USA Patriots Act and Civil Liberties, Research Paper Example

The Patriots Act and how it affects our civil liberties, how it gives government power to catch terrorist but not giving up our civil liberties without due process of law. September 11, 2001 may have changed USA forever, because terrorists invaded the heart of the country and destroyed approximately 3,000 lives, and this act of mass murder has provided the springboard for the introduction of the USA PATRIOTS ACT.

Blacks Dictionary, define it as a statute enacted in response to the terrorists act of September, 11, 2001, that gives law enforcement agencies broader authority to collect information on suspected terrorists, to share the information among domestic and foreign intelligence agencies, to make the country borders more secure, to detain suspects on new types of criminal charges using new criminal procedures, and to authorize the Treasury Department to investigate and regulate financial institutions that participate in foreign money laundering (Blacks Dictionary).

The term is also an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Tools Required To Intercept And Obstruct Terrorist (Blacks Dictionary).

The powers conferred on the government, challenges the civil liberties of a people who has fought for it for over three hundred years, and include, according to Source Watch.Org, freedom of expression, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom of religion, freedom from discrimination, self incrimination, equal protection under the law as it pertains to race, sex, abortion and disability (Source Watch.Org).

Both legal statutes are at the opposite end of a legal continuum, and have different objectives and purposes. How can one give so much power to the government and not lose significant amounts of civil liberties, especially when it comes to gaining due process of law in the courts for treatments that seems illegal?

In his June 25, 2002 article entitled “Phantoms of Government Provided Security”, David Sadler wrote, “The National Security State has become as national threat to the free people of United States of America and represent a clear and present danger to the US constitution “(SourceWatch.Org).

Sadler believes the US Patriots Act weakens the United States Constitution, and September 11, had only provided a Hegelian opportunity for those who profit from war and national debt, to capitalize on it and use it to deprive US citizens of their civil liberties (SourceWatch.Org).

The issuance of a totally unconstitutional executive order and the passage of unconstitutional laws for alleged security purposes, increased dramatically after September 11, according to SourceWatch.Org, and it seems the government had to break its own laws to pursue terrorists that have no respect for the sanctity of human lives.

Where civil liberties are concerned, according to Former Vice President Al Gore, the government has taken us much farther down the road to an intrusive Big Brother style government that points towards the dangers George Will prophesied about in his 1984 book (Brownstein, 2003). Gore calls for a repeal of the US Patriot Act, because it weakens the national security of the nation, and is a mass violation of civil liberties as well as personal freedom (Brownstein, 2003).

The repeal called for the former Vice President Gore, may be an indication that the US Patriot Act may not really be necessary and is only serving other ulterior agendas, due to the fact that the powers are so broad in scope, unlimited in application, especially towards the question of due process of law, and has no time limits on its cessation.

Had the government stated that it was an interim measure, that it had in place, then this would have been different, but the USA Patriots Act is much like the emergency rule the both the Presidents of Egypt and Syria has imposed on their people for upwards of three decades, and has suspended the civil rights of their citizens indefinitely.

Broader authority to law enforcement agencies, new criminal procedures against terrorists, and the investigation power of the Treasury Department of financial institutions nationally and globally (Johnson,  2003), are all designed to give the federal government authority to go even into individual’s private financial transactions under the guise of fighting terrorism (Johnson, J.2003).

Vice President Gore stated that the constant violations of civil liberties by the federal government, promotes the false impression that these actions are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks.  A statement of this nature from such a reputable and authoritative source, should not be ignored by those who belief they should surrender their civil liberties, and will still be able to regain through due process of later on in cases they are wrongfully charged.

The federal government has the authority to invoke the powers of the US Patriots Act, when faced with legal challenges, much like other dictatorship countries rule by declaring a state of emergency, and there are no provisions made in the Law concerning the civil liberties of US citizens who are arrested as suspects in terrorist activities.

One of the possible concessions that US citizens could allow, without losing their civil liberties, is in section 326 of the US Patriots Act, where the Treasury Department is required to jointly prescribe to the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Commodity Future Trading Commission (CFTC) a minimum regulation, according to Johnson (2003).

This minimum regulation require these named institutions to verify the identity of any persons seeking to open an account, to  extents reasonable and practicable, while banks and other financial institutions are required to maintain records of certain transactions and used them to determine whether these persons are on any terrorist watch list or not (Johnson, 2003).

This aspect of the US Patriot Act may infringe minimally on the civil liberties of citizens, especially if the majority of the population do not operate very large financial transactions.

Clarence Page (2003) sees the US Patriots Act as a violation of our civil liberties, and a weapon that can be used in the extreme against innocent American citizens. He reports that USA FBI Agents used Anti Terrorism laws to prosecute in a political bribery case centered on the owners of some Las Vegas Strip Clubs (Page, C. 2003).

The violence they seemed intent on preventing  according to Page (2003), was that which the topless ladies were applying to the wallets of most of the male clients at the clubs, but they later used the provisions of the Act to subpoena financial information from the owners of one of the clubs and four local politicians (Page, C. 2003).

These individuals, should they be found to have no financial affiliations with terrorist organizations in the  courts of law, may have difficulty regaining their reputations as well as the status their businesses had, before the federal government intervened in their personal lives.

US Attorney General Ashcroft had said the federal government used the tools to save America, but according to Page (2003) report, the tools used in this case and very often since September 11, 2001, are the ones that allow the government to peak into the personal lives of many people, not just suspected terrorists (Page, C. 2003).

In a test case in 2003 on the scope of US Anti-Terrorism Laws, including a provision of the US Patriots Act that targets secondary players, the government failed, and the result has caused many in the legal fraternities to begin questioning the constitutionality of this law according to Schmitt (2004).

A federal jury in Idaho according to Schmitt (2004) acquitted a Saudi Computer born student named Sami Omar Al Hassan, from charges of spreading terrorism on the internet. The prosecution had alleged that Hassan was designing websites, and posting messages on the internet, as well as raising funds for terrorist missions in Egypt and in Chechnya, but his defense used the First Amendment Clause regarding the right to express his views and won the case (Schmitt, 2003).

In one aspect the very broad powers of the government under the US Patriots Act allowed the FBI to infringe on the civil liberties of Hassan, while the defense skilful use of the provisions of the US Constitution significantly assisted the accused.

Two events of significance that connects to the federal government use of the US Patriots Act, comes readily to mind, and they are the Japanese Americans Internment in 1942 and the Mc McCarthyism Anti-Communism period between 1950 and 1954.

The Japanese Americans were in 1942, forced into concentration camps, based on the belief that they were spies for the Japanese government, but in the end after thousands of them lives were destroyed, only ten persons (all Caucasians), were found guilty of this espionage activity (www.classes.maxwell.syr.edu).

The scenario that led to the Japanese Americans incarceration had some similarity to September 11, 2001, in that after the Perl Harbor bombing,  members of congress began spreading fear among the general population about these people being spies, and  this led to President Roosevelt issuing Executive Order 9066, which gave the military commanders the authority to designate areas where Japanese Americans could not be found (www.classes.maxwell.syr.edu)

Approximately 2000 Japanese Americans were totally stripped of their civil liberties and were treated as criminals in their adopted country; all because of their Asian ethnicity.

The executive order  that was used then to destroy these people lives on the basis of fears that were unsubstantiated, is similar to the dictates of the now US Patriots Act being  legislatively enacted to fight terrorists. Both orders resulted in the suspension of the civil liberties of the American citizens, and were an indirect admission by the federal government that the US constitution is not adequate to fight acts of terrorism.

It took 20 years for those who survived the incarceration to gain any form of justice for what was done to them. The ill fated Title 11 of the 1950 Internal Security, which allowed for the imprisonment of people deemed to be in collaboration with foreign enemies, and the infamous Executive Order 9066, which authorized the president  as the Chief Executive Office of the Military Command, to order the wartime imprisonment of these people, were repealed in1970 (www.classes.maxwell.syr.edu ).

If the executive order was illegal during the time of the Japanese American Incarceration, it is also illegal now, and can cause thousands to lose not only their civil liberties but their future livelihood. It was interesting to note that when many of the Japanese Americans went back to their former homes, everything was practically destroyed and the government did nothing to restore what was rightfully theirs.

The USA Patriots could produce the same experience in terms of Americans losing their possession, their civil liberties and the use of due process of the law to defend them in the courts.

The McCarthyism period between 1950 and 1954, according to Conservapedia.com, was led by Joseph McCarthy, who dominated the Anti-Communist Movement against government employees in the CIA, State Department, Information Agency and the military, using his position on the government operations committee. (www.conservapedia.com)

It took a censure by the senate to finally stop him, but the government allowed him to terrorize thousands of people for four years. These people’s civil liberties of freedom of expression were severely trampled on by a man who could produce no evidence to substantiate his accusations.

The effect continued after he left center stage, because Rausch (2000) reports that his campaign had a lasting effect on the conduct of US Foreign Relations, especially in the State D  epartment  and Foreign Service, where Scott McLeod took the mantle and destroyed the careers of many loyal  government employees (Rausch, 2000).

On the basis of these two events, where the government assumed more authority than the constitution affords, it was difficult for those who had their civil liberties taken away to timely achieve justice through due process, and points to a similar possibility under the USA Patriots Act.

Giving up ones civil liberties to the government in both cases were like death sentence to those who were affected, especially for the  non Caucasians Americans who had Japanese or Asian related features.

According to Justice Antonin Scalia, “The very core of liberty is secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the executive” (Levy, R.A., 2003). However in the case of Joseph Padilla, the US citizen who supposedly plotted to detonate a dirty bomb, jail has been his home since he was arrested at Chicago O’Hare airport for more than a year (Levy, R.A., 2003).

The government under the US Patriots Act has brought its full power to bear upon him, by totaling depriving him of his civil liberties, and has caused libertines to be up in arms, according to Levy (2003).

Under the 6^th Amendment, the right to counsel does not apply until charges are filed against an individual accused of a crime, and since Padilla is a US citizen, he should not be detained without being charged, but the government under the US Patriots Act, avoided the technicality by designating him an enemy combatant (Levy, 2003).

Padilla civil liberties were trampled on while in his country of birth, and by a government that had taken the oath of office to serve and protect its citizens. This is reminiscent of the Japanese American Incarceration and the thousands whose careers were destroyed under Joseph McCarthy Anti- Communism Campaign.

The accused could be guilty or innocent and should at least have had the services of a lawyer, but was denied of such luxury for over 12 months. The government had acted unconstitutionally in taking away the civil liberty of one of its citizen, especially in the area of granting due process in a court of law.

A more detailed look at the USA Patriots Acts, revealed nine major tenets by which the government is saying to the ordinary citizens, that by these we will catch the terrorists that are invading the country, but it means a surrender of your civil liberties indefinitely.

They are authorized to investigate every financial transaction between banks and anyone suspected of laundering money, and can ban the banks of any country that does not cooperate or share its opinion regarding those they call terrorists, but do not define the conditions that should me met to qualify for their ban or investigation.

The incarcerated Japanese Americans lost all their livelihood and futures, based on how they looked, and the possibility that they could be spies for the Japanese government, in a time of war. It is also quite possible under the broader powers of US Patriots Act, for people with large financial resources to be targeted and destroyed, based on their political, social, economical, and religious views, as well as their racial origins.

The US government is authorized to block countries that do not cooperate with them in terms of terrorism, and enhance forfeiture, recordkeeping, and jurisdictional requirements; some of which will have extra territorial impact on non-US banks with correspondent accounts in the US, according to Commerzbank AG.

This level of authority can be used to do more than fight terrorists; it can be used to regain dominance on the world stage, as well as on home soil.

David Salle may be right when he said that the National Security State has become a national threat to the people of the United States of America and is clear and present danger to the US constitution (SourceWatch.Org).

Clarence Page (2003), base on his evidence, sees the US Patriots Act as no longer about terrorism, because it seems the Hegelian opportunity had been maximized at the expense of the US constitution.

If the government from a credibility level as wrong about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, it is possible to be guilty of deceiving it citizens by using the fight against terrorism to strip them of the civil liberties in order to achieve other objectives.

The truth seems hidden somewhere in the corridors of power, and with that in mind, it should become difficult to rationally, to believe it is possible for US citizens to find ways to give their government broader power to fight terrorists, and not lose their civil liberties and the benefits of due process of law, when their constitutional rights has been violated.

Giving up ones civil liberties is a retrograde step for a people who have fought for it for over three hundred years. The question that should be asked is why the constitution has to be suspended to fight terrorism at home and abroad, when it is supposed to the guiding legal document for present and future generations to live by.

Thomas Jefferson famously said “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for”, and the US Government under the dictates of the US Patriots Act, seems destined to become a despotic entity (Republicans for Humility).

Historically also, civil liberties has little significance under any despotic regimes, and it is quite possible under the US Patriots Act for more Americans to suffer like Joseph Padilla, Sami Omar Al  Hassan, The Japanese Americans, and the victims of Joseph McCarthy Anti-Communism Movement.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis says it conclusively, for all who will still believe that there is a legal, political or social formula available to allow government to catch terrorists, and not lose their civil liberty and the right to due process, when he said, “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect our liberty when the government purposes are beneficent” (Republicans for Humility).

A rethink regarding AL Gore’s call for a repeal of the US Patriots Act should be in order, because of how it has negatively impacted on those who have faced the power the government is capable of applying through it, as well as the past experiences of Americans who had their civil liberties taken away from them by an executive order, and the Anti-Communism onslaught.

Reference

Org Domestic Tourism www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=domestic_tourism , 05/21/11 Web

Org Clear and Present Danger  www.sourcewatcg.org/php?title=clear-and-present-danger , 05/21/11 Web

Blacks Dictionary 8^th edition (2004). USA Patriots Act Thomson West St. Paul, MN 1577  Print

Brownstein, R., (2003). Gore Urge Repeal Of Patriots Act latimes.com/2003/Nov/10/nation/NA-gore- 05/21/11 Web

Johnson, S. (2003). USA Patriots Act Section 326 Final Rule Department of Treasury p.2  Print

Page, C. (2003). The Patriots Act Is Not Just about Terrorists Anymore Chicago Tribune extremeskins.com/showthread.php?741074-the-patriots-act-is=not-about-terrorist-anymore-m ,05/24/11 Web

Schmitt, R. B., (2004).Prosecution By The USA Patriots Act LA Times www.storynews.yahoo.com/news?tml=story , 05/23/11 Web

Japanese Americans in Concentration Camps classes.maxwellsyr.edu/soc248/japaneseintern.html ,05/23/11Web

Rausch, S.A. (2000). McCarthyism and Eisenhower’s State Department 1953-1961 PhD Dissertation  University of Washington  231 Print

conservapedia.com/joseph_mccarthy , Joseph McCarthy, 05/23/1 Web

Levy, R.A., (2003). Jose Padilla: No Charge and No Trial, Just Jail Cato Justice Chicago Sun Times  cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3208 , 05/23/11Web

Republicans For Humility (N.D). Liberty Under Siege republicansforhumility.com/ 05/23/11 Web

Commerzbank AG (New York) (N.D.). USA Patriots Act Account Services Group commerzbank.us/en/usa_patriot_act/. , 05/23/11 Web