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 future acts of terror 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 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 prevented law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies from communicating with one another. The USA PATRIOT Act eliminates these legal barriers, allowing agencies to cooperate and share information with one another (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 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 widespread misinterpretation of what the USA PATRIOT Act really does/ really authorizes. 

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. 