The calamitous events that occurred on September 11, 2001 led our United

States government to rapidly tighten its security, but have their actions gone too far?
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU) stated, Congress hasty
approval of anti-terrorism legislation indicates that our nation is destined to repeat the
mistakes of the past: abandoning the cherished values enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
The United States government has expanded its powers to spy, infiltrate, wiretap,
perform concealed searches and detain/deport immigrants (Jacobs, 2), which has
clearly breached the civil rights that these counter-terrorism laws are supposed to
protect. Their ability to push their new powers granted to them through the legislation
without any meaningful judicial oversight poses a threat to a potential separation of
powers, one of the most important parts outlined in our Constitution. (Jacobs, 1) Their
power has been dramatically expanded, allowing them to invade citizens privacy by
reading their emails, tracking their Internet usage/searches, and even entering their
homes, all being done without civilians knowledge (Jacobs, 1) Almost every single
American in todays era owns a cellular device or tablet, and this is a scary thought for
the general public because there are machines and people watching and recording their
every move, whether it be online or over a phone.
In addition to the fact that peoples privacy is being invaded without them
knowing, their civil rights are also commonly being ignored. The suspected perpetrators
of attacks also have rights, as members of the human family, in the course of their
apprehension and prosecution. They have the right not to be subject to torture or other
degrading treatment, the right to be presumed innocent until they are deemed guilty, of
the crime and the right to public trial. (Zalman, 1) In an abundant amount of current

cases, these basic civil rights allowed are being tossed away and disregarded as if they
do not exist due to the new legislation. The government has ignored civil liberties that
are granted to United States citizens, whether they are accused or innocent. The
increasing amount of law enforcement agencies nationwide are taking advantage of
combat efforts that some officials say can aid in uncovering terrorist plots (Schmitt, 1),
but they do also violate an individual's rights that they are born with.
Although Americas presidents, like Bush and Obama, want to keep America
safe, these harsh counter terrorism efforts are being made with no real say about
whether or not it is worth harming peoples civil liberties (Schmitt, 1) Is it really worth the
risk? The past 10 years have shown that criminal law can be used effectively to fight
terrorism...on the other hand, it has also demonstrated that the demand for prevention
can all too quickly lead to the abuse of innocents. (Liptak, 4) The actions that the
government has taken may be helping to prevent American citizens from being placed
in harms way, but have encroached on the rights that people are born with. Counterterrorism efforts in the United States of America, like the Patriot Act, NSA Wiretapping
and Surveillance, Bush Administration Detention Policy, and the Guantanamo Bay
Detentions, have massively violated American citizens civil liberties.
To understand exactly how these new legislations have affected civil rights, one
must first know the exact definitions of the different forms of terrorism, treason, and
espionage. Terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce,
especially for political purposes. (Dictionary.com) Terrorism is also violent acts or the
use of the threat of violence to create fear, alarm, dread, or coercion, usually against
governments. (Chapter 9 Crimes, 5) In simpler terms, terrorism is using violence and

threats to portray a message towards a country or government. The Security Legislation

Amendment Act of 2002 defines a terrorist act as any act or threat that is made towards
the public or government about a political, religious, or ideological cause meant to
create intimidation or harm.
The world today has experienced an abundant amount of terrorist attacks and
attempted attacks but most people do not know that there are multiple forms of these
atrocious events. Bioterrorism and cyberterrorism are two prime examples. Bioterrorism
is a way of using diseases and biological agents, like smallpox, as a terrorist act/threat.
Cyberterrorism is using the internet for terrorist attacks, threats, and propaganda.
(Chapter 9 Crimes, 3) Knowing the different forms of terrorism is extremely important,
especially in todays world. Murderous, detrimental groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS
have resorted to using the internet as a weapon to recruit militants, targeting younger
aged people who are easily influenced by the web. By law, any act of terrorism is taken
extremely seriously because the lives of many innocent citizens are being put at risk.
According to the National Crime Museum, anyone who attempts these acts can be
sentenced to maximum security prisons where they are monitored closely and kept in
tight confinement, life imprisonment, and even the death penalty. To avoid even the
thought of any of these actions, it is always better to know the severe punishments that
are included. This also includes planning/assisting in any attacks or having any
documents/possessions to do with it, even if the convict is unaware of the relationship
between the objects or if it was unintentional, both of which can be sentenced from 10
years to life in jail. (Head, 3)

Another variation of what is considered terrorism to ones country is treason.

Treason is the offense of acting to overthrow ones government or to harm or kill its
sovereign or a violation of allegiance to ones sovereign or to ones state.
(Dictionary.com) It is also any assistance to an enemy even if war has not been
declared, which includes revealing government information. (Head, 3) In addition, hiding
the known treason of somebody else is called misprision of treason. (Chapter 9
Crimes, 4) To have knowledge of what treason means is important because it allows
people to better comprehend current topics, such as whether Edward Snowdens leaks
are considered an act of treason or not. Anyone committing such a crime can be
sentenced to a minimum of five years in jail, a large fine of $10,000 in the United States,
and in some cases, the death penalty or life imprisonment (Penalties of Treason, 1)
People should be aware of the seriousness and extent of these crimes and the lives that
they are putting at risk.
The last violation of law that is commonly associated with treason and terrorism
is espionage. Espionage is the use of spies by a government to discover the military
and political secrets of other nations. (Dictionary.com) It is spying, losing, sending, or
gathering information about the United States and its government with the intention of
using it against the country or giving it to enemies. (Chapter 9 Crimes", 3) This also
includes revealing or publishing that information to any enemies of the United States.
(Head, 4) Although not as common today as the latter of the three, espionage is still a
very serious crime because even the largest and most powerful of countries, such as
the United States, can still be put at risk through the shared information. This could be
government plans, counter attacks, military plans, etc. that could place Americans

safety in danger. A more common form of espionage is economic espionage, defined by

the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation as whoever knowingly performs
targeting or acquisition of trade secrets to knowingly benefit any foreign government,
foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent. For such acts, people can be sentenced to 15
years imprisonment and a maximum fine of $5 million.
One of the most controversial legislations created thus far is the USA Patriot Act
(Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) of 2001. (Liptak, 1) This act was issued in 2001 after
the September 11th terrorist attacks on the United States (Chapter 9 Crimes, 5) and is
over 300 pages long. (Liptak, 1) It was issued in order to rapidly tighten the United
States security after the horrendous attacks and ensure civilians protection. In a hurry
to pass the new set of laws, President Bush signed it in October 26, 2001. (The Civil
Liberties Implications, 2)
One may wonder what significance this relatively new legislation has on
Americans across the country, and in truth, it plays a huge role in their daily lives.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can
secretly conduct a physical search or wiretap on American citizens to obtain evidence of
a crime without proving probable cause, as the Fourth Amendment explicitly requires.
Not only does this give the FBI power to secretly search people without any justified
reasoning, but it also violates the Fourth Amendment which states that the government
cannot conduct searches or seizures without a warrant, requiring them to have probable
cause. The act also increases the governments power in a wide range of searches,
including records searches, secret searches, and intelligence searches and reduces

checks and balances between the branches of government (Surveillance Under the
USA, 1) because now one branch is given more power than the others. This is a major
invasion of American peoples privacy because their personal information and their
personal items and phone calls are intruded upon. Their information is sent to people in
the government whom they do not know and is given without the persons consent.
In order to know the effect this important legislation has truly had on Americans,
one must first know exactly what makes up the Patriot Act and what is stated within it.
This long set of laws is divided into ten different titles. (The Civil Liberties Implications,
3) However, the most frequently mentioned titles are Titles I through VII. The first title
allows a fund to be used in counter terrorism combat efforts and allows the president to
take away funds that belong to any other foreign person, organization, or country that
has engaged in what is considered an act of terrorism against the United States. (The
Civil Liberties Implications, 3) Although this may increase the efforts to prevent these
acts from happening, it also makes Americans give up a portion of their hard-earned
money towards taxes for this fund, even though many people do not agree nor are they
in favor of the combative efforts. The second title increases the surveillance power given
to the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), especially towards suspected spies
both international and domestic. (The Civil Liberties Implications, 3) Any civilian can be
considered a spy for numerous reasons, some without even justification, thus giving the
government the power to freely invade their privacy. Although the title also states that a
warrant is required for searches and seizures of suspected terrorists, it does not require
the government to notify or alert the person and necessitates that officials keep it a
secret. (The Civil Liberties Implications, 3) In other words, the United States

government has greater surveillance on Americans without even notifying them that
they are being watched and recorded.
Titles three and four are some of the least controversial parts of the Patriot Act.
Title III strengthens the rules of banking against international money laundering to break
off funding to terrorist groups and Title IV gives more power to federal immigration
authorities and the attorney general to not allow people involved with terrorist groups
and organizations to enter the United States (The Civil Liberties Implications, 3). Both
titles tighten the countrys security economically and physically by allowing less potential
terrorists to enter and stricter rules on international money and banking.
Title V increases the use of NSLs (National Security Letters) and the number of
federal agents who can issue them, but more importantly it broadens the category of
potential suspects. (The Civil Liberties Implications, 4) According to the legislation, a
wider range of people can be considered as possible terrorists which expands the
chances of just an ordinary civilian being taken in. Title VII increases the amount of
information the federal and state law enforcements can share among each other. (The
Civil Liberties Implications, 4) Already the government is getting into peoples personal
information, but now they have more power to share it with a larger number of agents
whom are working for the government as well.
Despite the fact that the Patriot Act was originally made to protect the United
States of America from future terrorist threats and attacks, it has raised much debate
over its content. The Act has been said to violate a few parts of the Fourth Amendment.
First, the Amendment states that the government cannot administer any searches
without a warrant or reasonable belief that they have committed or will commit a crime

and that anyone who is searched should be informed. (Surveillance Under the USA, 4)
The Act violates this because it does not give any notice to the people who have been
secretly searched and went into their privacy even after it has occurred. The Fourth
Amendment also states that citizens have the right to call attention to flaws in a warrant.
(Surveillance Under the USA, 3) They are not able to protect their Fourth Amendment
rights because of the Patriot Act, violating the basic civil rights born to them. According
to the Freedom House Organization, Detractors argue that the increased surveillance
they permit impinges on individual rights without meaningfully increasing protection from
terrorism. Though the government has worked to improve the countrys security from
terrorism, it really has not prevented or stopped any terrorist attacks, neither minor nor
significant. Even numerous cities and states do not agree with this legislation. The
Freedom House Organization also stated that Eight states and 396 cities and counties
have passed resolutions condemning the law as a violation of civil liberties. If this many
areas find the Patriot Act contravening to Americans civil rights, then why is it still in
place?
Most of todays phones, laptops, video games, and tablets contain cameras or
webcams that the government can easily get into. The information that is collected
through the camera, motion sensor, and microphone of the object is recorded and kept
with the government. Peoples private phone calls become not so private anymore
because officials and agents can easily listen in or view your records at any time. In
2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review gave the
Justice Department new powers to use wiretaps for information in criminal operation
cases which include anything involving terrorism. (Liptak, 4) This broadening of powers

gives the government the ability to search and interfere in peoples phone call records,
computer records, etc. In other words, they can invade a persons privacy and what they
believe to be are private conversations or situations at any time without even their
knowledge. The New York Times author Eric Schmitt writes, This overbroad reporting
authority gives law enforcement officers justification to harass practically anyone they
choose, to collect personal information and to pass such information along to the
intelligence community. This means that not only is American citizens solitude being
monitored and saved, but it is being passed on as well to other members of the
government whom are complete strangers. Their information is practically being leaked
to other people around the country who they do not even know of. Imagine having a
private conversation over the phone or via text message with a friend or relative,
knowing that everything that is being said is constantly recorded and can be viewed at
any moment when the government desires.
Not only is the bureaucracy documenting such information, but they also have
more recent plans regarding combative efforts. The FBI plans to launch tighter
counterterrorism actions by having more power to freely search through private
databases, go through peoples trash, and create surveillance teams, all being done
without them having any suspicion of wrongdoing activity. (Backward at the F.B.I., 1)
Their new actions go above and beyond our civil rights, as if they do not realize what
they have already done is enough. The United States government now basically can tail
and track any citizen whenever and wherever they want to, regardless if they have
actually done something that could be considered harmful.

In 2010, A 20 year old U.S.-born Santa Clara college student took his car to an
auto repair shop, where the mechanic noticed a wire sticking out of it. The men
investigated and found the wire to be a secret government tracking device, an Orion
Guardian ST820 to be exact. The government had been tracking him for a while, about
three to six months, even though he had no involvement whatsoever in anything to do
with terrorism except for the fact that he is half Egyptian. (Zetter, 3) This shows just how
far the government can go without the publics knowledge and what they are able to do
without any judicial reasoning. The man had done nothing wrong but be half-Egyptian,
which sparked the FBI to track him by planting a secret device in his car that sends all
of his location and information to them. The FBIs recent history includes the abuse of
national security letters to gather information about law-abiding citizens without court
orders, and inappropriate investigations of antiwar and environmental activists.
(Schmitt, 1) Their prior actions have showed how careless they can be over searching
people without any specific reasoning, so why should they be able to continue doing so
at more extreme measures?
Although the subject had remained unspoken over the years, a federal District
Court Judge finally spoke up about the situation. On August 17, 2006, a U.S. District
Court Judge found the NSAs wiretapping program to be illegal under FISA and
unconstitutional under the First and Fourth Amendments and ordered warrants to be
obtained for all wiretaps. (Johnson, 1) The judges ruling over the matter shows just
how serious this is, especially when a federal leader calls the act unconstitutional and
violating not one, but two amendments in which we are born with. The NSA and FBIs
actions have also affected Americans views. The increasing number of the amount of

people who think the U.S. anti-terrorism policies have gone too far is partly due to the
revelation of the NSAs spying on internet and phone usage, which caused people to
change their opinions. (Johnson, 1) The United States tighter tracking abilities and
more expanded powers have heavily influenced and attacked our civil rights.
The United States detention policies have gone under the fire by politicians and
Americans for about the last decade, especially the Bush Administration Detention
Policy. According to the PFAWF (People for the American Way Foundation), the policy
allows the President to designate anyone, even an American citizen arrested on
American soil, as an enemy combatant and shields that decision and the reasons
behind it from meaningful review. It presupposes that the government can deny even a
U.S. citizen constitutional rights such as access to counsel and due process of law, and
may detain him indefinitely in violation of U.S. law. (Undermining the Bill, 1) In simpler
terms, this policy allows the President of the US to name anyone an enemy combatant
whether they are American or not. This name does not allow them the same civil rights
that are built into the Bill of Rights, such as due process of law, even if the convicted are
innocent. These people can be detained in ways that go against the United States
Constitution and their trials and procedures have even been called unjust by U.S.
military members. To understand how these people are indicted as an enemy
combatant, one must first understand what the term means. It is a person who is
alleged to have been associated with terrorist attacks against the U.S. (Chapter 9
Crimes, 3) Based on the broad definition of the term, the government can charge almost
any innocent person along with the guilty without any valid analysis. Even people who
were convicted of mere immigration charges were detained in cruel conditions for many

months and held after their release. They were also considered guilty until proven
innocent (Liptak, 5), going against the known rule that anyone accused and tried is
innocent until proven guilty. Even from the most basic of charges, everyone under the
Bush Detention Policy undergoes the harshest of detainment conditions. The People for
the American Way Foundation stated, It is apparent that the Administrations treatment
of enemy combatants has been unpredictable and inconsistent, symptomatic of a policy
that is not only badly flawed but also constitutionally infirm. This furthermore supports
that the enemy combatants have been placed in severe conditions and situations even
when they are blameless. The policys conduct towards them is extreme and uncalled
for and such actions should not be put up with.
A valuable account concerning the treatment of the enemy combatants is the
well-known Hamdi and Lindh situations. An American named Yaser Esam Hamdi was
captured by pro-U.S. Northern Alliance forces on the battlefield in Afghanistan. He
became named an enemy combatant and has been held without charge or trial since
April of 2002. On the other hand, an American named John Walker Lindh who was
captured by the same forces in the same area along with a group of Taliban soldiers
received contradicting treatment. Within seven months, he was prosecuted through the
civilian court system and pled guilty to federal criminal charges. Even though Lindh
admits to meeting with Osama Bin Laden and training with the terrorist group Al-Qaeda,
he was only sent to federal prison and has been there since 2002. On the contrary,
Hamdi, who has not been tried nor prosecuted in court, has been held in a brutal federal
stockade and deprived of any communication with the outside world for the past two
years. (Undermining the Bill, 2) These two men coming from the same areas have

clearly faced two very different situations. Hamdi, who is an ordinary soldier on the field,
was held in much harsher conditions, whereas Lindh, who clearly admitted to his
involvement with one of the most dangerous and threatening terrorist groups in the
world, got the opportunity to be tried and held in a federal prison without any grim
circumstances. This shows that the treatment of such enemy combatants is quite unfair
and arbitrary and varies on the case/situation that is being dealt with and whom is being
accused.
As stated before, the Bush Administration Detention Policy has faced much
criticism all around the world for its unnecessary treatment of the convicted. The Bush
Administration has been widely accused of taking advantage in restricting civil rights of
some citizens. (Schmitt, 1) This supports the Hamdi and Lindh situations, along with
many more, like Padilla and Al-Marri, to show just how this detention policy breaches
peoples natural-born civil liberties. The PFAWF said, This policy violates fundamental
principles enshrined in our Constitution - such as the separation of powers and due
process of law - and actually threatens progress in the war on terror and Americas
campaign for greater freedom and democracy around the world. Since one branch of
the government has gained more power through this policy, it disrupts the system of
checks and balances placed from centuries before and oppose one of the main parts of
our constitution. It also violates the Fifth Amendment that states that the government
cannot punish someone unless they have been through a thorough trial/investigations
that protects their rights, also known as due process of law. The Administrations
detention policy runs contrary not only to the Constitution, but also to the legal and

legislative actions of our government and our society as whole. (Undermining the Bill,
5)
Another extremely controversial detention policy is the Guantanamo Bay
Detentions. On November 13, 2001, President Bush ordered the capture and
detainment of 775 people suspected of being terrorists associated with Al-Qaeda or the
Taliban, the two major terrorist groups at the time. (The Civil Liberties Implications, 6)
He ordered these people to be sent to a federal prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Here,
the people suffered brutal interrogations, torture, and holding convicts without charge for
a decade. (Liptak, 3) The questioning and investigating of the people held was
extremely abhorrent. According to the Freedom House, Among the approved
techniques were: the use of physical stress positions; 20-hour interrogations; removal
of clothing; using a detainees phobias...to induce stress; deception to make the
detainee believe the interrogator was from a country with a reputation for torture; the
use of falsified documents and reports; isolation for up to 30 days; and sensory
deprivation. The interrogations and fear tactics used against the accused are extreme,
especially since these people have yet to be proven guilty. They are merely accused by
the government depending on their race, actions, families, etc. and held in this
detainment camp with no real judicial reasoning. The way they are being treated is very
inhumane and abusive, both physically and emotionally. As a result of their much
endured torture, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was made to limit the interrogation
techniques that were originally set in 2001. (The Civil Liberties Implications, 7)
Although this has reduced what the government can do to the detainees, the situations

that they face are still disgusting and the governments treatment of them is
unacceptable.
Many accusations and court cases have been made and filed regarding the
governments denial of habeas corpus rights to suspected terrorist and unlawful
treatment towards them. The detentions also violated the Geneva Convention. Foreign
nationals being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, undermine the Geneva Convention, a
historic accord championed by the United States after World War II, thus rolling back
decades of progress in the international law of war detriment of U.S. soldiers fighting
abroad. (Undermining the Bill, 1) In other words, the Guantanamo Bay Detentions go
against the Geneva Convention that was established decades ago and backs up the
progress that the United States had been making battling the war on terrorism and the
amount of soldier lost during these past wars.
This detention policy is not only controversial in the United States but also among
the countrys foreign allies worldwide. It is contrary to the policies of the human rights
community and our closest democratic allies around the world. (Undermining the Bill,
4) Many of the United States allies agree that the Guantanamo Bay Detention policies
have violated human rights and have openly spoken about them. Judge Steyn of Britain
called this policy as a monstrous failure of justice. (Undermining the Bill, 4). Spanish
Foreign Minister Ana Palacio called the policy a major error and encourages the
United States to open a path to end the legal limbo. (Undermining the Bill, 4) If two of
the United States strongest allies passionately disagree about the policy and openly
speak about it, why should it still be in place? This policy could end up creating more
conflicts and weaker bonds between the United States and other countries, such as

what has occurred with Cuba. The Guantanamo Bay Detention Policy is incredibly risky
correlating to the United States relationships with other foreign powers and is a highly
criticized subject. To prevent the atrocious treatment of human beings and the future
problems surrounding it, the United States should furthermore investigate the
Guantanamo Bay Detention Policy and ultimately remove it.
How many Americans today think that the United States anti-terrorism policies
have breached upon their civil rights? According to a survey conducted by Pew
Research Center for the People and the Press, it found that more than half of
Americans, about 52%, say that the governments internet and phone surveillance
systems have made the United States less safe or feel that they have made no
difference. Since such a large amount of people believe that these efforts have done
little to nothing to protect the country, they should not still be in place. Americans have
expressed their opinions regarding the NSA wiretapping and internet/phone surveillance
and more than half of the nation agrees that the efforts are meaningless to the countrys
overall safety. 64% of American citizens believe that one of the anti-terrorism efforts,
the war in Afghanistan, has made the United States less safe (21%) or has not made a
difference (43%). (Section 4: The Threat, 1) This shows that a vast majority of United
States civilians believes that the war has not helped the United States at all nor has it
changed the safety of the nation. Men, by a 54-34 margin, said that policies had gone
too far, while women, by a 47-36 margin, said they had not gone far enough, revealing a
sizeable gender gap. (Johnson, 1) This means that more men believe that the counter
terrorism efforts have gone too far rather than women, which is an interesting fact to
know.

A survey conducted in July of 2013 showed that 47% of people showed concern
regarding the government violating civil liberties. (Section 4: The Threat, 2) Almost half
of the nation shows distress regarding whether their civil rights are being breached
upon. 45% of Americans say that the governments anti-terrorism policies have gone too
far on the limits and pushed peoples civil liberties. (Johnson, 1) Not only do citizens
worry about whether their rights are being protected, but many of them now believe that
they truly are being pushed away. The United States should be a country in which
people feel free and safe, not where they should feel that their natural-born rights are
being tossed away all for the so-called increase security that many people believe has
not done much. As shown, according to nationwide surveys, almost half or more
Americans are worried that these counter terrorism tactics might violate their civil rights.
Political party members also have strong feelings towards the U.S.s antiterrorism policies. 43% of Republicans believe that the government has gone too far in
restricting civil liberties. (Section 4: The Threat, 3) 52% of members from the Council
on Foreign Relations believe this as well. (Section 4: The Threat, 3) The majority of
Republicans and CFR members think that the governments combative efforts have
gone too far. Since such members of our government oppose the policies, they should
not continue to be in place. In addition, 51% of Tea Party Republicans and Republicanleaning Independents show concern regarding civilians rights being restricted because
of the policies. (Section 4: The Threat, 3) As shown, most Americans, whether they are
just civilians or government/political members, agree that the counter terrorism efforts in
the United States of America have breached their civil rights.

Since America September of 2001, after the first major terrorist attacks destroyed
the United States as a nation, the countrys security has been tightened, but at the risk
of peoples civil rights. As stated by the American Civil Liberties Union, We now know
that in virtually every decade of the 20th century, the government abused the basic
freedoms of American citizens in the name of protecting nation security. Overall,
America has put billions of dollars into creating tougher systems to combat terrorism,
even though no real plots have been foiled (Schmitt, 1), but rather citizens rights have
been taken away and ignored. In the past, our government has harassed, investigated,
and arrested people in ways that are inhumane and intolerable. Counter terrorism
policies are placing fundamental freedoms in jeopardy and leading to massive violations
of civil liberties. The Freedom House Organization summed up the effect that these
policies are having on Americans. They said, Counterterrorism policies are placing
fundamental freedoms in jeopardy and leading to massive violations of civil liberties. To
conclude, due to the United States of Americas counter-terrorism endeavors, such as
its detention policies, Patriot Act, and NSA Wiretapping and Surveillance actions,
civilians civil liberties have been encroached upon.