Does the U.S.A. Patriot Act Go to Far?

On September 11th, 2001, the United States suffered a terrorist attack, while facing a terrifying series of anthrax threats. In that atmosphere, Congress promptly passed the U.S.A. Patriot Act with little debate [source B]. Since then, however, dissent has been brisk around the country. Although law enforcement generally believes the Patriot Act has helped maintain America's safety, critics fear it may weaken the constitution and the civil liberties that it planned on shielding.

However, the Patriot Act acts properly and controls the blatant protrusion into everyone's lives that critics fear. It was designed to provide a means for the government to combat terrorism on U.S. shores, not to probe into the latest gossip at Marist High School. The Patriot Act serves a very central purpose, which is to update the law of technology so that terrorists and other criminals with harmful intent cannot evade investigators simply by switching cell phones or by changing from phone to Internet. The Patriot Act allows for collaboration and coordination when combating terrorism.

But many people get the impression that the Patriot Act reflects a principal dancer with only two flaws: his/her arms and legs. They may feel that eavesdropping can tarnish ones reputation [source A], that the Act is used to illegally invade privacy, and that it fails to protect civil liberties. However, unlike Source A, the FBI cannot broadcast any information they may find, preventing citizens from feeling intimidation. Also, Source H displays an agent selling the public's personal information -- an incorrect misconception. The Patriot Act's purpose involves stopping terrorism at its source, and therefore the government only uses it to search suspects related to the forces that eliminated thousands of lives and devastated many more on 9/11. With the Patriot Act, Congress does not have the power, and the President does not have the authority to throw the fourth amendment out the window. Only the American people can choose that through an amendment process, and that suggestion has never been brought up. It is an overstatement to say that the constitution no longer applies to the Patriot Act.

Nonetheless, people still worry about their privacy. The American Civil Liberties Union charges that phone tapping invades privacy, and that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act does not protect individual privacy enough [source G]. But phone tapping is very necessary and effective. It intercepts the calls of persons related to terrorist organizations and has worked in the past, according to President