant does, as it is hazardous to let them in without a knowledge of where they come from or what their intentions are as aspiring Americans.

As with other aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act, advocates for civil liberties disagree with this provision. However, it is worth acknowledging that these men and women being detained are not American citizens, and therefore the Bill of Rights does not apply to them. Furthermore, the innocent men and women being taken into custody are, at the very worst, imprisoned for a maximum of just one week. It is more unethical to know that there are men and women in the United States suspected of being or becoming violent criminals and do nothing about it than to take necessary precaution.

On March 2nd, 2006, the Senate voted to renew the USA PATRIOT Act with an 89 to 10 margin, and five days later the same bill was passed by the House of Representatives with 280 votes in its favor and 138 votes in its opposition. Congressional support for the USA PATRIOT Act dropped dramatically over the next five years, with only 72 Senators voting for its renewal and 23 Senators voting against it on May 26th, 2011. On the very same day, the bill was passed by the House of Representatives by only a 250 to 153 margin. On May 13th, 2015, the USA PATRIOT Act’s destiny was once again to be determined by Congress. In an unordinary turn of events, the House of Representatives voted strongly in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act, with 338 Congressmen approving of the Act and only 88 against it. However, the same bill had much more difficulty making it through the other chamber of Congress. After weeks of intense debate on the Senate floor, the USA PATRIOT Act was finally upheld by a 67 to 32 margin on June 2nd, 2015.

Although the USA PATRIOT Act has remained intact since its original passage, its forecast is a mystery. In December of 2019, the Act will once again need to be renewed. Recent public opinion polls have yielded conflicting conclusions about whether the American people support the government surveillance measures permitted by the Act (Kurtzleben). However, it is known that President Donald Trump does support the continuation of the USA PATRIOT Act (Sherfinski), meaning that the future of the Act will be contingent upon its renewal through the Senate and the House of Representatives. Multiple opportunities for the United States government to discontinue the USA PATRIOT Act have arisen over the course of its controversial history. Luckily, neither Congress nor previous presidents have taken this step, and the safety of all Americans will depend upon whether this trend continues.

 The biggest reason for the widespread opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act derives not from an increasing awareness that it violates the Bill of Rights, but a growing misinterpretation of what the USA PATRIOT Act really does authorize. Although it is much easier for government agencies to access imperative data, intercept communications among suspected terrorists, and shelter potential criminals, the enactment was carefully written to ensure that there are no violations of the Constitution. Furthermore, the USA PATRIOT Act is necessary in order to preserve the safety of the American people. In the wake of a devastation that the citizens of the United States had never experienced before, there were almost no objections to the idea of increased security measures. Now, all of the progress that the government has made since in protecting its citizens may be forfeited because of a mere misunderstanding of what the piece of legislation truly means. 
