America’s Antiterrorism response: The Patriot Act. Essay Example

was cast by Senator Russ Feingold. On October 26, 2001, President George W. Bush signed the bill into law. Assistant Attorney General Viet D. Dinh played a key role in designing this legislation.

Michelle Malkin defends the USA Patriot Act, stating that it has enhanced national security by aiding law enforcement in dismantling terror cells, convicting individuals involved in terror-related crimes, and preventing foreign criminals and terrorists from entering the country. According to Malkin, the act will continue to achieve similar successes without compromising civil liberties. She supports the act because of its updates to outdated rules, which allow for improved surveillance of suspected terrorists within the United States. Additionally, it facilitated plans for monitoring the movement of foreign students and implemented a federal program to register and track non-immigrant visitors from high-risk Middle Eastern countries. As a result of these new powers, over 20 suspected members of al Qaeda have been apprehended by the federal government while 100 individuals have been convicted for terror-related offenses. Moreover, there have been no further mass terrorist attacks since September 11. Malkin also praises Viet D.

According to Malkin, Viet Dinh, who is referred to as a traitor by civil liberties alarmists but an American Hero by herself, supports her argument that the Act does not threaten civil liberties. Malkin rebuts the claims of opponents of the Bush Administration's efforts in homeland defense and immigration enforcement, who compare John Ashcroft, Viet Dinh, and the Justice Department to the Taliban and the Nazis. She uses Viet Dinh's response to defend her position. Viet Dinh states that the real threat to liberty comes from Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network,

not from those working to uphold the law. He justifies his stance using Edmund Burke's theory of "Ordered Liberty," which argues that civil order must be established for liberty to be exercised. Dinh believes that security is necessary for liberty to flourish. Malkin's ethical viewpoint aligns with Utilitarianism, which prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number, focusing on utility to determine the morality of actions or laws. In this case, she argues that the Patriot Act follows the principle of utility by prioritizing the greater good for a larger number of people regardless of potential consequences.

Here, Malkin and Dinh argue that the USA Patriot Act, despite hindering the liberties of both foreigners and Americans, ultimately provides the greatest benefit by protecting millions of Americans from future terrorist attacks. Malkin's article references a census indicating a population of 293,027,571 Americans in July 2004, and she estimates that around 5,700 individuals have been arrested under the Act's new powers. This suggests that Malkin justifies the Act by emphasizing the outweighing consequences over potential benefits. However, upon critical reflection, it is important to question the foundation of Malkin's theory. Her belief in "ordered liberty" is based on the correlation between security and the ability for liberty to flourish. Yet, a key issue arises as there lacks a clear definition of what security entails.

Security does not impact our liberty in America, as it is the assurance of safety. While some may perceive increased safety under the patriot act, liberty will still prevail. The determination of liberty solely depends on the will of a country's citizens - if securing something is necessary for liberty, they will do it; and

if sacrificing security is required, they will also do that. In essence, it is naive to view security as synonymous with liberty.

The general belief is that a Deontological approach is more appropriate when considering the USA Patriot Act. This approach emphasizes the unethical nature of the Patriot Act as it restricts our civil liberties. Deontology highlights treating all individuals with humanity, both oneself and others, as an end and not merely as a means.

The Patriot Act is a government tool used to apprehend terrorists, but it treats individuals as a means rather than an end. Instead of specifically targeting and capturing terrorists on a large scale, it employs a broad approach that catches both terrorists and non-terrorists. This act grants the government powers that violate our civil liberties in order to locate terrorists. However, it also allows law enforcement to utilize these newfound powers to prosecute other criminals who would have otherwise gone unnoticed. This demonstrates that the act is an instrument without a clear objective in mind. While providing law enforcement with additional powers, whether as a tool or as a means to achieve an objective, it deviates from its original purpose of pursuing and halting terrorists, ultimately resulting in violations of our fundamental constitutional rights.

Personally, I disagree with the patriot act because it poses a potential threat to civil liberties. This legislation allows for increased sharing of information between domestic law enforcement and intelligence agencies, which removes certain barriers that were established in the 1970s. These barriers were put in place after discovering that the FBI and CIA conducted joint investigations on over half a million Americans during and after the McCarthy era,

including Martin Luther King Jr. Al Gore and other individuals have also expressed their opposition to this act. Al Gore has called for its repeal, accusing the Bush administration of suspending civil liberties and exploiting fear for political gain. Howard Dean, a prominent Democratic candidate, has criticized this act as "morally wrong," "shameful," and "unconstitutional." Furthermore, several cities have refused to cooperate with the federal government in implementing this act. The USA Patriot Act grants extensive enforcement powers to government entities that federal law enforcement agencies had long desired but had previously been rejected by Congress before September 11. Now these powers are being enforced without sufficient judicial review.

On September 29th, 2004, the Patriot Act, which grants broad powers for federal investigations including those unrelated to terrorism, was relieved. This relief occurred due to Judge Victor Marrero of Manhattan declaring secret search and seizure powers within this anti-terror legislation as unconstitutional. Marrero emphasized that these powers lacked judicial review and violated the Constitution, stating that "democracy abhors undue secrecy." Aside from covert surveillance measures, the Patriot Act also includes other intrusive provisions that significantly weaken our Bill of Rights. It not only restricts Americans' freedom of expression but also violates their privacy - thus defying the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. To address these concerns, Congress included a sunset provision in the Patriot Act, resulting in its expiration after five years.

President Bush reassured the American people that their way of life and freedoms would not be compromised after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. However, his support for the Patriot Act contradicts this stance. During his State of the Union

speech, Bush emphasized the government's responsibility to defend citizens from foreign terrorists. Nevertheless, if his administration continues to advocate for measures like the Patriot Act, we must question who will protect us from our own government? Senator Russel Feingold passionately argues that preserving our freedom is crucial in this new war against terrorism. Neglecting to safeguard the liberties of Americans puts us at risk of losing the war without even engaging in combat.