Is it worth risking our Civil Liberties to protect us from Terrorism?

Question

I have to write a government paper about Terrorism vs. Civil Liberties and I was also wondering what liberties we are actually having threatened by the Patriot Act. Thanks!

Answer 1

This from the Cato Institute:

What are the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act? One of the most serious threats to liberty comes from Section 215. According to the Department of Justice, that section allows investigators to obtain ‘‘business records’’ for terrorism investigations pursuant to a federal ‘‘court order.’’ In fact, the provision is not limited to business records. Federal
agents can use that section of the Patriot Act to seize any tangible item (correspondence, film, personal belongings) directly from a person’s home.The ‘‘court order’’ is nothing but a fac¸ade because the Patriot Act says the judge ‘‘shall’’ issue such orders whenever the executive branch claims
it is conducting a terrorism investigation.
Most shocking of all, Section 215 makes it a crime for anyone to speak out about its use. Any person who speaks to a relative, a neighbor, or a reporter about the government’s demand can be jailed. Defenders of the Patriot Act demand specific examples of ‘‘abuses’’ of the law, but they fail to mention that the Section 215 gag provision keeps anyone affected from coming forward. That will obviously make it very difficult for Congress to assess how the orders are actually being used.
The second threat to civil liberties comes from Section 505 of the Patriot Act. Under that provision, federal agents can use so-called national security letters to seize transactional records, such as bank and rental car receipts.That Patriot Act provision bypasses the Constitution’s search warrant procedure by vesting a secret subpoena power directly within the executive
branch. Instead of having to apply for judicially approved warrants, federal agents can unilaterally threaten businesspeople with jail if they do not surrender employee and customer records. This represents an enormous
change in American law. Congress has steadfastly denied subpoena powers to the FBI and the CIA because it was deemed to be too much power for the executive branch. Now that both agencies have acquired the power,they will not surrender it easily. These subpoenas also contain ‘‘gag’’
provisions for Americans who receive them.
The third threat to liberty comes from the Patriot Act’s expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)—a law that created a special federal court to approve electronic surveillance of citizens and resident aliens alleged to be acting on behalf of a foreign power. Previously,the FISA court granted surveillance authority if foreign intelligence was the primary purpose of an investigation. But Section 218 of the Patriot Act allows the government to conduct surveillance if foreign intelligence
is only a ‘‘significant’’ purpose of an investigation. That may seem like a trivial change, but it is not. Because the standard for FISA approval is lower than ‘‘probable cause,’’ and because FISA now applies to ordinary criminal matters if they are characterized as ‘‘national security’’ inquiries, the new rules offer federal agents another avenue to bypass the Constitution’s search warrant requirements. The result: rubber-stamp judicial consent
to phone and Internet surveillance, even in regular criminal cases.
Limit Power, Restore Privacy The sunset provisions do not apply to all of the Patriot Act’s problematic sections. This means that Congress must affirmatively act to repeal police power sections that threaten liberty in America. Three sections stand out
above all the others.
The first section is the so-called sneak and peek power. Section 213 of the Patriot Act empowers agents to conduct covert entries into homes and businesses. Agents still apply for a judicial search warrant, but the homeowner does not know about the entry until days or weeks later. This section of the Patriot Act is defended as an important ‘‘tool to fight terrorism,’’ but it can be used for any federal criminal investigation. Such
a power crept into the law with electronic surveillance devices. When a judge approves a bugging operation, it makes sense to allow agents to enter without notifying the subject. But the Patriot Act’s expansion of those secret searches to ordinary physical searches is a departure from constitutional norms that cannot be justified. The second section concerns the sharing of grand jury information. Federal officials often exaggerate when they say that they were ‘‘unable to speak to one another’’ and that the Patriot Act ‘‘fixes’’ that. In fact, federal agents could share information discovered in a grand jury investigationwith the CIA. But before they did so, they had to receive the permission
of a federal judge. The Patriot Act removes the judge from that ‘‘gatekeeper’’role and now permits information sharing without advanced judicial approval. The Patriot Act threatens to turn federal grand jurors into employees of the intelligence community. The next Congress should restore federal judges to their gatekeeper role.

The third section of the Patriot Act concerns the expansion of federal money laundering laws. The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 required banks to spy on their customers and report suspicious transactions to federal law enforcement officials. The Patriot Act expands the surveillance network by requiring mortgage companies, pawnbrokers, used car dealerships, and
many other businesses to keep tabs on customers and report activity to the federal government. Any business that shirks its law enforcement responsibilities will be bludgeoned with fines. In 2004, for example, Riggs Bank was fined $25million for insufficient assistance with money laundering
probes. In a free society, the government would rely upon the voluntary cooperation of business institutions for investigative assistance. The Patriot Act, however, conscripts scores of new businesses into a regime of coercive mandates.

American institutions tend to look for ‘‘quick-fix’’ solutions to problems. American policymakers must recognize, however, that the danger posed by Al Qaeda is not a short-term crisis but a long-term security dilemma for the United States. If Congress rushes to enact anti-terrorism legislation in the aftermath of every attack, no one can deny that Americans will
lose their liberty over the long term.

Answer 2

The Patriot Act is not a significant threat. It doesn't strip any constitutional liberties. It just sticks its nose into areas that had been personal.

But there are laws that are a direct threat, including the Military Commissions Act passed just before the election. It specifically violates constitution. Article 1 Section 9, by suspending habeas corpus. 5th Amendment, by allowing coerced and compelled self-incrimination. 6th Amendment, denial of counsel. 6th Amendment, right to confrontation. 6th Amendment, right to present witnesses. 8th Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment. 8th Amendment, denial of bail hearing. 5th Amendment, due process.

So, the question is -- when can the government just ignore the requirements of the constitution because they think it MIGHT make people safer? How much preemptive protection can be achived using patently illegal means?

Answer 3

certain it has. that's a call a united states of america has to make, and that's a balancing act. Sixty years in the past people were arguing no matter if requiring people to have id develop into hurting their freedom, now that's fairly a lot time-honored that you need to be wearing some. So, is it properly worth having innocuous, non-protection stress people die because holding our freedom gave someone the skill to attack us? that's a question that is going to be requested again and again, each and every time our protection is threatened. with slightly of success maximum people will undergo in concepts that once you initiate giving freely your freedom contained in the wish of better effective protection, you aren't to any extent further getting that freedom back. and there is continuously going to be a sparkling protection danger.

Answer 4

Yes. Consider this...the measures we took for protecting ourselves AFTER 9/11/01 would have NEVER been tolerated by the public without being given good reason as to why it was needed...sadly, 9/11 had to happen FIRST to make those measures palatable.
If it can keep a nuclear bomb from going off in all our cities and leaving us like the series "Jericho", then I'm all for it.
Freedom is pointless if we're all too dead to enjoy it.

Answer 5

Terrorism like the KKK perhaps?
When we allow one of us to be denied we are all diminished.

Do you vote after investigating the candidates?
Do you appear for jury duty?
Do you participate in neighborhood watch programs?
Do you attend you local community meetings?

Not doing these things supports terrorism.
The government cannot wait for us to protect the country, it is up to us to start supporting their efforts by participating in local government. Start taking back your/our country.

Criminals are not evil, they simply are tired of waiting for the promised utopia. They want their dream too. The dreams of terrorists require others to not have their dreams.

Stop the need for crime. No more criminals. Decide who gets rehabilitation and who gets terminal incarceration. Stop breeding criminals. Reform our prisons, start in your backyard ... a ripple will reach us all.

Join or create a movement for the good of us all.

Good Luck!

(No - It is NOT worth it!)

But if we insist on watching TV and sitting on our hands what choice does the government have?

Answer 6

I have not detected a single liberty of mine that's been infringed upon by the Patriot Act.

However, I can ruefully count a number of Americans that have been murdered by terrorists.

Answer 7

there are no threats to civil liberties from the Patriot Act. you have no right to not be inconvenienced and that's all that's happening from the PA. also, you have no right to use an airline to travel, if you don't want your baggage searched, drive or don't go

Answer 8

Unless you are placing calls to known terrorists, no one is listening to your phone. The tinfoil hats would have you believe otherwise, but that is because they are playing partisan politics and they 'voted for the Patriot Act before they voted against it.'

Answer 9

find a person to talk to that actually has a right taken away by the patriot act. i don't mean hypothetically but a right actually taken away.

Answer 10

There is a quote from Ben Franklin that might be useful in your paper. I don't know exactly how it goes so I won't quote it, but you can look it up:

Those who would give up freedom for a little bit of safety deserve neither freedom or safety.