On September 9, 2001, the United States experienced its worst domestic terrorist attack to date. This event would set into motion a series of changes to the policies of United States intelligence and foreign affairs divisions. One of the biggest issues with the nation’s intelligence policy before 9/11 was the inability to share information among the different branches of government. This allowed multiple terrorists to board four planes and hijack them, as a result killing over 2,000 individuals. A few short months after the attack, the federal government passed the “United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, more commonly known as the PATRIOT Act. This legislation would replace the current policies under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The PATRIOT Act has gained far more notoriety due to several controversial sections of the legislation. While the most basic idea of the PATRIOT Act and other legislation similar is not negative or unnecessary, it is the way the act has evolved and been wielded by the federal government that calls it into question. By passing this act in 2001, the federal government used this act to abuse their powers and violate citizens’ rights.

The original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was passed in 1978. In the time between FISA and the passage of the PATRIOT Act, there were no executed terrorist attacks but the idea of being able to survail and monitor foreign enemies was becoming a necessity. Since the legislation had never been tested by a real terrorist attack, its flaws could not have been foreseen until it was too late. Thus, this legislation was used in effect until the terrorist attack in 2001, which highlighted some of the major faults. One of the most fundamental of these was the fact that the legislation did not encourage the sharing of information between the different divisions (Rubel). Some of these divisions include the National Security Agency, Homeland Security, and local police forces. The gaps in the information sharing process allowed the terrorists to enter the United States and execute their attack. Another flaw that was discovered after 9/11 was the outdated terminology and procedures (Rubel). These were not equipped to handle modern technology and threats. Since 9/11 was the first major domestic terrorist attack, many citizens were looking to the federal government to take swift and strong action. This lead to the passing of the PATRIOT Act less than two months after September 11th. Even with a few outdated provisions, FISA is still an active and relevant piece of legislation. Despite this, President George Bush and Congress swiftly signed the PATRIOT Act into effect. 

The PATRIOT Act is a long and complicated document filled with many different sections and provisions. There have been a few provisions that have become the center of controversy for many Americans. The main ones of these would be Section 203, 206, 213, and 215. Section 203 of the PATRIOT Act reads, “Allows information from criminal probes to be shared with intelligence agencies…” (Abramson & Godoy). This section is specifically targeted to fix the issue of information sharing in FISA. This act is seen as controversial because it could potentially allow the federal government to collect and store data on all citizens, not just terrorists. The next section is 206, which states, “Allows one wiretap authorization to cover multiple devices…” (Abramson & Godoy). In order to obtain permission for a wiretap, law enforcement requires a warren that is signed by a judge. Before this section being passed, law enforcement would be required to have a warrant for each device they would be monitoring. The controversy with this section is that it could violate the privacy of average citizens who may encounter potential targets. The next section focuses on something called “sneak and peek warrants”. These warrant allow law enforcement to search the home of a potential target without immediately notifying them (Abramson & Godoy). This is section is debated because is does not specify that these types of warrants are to be used on potential terrorist targets. This means that any citizen could be subject to this invasion of privacy, even if they are not being considered for possible terrorist activity.  Lastly, section 215 “allows easier access to business records in foreign intelligence investigations” (Abramson & Godoy). Again, a large issue found with this section is its vague language that could allow it to be easily manipulated. Despite these four provisions being among the most controversial, there are over a hundred provisions, many of which are broken down further. It is the vagueness and brevity of the legislation that gave the federal government the abilities to mold and apply the legislation by any means they see fit. These sections and many others broaden the scope of the federal government’s powers and give them the tools to infringe on citizens right to privacy. 

The PATRIOT Act was an emotionally charged piece of legislation that was passed in the name of securing and protecting citizens from terrorists. Every detail, down to the name itself, was intended to rally support from the American public. However, since 9/11 there had been no executed domestic terrorist attacks and only one terror related conviction (Khaki). Despite that fact, the PATRIOT Act is still be used to push forward investigations by the federal government. One of the biggest areas this is being used is against the war on drugs (Khaki). It was found that out of the 3,970 instances where the PATRIOT Act was used to conduct a “sneak and peek” search, that 76% of them was in drug related cases, with around one percent being conducted on terrorist suspects (Khaki). This is problematic because the PATRIOT Act passed under the impression of protecting American citizens from terrorist attacks, but is more commonly being used to arrest citizens on other charges. An example of the PATRIOT Act being used out of context was in the National Security Agency and Verizon phone company controversy. After some top-secret files were leaked into the public, many Americans became aware of the governments intention with the PATRIOT Act. In 2013, the National Security Agency filed a lawsuit, citing the PATRIOT Act, which demanded Verizon to turn over millions of American’s phone records (Patriot Act at Center). The court order said that Verizon was required to turn over the phone number, the origin of the call, the destination of the receiver, and the duration of the call (Patriot Act at Center). It was also discovered that the National Security Agency was taking this information and storing it, as something called “metadata” (Patriot Act at Center). Despite the act being passed twelve years prior, it was not until this scandal that many Americans became aware of the government’s true intentions.

Despite the negative opinions about the PATRIOT Act, many are in favor of the legislation. One of the biggest reasons for support is that the PATRIOT Act is designed to protect and there is a national fear of terrorist attacks. Even with there having been over 15 years without a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, the memory of 9/11 is still very fresh in the minds of many. Especially with the growing terrorist attacks worldwide and increase in the rise of terrorists, many Americans live in fear at the possibility. As former Congressman Daniel Lungren states, one of the fundamental duties of the federal government is to protect its citizens from threats (Lungren 429). However, it becomes this grey area over how far the government should go to protect its citizens and how realistic are those threats. The United States has increased airline security, boarder patrols, and its vetting process for immigrants. This, combined with the limited attempts at terrorist attacks, it raises questions about the necessity of multiple provisions in the PATRIOT Act. Lungren continues to give his opinion on the controversial provisions of the act. In regards to roving wiretaps, Lungren explains how it streamlines the judicial process of receiving a warrant for a traditional wiretap (Lungren 437). He explains how not notifying the suspect and only requiring a single warrant, prevents the suspect from erasing any evidence or taking other means to thwart incrimination, but it also allows for better communication between law enforcement and intelligence agencies (Lungren 438). A complication with this is again; many of these wiretaps are not being used on terrorist suspects. In addition, there are alternative means to accessing information without a warrant. A National Security Letter may be issue by an agent to gain access into any citizen’s personal information (Khaki). In three years, close to two hundred thousand of these NSL’s were issued, with eleven thousand phone records being turned over to the federal government (Khaki). Another proponent of the PATRIOT Act is Texas lawyer Ronald Sievert. Similar to Lungren, one of the main reasons for supporting the legislation is how it enhanced communication between branches of the federal government and law enforcement (Sievert 322). He also sites that the increased access to citizen’s records only makes sense because terrorists use the same means of communication as everyone else (Sievert 338). He concludes that it is necessary to have these extended provisions to keep up with modern technology. The bias behind the authors of these articles does raise questions. First, both gentlemen hold conservative values, similar to the president and Congress that passed the original PATRIOT Act. Also, Daniel Lungren was a Congressman that served on the Homeland Security Committee in Congress. It was this committee, along with others, that were some of the original drafters of the PATRIOT Act and who utilize its power often. While there is validity in this theory, it raises a larger question into personal beliefs. When people coexist in a community, there will usually be a conflict between individual beliefs and group beliefs. It is often about deciding whether civil liberties should be placed at a higher value than the collective group. 

This is one of the central ideas that the PATRIOT Act challenges. Many of those who oppose the PATRIOT Act, like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), believe that individual rights should be protected from the government, even when the government claims to be intruding on those rights in order to protect (American Civil Liberties Union). The PATRIOT Act does violate Constitutional rights as well. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures without a warrant, while the PATRIOT Act enables law enforcement to withhold that warrant when executing a “sneak and peek” search (US Constitution). However, one of the most obvious ways the PATRIOT Act violates individual rights is through invasion of privacy. While the right to privacy is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it has become an assumed right that most all Americans believe and practice (Right to Privacy). It is this right that allows people have protected conversations, information, and lives. The PATRIOT Act violates this assumed right by allowing the government to enter citizen’s homes without notifying them first. It also violates privacy by conducting wiretaps without first notifying the suspect. 

Today, there are many groups actively fighting to protect individual rights. The American Civil Liberties Union is on of the most noted and largest of these groups. They fight against any kind of violation to civil liberties and work to educate individuals of the rights they possess (American Civil Liberties Union). By being such a large organization, they are able to fight for justice in courtrooms and at the grass roots level. There are many ways to become advocates for civil liberties. It could be by joining an organization similar to the American Civil Liberties Union or by becoming active in civic duties such as voting. Voting is a very useful tool, because it allows citizens to elect officials with similar beliefs as their own. This plays an important role when controversial legislation, like the USA PATRIOT Act, is up for renewal. At the current day, it is necessary for the federal government to have the capabilities to prevent potential terrorist attacks. Yet, this power and protection does not have to coexist with the excessive monitoring and data collecting on unsuspecting citizens.

The debate over the PATRIOT Act is similar to many, people are often uneducated on the issue, or they remain indifferent. It is often hard to feel passionate or interested in a topic when it does not appear to have a direct or obvious impact on everyday life. Many Americans still operate under the false impression that the sole purpose of the PATRIOT Act is to protect them from terrorist attacks. This illusion has been able to hold because rarely do individuals take the time to read a full piece of legislation, as they are often long and confusing, but there have also been few reasons to question it. As seen in the National Security Agency’s case with Verizon, the only reason any of that information became public was that someone leaked the confidential documents. There is a clause in the Constitution that allows the President to withhold information if it would be considered a threat to national security. The National Security Agency falls under the executive branch, which is led by the president, and is investigating potential terrorist, which would make it a risk if its work were public information. The federal government is a very powerful institution that does offer many great services, including protecting American citizens from foreign or domestic terrorist attacks. As one of, if not the most powerful nation in the country, the United States has many enemies. However, rather than focusing their efforts overseas, the federal government is using the power given to itself in the PATRIOT Act to monitor and collect data on its own citizens. 
