

USA Patriot Act: Pros And Cons

Information About The Patriot Act Controversy

  • Currently 3/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

USA PATRIOT is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.

Generally referred to as the Patriot Act, it was signed into law with little debate or congress review only 43 days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. In the wake of the tragedy, it seemed to only make sense for sweeping policy changes to be put into effect to help fight the War on Terror.

The American public felt that we were at risk, and our primary concern was feeling safe. In the years that followed, however, we began to question whether the Patriot Act provided too much government interference with too few checks and balances.

Here we will examine the pros and cons of both the original Patriot Act and the new version that took its place in 2006.

Advantages of the Patriot Act
At its heart, the Patriot Act streamlines communications between varying agencies that can work together to investigate terrorist activities. It also provides for easier and less cumbersome means of investigation and surveillance.

The Act also provides increased funding for victims of terrorist attacks and their families, as well as for the rebuilding of business and infrastructure that are damaged by terrorism.

The Patriot Act is divided into 10 separate sections known as “titles.” Each title contains numerous Sections that further clarify the provisions of the title.

The titles and sections delineate new powers that are provided to the federal government in order to facilitate investigation of terrorist activities, along with the relevant checks and balances that are designed to prevent abuse of power.

The provisions of the Patriot Act were carefully designed in response to the events that led up to the September 11 attacks.

It was believed that bureaucratic red tape prevented vital surveillance activities and information transmissions that could potentially have thwarted the attacks.
The emphasis was on being sure that should another attack be planned, the government would have the power to prevent it from being completed.

Disadvantages of the Patriot Act
The Patriot Act has been widely criticized for being, in effect, too thorough. The Act provides sweeping power to government agencies to monitor the personal habits of not only those who have been identified as suspected terrorists, but anyone residing in the United States as well as United States citizens residing abroad.

The time immediately following the passage of the Act was a scary time to be an American. The detainee camp at Guantanamo Bay was opened in 2002, housing a then-undisclosed number of people from multiple nations who were imprisoned without traditional legal protections for often unknown reasons.

Little was known about how the government intended to use its new Patriot Act powers. One of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act was Title II, which allowed unprecedented monitoring of semi-public records such as library records. 

Many began to fear that their choice of reading material could lead to an accusation of terrorism and subsequent detention at Guantanamo Bay.

"You're Either With Us or Against Us"
President Bush’s regular television addresses were peppered with calls to action, as in the now famous line “You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror,” from his November 6, 2001 speech.

Although the line was part of a speech beseeching the UN to back military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, many Americans felt the implication on a more personal level.

Freedom of speech began to erode as many worried that the most innocuous of statements, particularly those made publicly, could lead to persecution.

Others argued that heightened surveillance activities and a lack of accountability for the invasion of privacy were against the basic principles of freedom espoused by the United States and protected by the Constitution.
The Sunset Provisions
At the time that the Patriot Act was drafted, it charted unknown territory. Although critics of the Act have later compared it to the Sedition Act of 1918 and even the Reichstag Fire Decree and Enabling Act, which ultimately gave Hitler the opportunity to seize Germany, the Patriot Act was truly the first of its kind. As such, the Act was written with sunset provisions.


Many of the Patriot Act’s provisions, particularly in the area of surveillance, were drafted as sunset provisions. These sections of law were set to expire on December 31, 2005. This provided four years for the law to be used in real-world conditions and then decided upon.

The expiring provisions were extended until March 10, 2006. Controversy reigned as Congress debated whether or not to make the Patriot Act permanent. By this time, a number of legal challenges had been raised, although most continued to languish within the court system.

The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) was heavily involved, and several misuses of power had come to light. Numerous cities refused to honor sections of the Act that were, in the opinion of city government, unconstitutional.

Public opinion was divided, with April 2005 Gallup Poll statistics showing that 45% believe that the Act goes too far and 49% believe that it does not.
On June 10, 2005 things came to a head at a congressional hearing on whether to renew the Patriot Act. Congressional Democrats used the issue as a springboard to air grievances concerning conditions at Guantanamo Bay and other aspects of the War on Terror.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who had authored the Act, brought the meeting to an abrupt close and walked out after stating that the two issues were unrelated. The Democrats continued to present their case to the still-rolling C-SPAN cameras.

On July 21, Sensenbrenner introduced a new Reauthorization Act that would remove the provisions in question entirely.Eventually a compromise bill was negotiated and passed through both the House and the Senate. It was signed into law on March 9, 2006. Many in Congress claim that the new bill sufficiently limits governmental powers while retaining the essence of the original Act’s goals.

However, the ACLU continues to challenge the new version, claiming that essential American freedoms are still at risk.

Patriot Act II
The compromise bill addressed certain issues that were raised about the Patriot Act, providing clearer guidelines as to the circumstances under which surveillance activities may take place. However, the most sweeping change to the Act is in the area of notification.
Under the new law, agencies that invoke the powers of the Act are now required to disclose how many people are affected. They retain the ability to keep secret the identities of those who are under surveillance, but there are specific criteria that must be met in order to avoid disclosing the fact that an individual is under surveillance to that individual.

Many, including the ACLU, feel that the new version of the Patriot Act is a step in the right direction but does not yet go far enough in protecting civil liberties.

Although it is not clear what the future status of the Act under a Democrat-controlled Congress and a possible future Democratic president may be, for now it appears that the true powers and power restrictions will be decided by the courts.

Several cases are currently making their way through the court system and are expected to eventually reach the Supreme Court.

Until that time, the Patriot Act continues to be a controversial topic. Offering valuable new tools in the War on Terror, but at the expense of curtailing certain liberties, the Patriot Act may ultimately be one of the biggest legacies of the early 21st century.
Are You Survival Savvy?

Connect with Us


Rate This Article
  • Currently 3/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
(Votes: 14628) (Avg: 3.71)