does the patriot act abridge essential freedom

The act expressly forbids investigation solely based on First Amendment activities.Īnother provision that has caused concern is the so-called “delayed notice” search warrant. That court must find that the requested records are relevant to either obtaining foreign intelligence information against someone other than a United States citizen or to protect against terrorism or spying. In fact, library records obtained by subpoena or voluntarily provided were an important part of the years-long investigation into the murderous activities of the Unibomber.Īre these critics of the Patriot Act advocating shielding from law enforcement scrutiny the library records of terrorists who obtain books or other materials on bomb building or anthrax cultivation? In such instances, the Patriot Act now allows terror investigators to obtain court orders, issued by judges sitting in a specialized court in Washington, for such records in international terrorism cases. Library records have long been obtainable pursuant to grand jury subpoenas in routine criminal investigations. This claim is misleading and intended to frighten law-abiding citizens. One provision that opponents particularly criticize is the business records provision (Section 215), which opponents, including Sanders, claim gives law enforcement carte-blanche to examine our reading habits at libraries or bookstores. In this regard, much of the current criticism about the Patriot Act is simply not true. It is therefore vital that Vermonters get accurate information and decide on the validity of the Patriot Act for themselves. While debate on the Patriot Act or any other law is healthy and forms the cornerstone of American democracy, misinformed debate neither enlightens nor teaches. Indeed, one often wonders whether these critics have even read the Patriot Act. Instead of providing a single example of the Patriot Act being misused, opponents make frightening, unsubstantiated claims that the Patriot Act is a virtual roll back of the First Amendment. Details of the successes of the Patriot Act can be found on the Department of Justice Web site, and at Despite the success of the Patriot Act, many misconceptions and myths have emerged about the intention and the content of the Patriot Act. 11, 2001, and 179 of those defendants have already been convicted, including shoe bomber Richard Reid.įour terrorist cells in Buffalo, Portland, Detroit, and Seattle have been broken up, and millions of dollars in assets destined to finance terrorist activities have been frozen or forfeited. The critics of the Patriot Act also fail to tell the American people that the Patriot Act is actually working to protect them.Īs of May 5, 2004, the Department of Justice has charged 310 defendants with criminal offenses as a result of terrorism investigations since the attacks of Sept. Do the critics of the Patriot Act believe that law enforcement should not use these same tools to protect Americans from terrorists? The Patriot Act has enhanced the fight against terrorists in four key areas: (1) it has removed obstacles to investigating terrorism (2) it has strengthened the criminal laws against terrorism (3) it has enhanced the federal government’s capacity to share intelligence and (4) it has updated the law to keep pace with tremendous advances in technology.Įssentially the Patriot Act gives investigators the ability to fight terror, using many of the same court-approved tools that have been used successfully for many years in drug, fraud, and organized crime cases. Sanders was one of the 66 House members to vote against the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act passed 98 to 1 in the Senate and 357 to 66 in the House of Representatives. The Patriot Act is one of the most significant tools Congress has given to law enforcement to combat the people that want to kill Americans on U.S. 11, President Bush, the Senate and the House of Representatives, in a rare display of bipartisanship, vowed to do everything within the boundaries of the Constitution to prevent additional terrorist attacks. It is time to set the record straight.Īs recognized in the Declaration of Independence, the first responsibility of government is to preserve the lives and liberty of the people. Much of this coverage has been inaccurate, unbalanced and unnecessarily frightening to the public. Bernard Sanders’ opposition to the USA Patriot Act. Recently there has been extensive press coverage of Rep. Patriot Act Protects Americans from Terrorism ApUncategorized Share Facebook Twitter Print arroba Email

Does the patriot act abridge essential freedom