1

Running Head: THE PATRIOT ACT

The Patriot Act: Authorization of Surveillance and Search and Seizure

Student’s name

Course name and number

Instructor’s name

Date submitted
 2
THE PATRIOT ACT
The Patriot Act: Authorization of Surveillance and Search and Seizure

Introduction

America never remained the same after the attack on September 11, 2011. This was an

attack that horrified the United States and led to a number of responses in attempt to prevent the

incident from ever happening again. America changed after this date in a number of ways, and as

Smith & Hung (2010) explains the changes affected areas such as immigration due to laws and

regulations put in place, for before the 9/11 it was evident that foreigners who visited America

had their passport stamped and would stay for six months but was later changed to 30 days. All

over the world, particularly in America strong measures have been established to end terrorism

as well acts of terrorism that leads to loss of lives. America is not different. Indeed the history of

America lies in history of its legislation. In the wake of the September 11, 2011 America passed

the patriotic Act with the sole goal of strengthening domestic security as well as broadening its

powers of law enforcement agencies with respect to terrorist identification and stoppage.

The patriotic Act among other things authorizes surveillance and searches as well as

seizure on things related to terrorism and acts considered so. The law does more than just that it

allows law enforcement to use surveillance against more crimes of terror. The fact that the law

allows for surveillance search and seizure is a good step towards fighting terrorism. This Act

with such provisions has raised a number of security concerns but more some ethical concerns.

The Act was passed to address security issues but some people considered it a violation of their

rights. This paper analyses the ethical issues raised by the Act and security implication of the Act

and further synthesizes the two drawing on the stated ethical and homeland security implications,

justifying its use through the Just War Theory.

 3
THE PATRIOT ACT
Analysis of ethical issues raised by the Patriotic Act

Living safely has been the dream of many people, furthermore living in an environment

where their rights are not interfered with for any other reason is the dream on most America, in

fact it is their values. Any Act or step taken by the government that contradicts the initial living

standards and values, such as freedom and some of the liberties rights raises a number of ethical

issues. Despite the fact that most people welcomed the law with saw much optimism, concerns

have been raised over right of people in regard to surveillance, searchers and seizure as provided

for in the Act. Kashan (2010) argues that immediately after passage of the Act, many people

disapproved the law on the basis of diminishing civil liberties. Fox, (2013) denotes also that a lot

of scrutiny has focused on surveillance provision specifically through the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance which was amended to ease restrictions on government burden when it comes to

demonstrating purposes for surveillance conducted. In their study Davis & Silver (2004) present

interesting findings and conclusion concerning perception of Americans on civil rights and

security. They mention that indeed the term 9/11 symbolizes a watershed in the history of

America. In addressing some of the most important questions on constitutional rights , Davis &

Silver (2004) established that Americas are not ready to concede all their civil liberties as well

as personal freedom for the sake of feeling secure. In a different study, Hardin (2004) tackles the

same issue of terrorism and civil liberties and explain that the government has violated some of

the important principles that most Americans lived by such as Madison's principles, more so the

same government requires its citizens to trust the government but the actions of the government

justifies distrust, even courts end up violating these civil liberties. Nancy (2001) explains further

that the provision of the patriotic Act are controversial, it also does sacrifice the freedom of

American in the name of national security. And as such is goes against democratic values defines
 4
THE PATRIOT ACT
the nation by consolidation vast new powers in the executive branch of the government. One

thing that stands out is the government's ability to conduct surveillance, this as Lee (2003) is a

far reaching legislation that diminishes critical privacy protection to a higher degree. This

because as identified the Act does increase surveillance techniques that also include giving

police officers , more rights to conduct searches on even sensitive personal records , track

people’s email as well as internet use. Freedom and rights of people in America is very crucial.

As mentioned it is what establishes the values by which people live in. The understanding is that

the law and its provision for surveillance, though effective, is also perceived negatively not

because it is not effective in addressing terrorism and other things it intends to but on the basis of

rights. People consider this Act unethical, meaning going against the ethics they know. It means

that since passage of the Act, life changed. Someone in their daily live activities will have to

look back and consider that someone is watching their every move. The better good, should be

the focus of the entire country. This should come with the understanding that the past years have

been different, however with changes and ever increasing terrorism and attacks the government

needs to protect its citizens at all cost. The law should be examined from this positive

perspective.

Analysis of the homeland security implications

The issue of security has always been left or addressed by the government. It is the

responsibility of the government to ensure that citizens are guaranteed of their safety. The

government usually put up measures to ensure that security is ensured at all times. In the wake of

21st century, the drift in conflict between nations changed to conflict between states and

individual organizations and groups which causes terrors and inflicts pain to many innocent

people. A number of terrorist group have emerged against many countries as we hear in the news
 5
THE PATRIOT ACT
and watch in TV. America for instance faced great conflict with terrorist under the leadership of

Osama Bin Laden. Most of these groups rose even before the September 11 attack on US.

Osama Bin Laden in 1996 for instance declared Jihad, war against Americans who were

occupying the land they purport to be the land of the two holy places. They believed that by

order of USA most Muslims were arrested - scholars and young people in the land of the two

holy places. According to these groups this was injustice and plot to revenge started

(Terrorismfiles.org, 1996).The attack on America soil on September 11 2011 signify an attack

that is considered the most tragic to have ever occurred in American soil. The patriotic Act

enacted in 2011 and its authorization of surveillance, searches and seizure comes in as a measure

that the government had to take as a fight against terrorist. Fighting terrorist requires very

stringent measures and most importantly empowering law enforcement officer in order to help

them fight terrorism. Stefoff (2011) argues that the Patriotic Act became law in the wake of

2011. The supporters of the law claimed expresses their concern that the law provided sufficient

safeguards for civil rights and liberties and it also gives the government the necessary tools and

mechanisms to fight terrorism. In a way to show how significant the law is or how the law is

directed at fighting terrorism, Stefoff (2011) continues to denote that the Act begin with

heading stating that, it is an Attack to deter and punish terrorist acts in US and around the world.

Concerning surveillance Title II addresses the issue of surveillance procedures which increased

the government’s power to carry out domestic surveillance. On matters of warrant what is only

needed is mentioning that it is needed to gather information or offer protection against terrorism.

Without such laws which are strict when it comes to matters of terrorism, terrorism will still

continue to be a threat in the country. The Act empowers law enforcement officers and simplifies

operations. Government approach to terrorism is something that should be welcomed by all

 6
THE PATRIOT ACT
people in open arms. Surveillance, search and seizure provision of the Act is appropriate and

should be embraced.

Overall the Act has been effective in fight against terrorism. Marcovitz (2008) argues that

the patriotic Act has been effective in the sense that it has led to arrest and convictions of many

people, most of them being those who were planning terrorist act the country or even on

American's allies. Bush also mentions that the Act as of 2005 led to prosecution of 400

defendants. Furthermore the law due to its provision for surveillance has led to removal of

barrier that was considered by many law enforcement officers as "the wall " which was an

invisible barrier that kept intelligence agents from sharing information with law enforcement

officers (Marcovitz, 2008). As evident the combination of features of the Act other than the act

itself is effective in fighting terrorism. Most barriers have been eliminated, barriers which makes

the work of law enforcement easier in fighting terrorism. Fighting terrorism requires more than

just laws; it needs laws which simplify procedures by elimination of barriers that hinder laws

enforcement work in addressing the issue of terrorism.

Analysis of the ethical and homeland security implications

Understanding the issues raised when Patriotic Act was enacted, especially on issue of

security is critical. As mentioned earlier the establishment of the Act was solely as a way of

combating security threats in the country on security ground empowering the law enforcement

authorities power to combat terrorism even if it involves exclusive rights to search or seize any

personal material is right considering the threat that the world is currently facing. The motives

that led to passage of the Act in 2001 was clear, fight security threat and terrorism in the country,

no other motives. More the purpose according to Fox, (2013) was to strengthen and realign U.S
 7
THE PATRIOT ACT
policy allowing greater judicial power in order to protect America from terrorism. The

movement seems, to consider the rights of people as a priority but when it comes to security of

people, the rights comes second after security. The logic is that security threat causes loss of

lives, property and leaves a never ending scar on people’s lives. According to Christopher (2004)

America is established on two, among other, values which include freedom and justice. The

September attack on America attacked the core individual’s values of justice and freedom as well

as the country’s international values of political sovereignty and territorial integrity. Harming

innocent people through terrorism act is usually condemned by some people on the basis of the

principles that state that it is always wrong intentionally to harm innocent people (Christopher

2004). Looking at the theory of Just war, terrorist groups very much act by it. As mentioned

earlier, Jihad war was declared on US for the wrong believed to have been inflicted to Muslims

in the land of the two holy places. The attack on September 11 for instance fulfills this

declaration of war. As Brooks 2012 explains, the contemporary just war theory gives the moral

right for participating in war even if the war in unjust. Calhoun (2001) denotes further that the

theory declares some acts as absolutely wrong but on taking human lives, the theory states that

killing innocent is sometimes permissible through human decree. On the same issue of Just War

Theory on the government side the enactment of the Act in attempt to fight terrorism is justified.

Fotion (2007) denotes that Just War theory allows for other good reason for going to war. On

passing the Act, President Bush signed the Act into law in 2001 and addressed the nation

explaining that the changes introduces is meant to counteract threats. This is because what the

enemy can do has been made known, clearly indicating that they have no conscience and as such

the government cannot reason with the. In his words also President mentioned that terrorists

must be pursued, defeated and brought to justice of which the president emphasizes that it is the
 8
THE PATRIOT ACT
purpose of this legislation Ball (2004). As a matter of fact the issues that were raised later on as

mentioned earlier on are issues of right. People opposing the law express their concern that is

violates the rights of Americans. Since surveillance interfere with people privacy and most

importantly interfere with the core values that America is built on.

The ethical issue is right to some extend but when it comes to security and rights, the

effect of security breach through acts of terrorism are devastating. The Act, through the just War

theory is totally right, it does remains effective in terrorism and is an effective way the

government could have taken to address terrorism. Gouvin (2003) argues that the Patriotic Act

serve at least to purposes of which is playing a role in psychological war on terrorism by

assuring Americans that the government is taking necessary measures to address issue of

terrorism and it also assist in the prosecution. What this implies is that, even though the provision

of the Act has raised many arguments concerning the rights of Americans security measures

should come first. It is for this that many supporters of the Act claim that necessary step should

be taken to address terrorism which, when it happens, causes great loss. The brighter side of the

Act is what many people, and most important those who oppose the Act on basis of violation of

Americans right should focus on. It would be much safer to walk and live close to a normal life

knowing that someone is watching your every move for the sake of improving security of the

country than to walk and live a normal life, where at some point the feeling of what might

happen next as a result of terrorism does overcome the perceived benefits of freedom that most

non-supporter of the Act advocate for. Letting go of some right for the overall security of

America should be welcome by all people.

 9
THE PATRIOT ACT
Conclusion

Terrorism act is not condoned by Americans and the government as well. This is evident

through the actions taken by the government from time to time. The attack on America changed

the country view on terrorism for good in terms of measures to fight terrorism in the country and

around the world. This is evident through passage of Acts that intends at fighting terrorism in

the country. In the wake of September 11, 2011, the Patriotic Act was passed and it does provide

for surveillance searches and seizure. This provision is thought to be a measure towards total

elimination of terrorist and terrorism act in the country but some people believe that is raises a

lot of infringement of people’s rights. The Act in itself, even as it was passed and signed into

law by President Bush, the aim and intention was to fight terrorism. The Act does so by

increasing surveillance techniques which include giving police officers more right to conduct

searches on sensitive personal records, track people’s communications through the internet and

email. This means that the government's power to carry out surveillance has been increased. The

Act has been effective in fighting terrorism since many people who were planning to attack the

country have been arrested and convicted. In 2005 Under President Bush administration about

400 defendants were prosecuted. Most officers also feel that barriers have been eliminated,

something which ease law enforcement in fighting terrorism. In the light of just war theory it is

justified to empower law enforcement authorities with power to monitor and if necessary search

and confiscate things that would otherwise result in terrorism acts.

 10
THE PATRIOT ACT
References
Ball, H. (2004). The USA Patriot Act of 2001. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO.

Brooks, T. (2012). Just war theory. Leiden: Brill.

Calhoun, L. (2001). The metaethical paradox of just war theory. Ethical Theory And Moral
Practice, 4(1), 41-48.

Christopher, P. (2004). The ethics of war and peace: An introduction to legal and moral issues
(3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Davis, D., & Silver, B. (2004). Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the
Terrorist Attacks on America. American Journal Of Political Science, 48(1), 28-46.
doi:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00054.x

Fotion, N. (2007). War and ethics. London: Continuum.

Fox, M. (2013). The PATRIOT Act: Liberty Afire. Themis: Research Journal Of Justice Studies
And Forensic Science, 1(1), 21-33.

Gouvin, E. (2003). Bringing Out the Big Guns: The USA Patriot Act, Money Laundering, and
the War on Terrorism. Baylor Law Review, 55, 955.

Hardin, R. (2004). Civil Liberties in the Era of Mass Terrorism. The Journal Of Ethics, 8(1), 77-
95. doi:10.1023/b:joet.0000012253.54321.05

Kashan, S. (2010). The USA Patriot Act: Impact on Freedoms and Civil Liberties. ESSAI, 7(29),
86-90.

Lee, L. (2003). USA patriot act and telecommunications: Privacy under attack. Rutgers
Computer & Tech. L.J., 29(371).

Marcovitz, H. (2008). Privacy rights and the Patriot Act. Edina, MN: ABDO Pub. Co.

Nancy, C. (2001). USA Patriot Act: What's So Patriotic about Trampling on the Bill of Rights. ,
The. Guild Prac., 58(142).

Smith, C., & Hung, L. (2010). The Patriot Act. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
 11
THE PATRIOT ACT
Stefoff, R. (2011). The Patriot Act. New York: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark.

Terrorismfiles.org,. (1996). terrorismfiles.org : Declaration of Jihad by Osama Bin Laden

against the US. Terrorismfiles.org. Retrieved 11 May 2015, from
http://www.terrorismfiles.org/individuals/declaration_of_jihad1.html