Download Assessing the U.S. Response to Terrorism: The Patriot Act

[VA Essentials Student Activity, VUS.15f]
Standard VUS.15f
The student will demonstrate knowledge of economic, social, cultural, and political developments in recent decades
and today by
f)
assessing the role of the Untied States in a world confronted by terrorism.
Essential Skill
Evaluate the authenticity, authority, and credibility of sources. (VUS.1b)
Assessing the U.S. Response to Terrorism: The Patriot Act
Background
The USA Patriot Act of 2001 was passed by Congress in response to the September 11,
2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Its 150 provisions were
designed protect the United States from terrorism. It was quickly drafted by the Department
of Justice and enacted without congressional hearings or debate, and with very little
opposition. At the time, President George W. Bush told Congress and the public that the
new powers it granted the federal government were essential to national security and that
anyone opposing the act was unpatriotic. Opponents of the act—both before and after its
passage—believed that it needlessly sacrificed Americans’ civil liberties.
As enacted in 2001, the Patriot Act contained controversial provisions that allowed the
government to:
•
Wiretap citizens’ telephones without the need to specify the person or determine that
the person is using that telephone
¾
•
Opponents argue that this violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition against
“unreasonable searches and seizures” that requires authorities to show a judge
probable cause.
Use secret “national-security letters” to obtain access to private financial records,
telephone data, consumer credit reports, and Internet service provider (ISP) records
without warrants
¾
In 2007 U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down this provision on the basis
that it is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment and constitutional
provisions for separation of powers, since the FBI can prevent the companies from
telling their customers their privacy has been violated. Marrero wrote that the
secrecy provisions are “the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an
ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values.” He added: “The risk of
investing the FBI with unchecked discretion to restrict such speech is that
government agents, based on their own self-certification, may limit speech that does
not pose a significant threat to national security or other compelling government
interest.” The FBI’s usage of these secret letters increased from 9,000 in 2000 to
nearly 50,000 in 2005. The government is considering appealing the ruling.
•
Monitor private citizens’ Internet usage and other communications, plus library and
medical records, without a court order showing probable cause
•
Define domestic terrorism broadly as any state or federal crime in the United States
involving an act “dangerous to human life” and that “appears to be intended” to
influence government or the public
[VA Essentials Student Activity, VUS.15f]
¾
•
Presidential authority to declare prisoners “enemy combatants” and deny them access to
an attorney or due process of law
¾
•
This definition enables the government to label virtually anyone committing a violent
crime a terrorist.
Prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been held for several years without access
to an attorney. When the Supreme Court ruled that they must receive proper trials,
the government formed military tribunals rather than allow the accused to receive
civilian trials.
“Sneak-and-peek” searches of people or premises under wide-ranging circumstances
without a warrant; notification of a judge can be delayed indefinitely
¾
Before the Patriot Act, a person had to be promptly advised that a search warrant
had been issued. The Patriot Act expands authority to include nonterrorist activity
and allows law enforcement agents to enter homes or businesses and remove any
material they believe constitutes evidence of criminal offenses. Opponents believe it
is a radical departure from Fourth Amendment standards and could result in routine
secret entries by any law enforcement agent.
In 2005 some of the Patriot Act’s provisions had to be renewed or they would expire.
Congress renewed or slightly revised these provisions, leaving civil libertarians still
concerned about infringements on personal freedoms.
Activity
Read the following quotations from the 2001 Senate debate on the Patriot Act and answer
the Document-Based Questions that follow.
“It enhances our ability to find, track, monitor, and prosecute terrorists
operating here in the U.S. without in any way undermining civil liberties.
We can never know whether these tools would have prevented the attack on
America, but, as the Attorney General has said, it is certain that without these tools
we did not stop the vicious acts of last month.
I personally believe that if these tools had been in law—and we have been
trying to get them there for years—we would have caught those terrorists. If these
tools could help us now to track down the perpetrators—if they will help us in our
continued pursuit of terrorists—then we should not hesitate to enact these
measures into law. God willing, the legislation we pass today will enhance our
abilities to protect and prevent the American people from ever again being violated
as we were on September 11.”
—Senator Orrin Hatch, October 25, 2001
“The Founders who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights exercised that
vigilance even though they had recently fought and won the Revolutionary War.
They did not live in comfortable and easy times of hypothetical enemies. They
wrote a Constitution of limited powers and an explicit Bill of Rights to protect liberty
in times of war, as well as in times of peace. . . .
Even as America addresses the demanding security challenges before us, we
must strive mightily also to guard our values and basic rights. We must guard
against racism and ethnic discrimination against people of Arab and South Asian
origin and those who are Muslim. . . .
[VA Essentials Student Activity, VUS.15f]
Preserving our freedom is one of the main reasons we are now engaged in this
new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the
liberties of the American people.
—Senator Russ Feingold, October 25, 2001
Document-Based Questions
1. Identifying Central Issues Why did Judge Marrero strike down the FBI’s use of
“national security letters” in 2007?
2. Making Inferences What phrase in Senator Hatch’s statement shows that his support
for provisions of the Patriot Act began even before 9/11?
3. Defining What are unalienable rights?
4. Identifying Central Issues Why does Senator Feingold oppose the USA Patriot Act?
5. Assessing Which speaker do you believe is more credible, and why?