Free Patriot Act Essay

The Patriot Act:

What Is the Proper Balance Between National Security and Individual Rights?

Congress passed the Patriot Act shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Did this law go too far in the name of national security?

Terrorists struck America on September 11, 2001. Highjacking four planes, they flew two of them into the World Trade Center towers in New York and another into the Pentagon in Washington. The fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania before it reached its target in Washington. Within two hours, both of the massive 110-story twin towers had collapsed. A wing of the Pentagon was severely damaged. More than 3,000 people died in the attacks. Two days later, the White House identified the culprits as members of Al Qaeda, an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group based in Afghanistan but with terrorist cells throughout the world. The hijackers had worked out of Al Qaeda terrorist cells operating in the United States. No one knew whether more terrorist attacks were coming.

Soon after September 11, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft brought before Congress a list of recommended changes in the law to combat terrorism. Some of these measures had long been opposed by members of Congress as infringing on the rights of Americans.

But September 11 had swept away all previous objections. The U.S. Senate quickly passed the USA PATRIOT ACT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism). Only one senator, Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), voted against it.

The next day, the House of Representatives passed the bill 357-66. The final bill was 342 pages long and changed more than 15 existing laws. Most of the Justice Department's recommendations were incorporated into it, but several provisions will expire in 2005.

On October 26, President George W. Bush signed the Patriot Act into law. He praised the "new tools to fight the present danger . . . a threat like no other our Nation has ever faced." He also asserted that the Patriot Act "upholds and respects the civil liberties guaranteed by our Constitution."

The Patriot Act defines "domestic terrorism" as activities within the United States that . . . involve acts dangerous to human life that. . . appear to be intended--

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. . . .

The Patriot Act and Privacy

Some of the most controversial parts of the Patriot Act surround issues of privacy and government surveillance. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . . ." It requires law-enforcement officers to obtain warrants before making most searches. To get a warrant, officers must make sworn statements before a judge "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The judge may only issue a search warrant if officers show "probable cause" that the person is engaged in criminal activity. Federal law requires that officers report to the court on the results of the search.

Surveillance such as wiretaps and physical searches requires officers to prove "probable cause" of criminality. Even before the Patriot Act, there were exceptions under federal law.

One was for so-called "pen-trap" orders. To obtain from a telephone company the numbers dialed to and from a particular telephone, officers must get a pen-trap order from a judge. They do not need to show probable cause, but must certify that the information is needed for an ongoing criminal investigation. The reason for the lesser standard is that these records are far less intrusive than wiretaps and physical searches.

Another major exception was for matters before the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court. Congress created the court in 1978 following scandals revealing that U.S. intelligence agencies had spied on hundreds of thousands of American citizens, most notably the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

Public Opinion on the Patriot Act

Should the government take all steps necessary to prevent additional acts of terrorism in the U.S. even if it means your basic civil liberties would be violated?

Or should the government take steps to prevent additional acts of terrorism but not if those steps would violate your basic civil liberties?

 Aug. 2003Jan. 2002
Take steps, even if civil liberties violated29%47%
Take steps but not violate civil liberties67%49%
No opinion4%4%

Do you think the Bush administration has gone too far, has been about right, or has not gone far enough in restricting people's civil liberties in order to fight terrorism?

 Aug. 2003Jun.2002
Too far21%11%
About right55%60%
Not far enough19%25%
No opinion5%4%

How familiar are you with the Patriot Act: very familiar, somewhat familiar, not too familiar, or not at all familiar?

Very familiar10%
Somewhat familiar40%
Not too familiar25%
Not at all familiar25%
No opinion-

(Aug. 2003)
Source: The Gallup Organization

The court was a compromise between those who wanted to leave U.S. intelligence agencies free from any restrictions and those who wanted intelligence agencies to apply for search warrants like other law-enforcement agencies. Congress required U.S. intelligence agencies (the FBI and National Security Agency) to apply for warrants for wiretaps and other surveillance on foreign governments and suspected foreign agents. But because the agencies are not investigating domestic crime, they do not have to meet the probable cause standard. They only have to certify that the purpose of the investigation is to track a foreign government or agent. They do not have to report to the court on the results of the surveillance. The court meets in secret with only government representatives present and has never denied an intelligence agency's application for a search warrant.

The Patriot Act expands all these exceptions to the probable-cause requirement. Section 215 of the act permits the FBI to go before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for an order to search for "any tangible things" connected to a terrorism suspect. The order would be granted as long as the FBI certifies that the search is "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities [spying]." But the FBI would not need to meet the stronger standard of probable cause.

The Patriot Act now authorizes this court to issue search orders directed at any U.S. citizen who the FBI believes may be involved in terrorist activities. Such activities may, in part, even involve First Amendment protected acts such as participating in non-violent public protests.

In Section 215, "any tangible things" may include almost any kind of property--such as books, documents, and computers. The FBI may also monitor or seize personal records held by public libraries, bookstores, medical offices, Internet providers, churches, political groups, universities, and other businesses and institutions.

The Patriot Act prohibits third parties served with Section 215 orders such as Internet providers and public librarians to inform anyone that the FBI has conducted a search of their records.

Section 216 of the Patriot Act extends pen-trap orders to include e-mail and web browsing. The FBI can ask Internet service providers to turn over a log of the web sites a person visits and the addresses of e-mail coming to and from the person's computer.

Another area of concern is Section 213 of the Patriot Act. It authorizes so-called "sneak- and-peek" searches for all federal criminal investigations. When applying for a search warrant, officers may show that there is "reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification . . . may have an adverse result." If the judge approves, then the FBI can delay notifying a citizen about the search for a "reasonable period." Thus, the FBI may search a citizen's home or business in secret. The FBI says these searches may be necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence or to keep from jeopardizing an ongoing secret investigation.

The Debate Over the Patriot Act

According to the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, three states (Alaska, Hawaii, and Vermont) and 149 cities, towns and counties have passed resolutions protesting provisions of the Patriot Act. In response to criticism of the act, Congress may be having some second thoughts. The House of Representatives voted 309-118 to repeal "sneak- and-peek" searches. In the Senate, Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have introduced the Rights of Individuals Act. This is a comprehensive bill, addressing a number of issues related to the Patriot Act. One part of the Murkowski-Wyden bill would limit "sneak and peek" searches. Those whose homes or offices had been searched under "sneak and peek" would have to be notified within seven calendar days.

Attorney General Ashcroft and other Americans defend the Patriot Act. "We are at war," Ashcroft says, "and we have to do things differently than we did before." He points out that the only purpose of the Patriot Act is "to prevent terrorists from unleashing more death and destruction." Ashcroft also argues that the courts and Congress still safeguard the constitutional rights of Americans.

Public opinion has consistently supported the Patriot Act. An August 2003 Gallup Poll asked whether the Patriot Act goes too far, is about right, or doesn't go far enough in restricting people's civil liberties. Only 21 percent responded that it goes too far. Fifty-five percent said it is about right, and 19 percent answered that it does not go far enough.

In June 2003, the attorney general called for another law to further strengthen the powers of law enforcement to fight terrorists. Called "Patriot Act II" by critics, the proposed new law would, among other things, enable the government to ask a court to revoke the citizenship of any American who provides "material support" to terrorists.

The courts are just beginning to review the constitutionality of the Patriot Act. In the first major legalchallenge to the Patriot Act, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit in July 2003 against Section 215 searches. The suit argues

that these searches violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures as well as First Amendment freedoms of speech and association.

In a report called "Unpatriotic Acts," the ACLU warned that American freedom was endangered by the Patriot Act:

Section 215 is likely to chill lawful dissent. If people think that their conversations, their emails, and their reading habits are being monitored, people will feel less comfortable saying what they think--especially if they disagree with government policies.

In a Washington Post opinion piece, Heather MacDonald, a writer at the Manhattan Institute, defended the Patriot Act. She countered the ACLU by stressing that Section 215 requires a court order. She said there was no reason for anyone to feel "afraid to read books" or "terrified into silence." "Were that ever the case, it would be thanks to the misinformation spread by advocates and politicians, not because of any real threat posed by" the Patriot Act.

It will be quite some time before cases like the ACLU lawsuit will reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The basic question that the court will have to answer is: What is the proper balance between national security and protecting individual rights?

For Discussion and Writing

  1. How does the Patriot Act define "domestic terrorism"? Do you think participants in public protests could ever be accused of "domestic terrorism" under this definition? Why or why not?
  2. The Justice Department has proposed that the government should be able to ask a court to revoke the citizenship of any American who provides "material support" to terrorists. Do you support the proposal? Why or why not?
  3. Below are two famous quotations. What do they mean? Which, if any, do you agree with? Explain.

    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.--Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

    There is danger that, if the [Supreme Court] does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.--Justice Robert H. Jackson, dissenting in Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)

For Further Reading

USA Patriot Act. USA Patriot Act. (PDF) 12 Aug. 2003. American Library Association. 14 Aug. 2003. URL:

USA Patriot Act Overview. United States Department of Justice. 30 July 2003.

What's So Patriotic About Trampling on the Bill of Rights? Chang, Nancy, Center for Constitutional Rights. November 2001.

ACTIVITY

National Security and Freedom

Form small groups to examine the USA Patriot Act.

A. The members of each group should discuss and then decide whether to support or oppose the following parts of the Patriot Act:

1. Section 213 "sneak-and-peek" searches of a person's property.

2. Section 215 orders by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for searches of a citizen's "tangible things" based on FBI certification rather than probable cause.

3. Section 215 searches of a citizen's public library records.

4. Section 215 requirement that third parties like librarians are prohibited from informing anyone an FBI search has taken place.

B. The whole class should next discuss the Patriot Act provisions one at a time. At the beginning of each discussion, group members should report their decision along with their reasons for it. The students should then try to persuade each other to support or oppose the provision. At the end of the discussion on each provision, the class should vote to support or oppose it.

C. Using information and arguments from the article and class discussion, the students should write an essay on this question: What is the proper balance between national security and the protection of individual rights?

The Patriot Act Threatens Fundamental American Freedoms

by Feross Aboukhadijeh - 11th grade

Forty-five days after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, also known as the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” Act, or more simply, the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was created with the noble intention of finding and prosecuting international terrorists operating on American soil; however, the unfortunate consequences of the Act have been drastic. Many of the Patriot Act’s provisions are in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution—a document drafted by wise men like Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington in order to protect American rights and freedoms. The Patriot Act encroaches on sacred First Amendment rights, which protect free speech and expression, and Fourth Amendment rights, which protect citizens against “unwarranted search and seizure” (Justice). The Patriot Act authorizes unethical and unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens with a negligible improvement in national security. Free speech, free thinking, and a free American lifestyle can not survive in the climate of distrust and constant fear created by the Patriot Act.

The great American patriot Robert F. Kennedy once said in his famous “Day of Affirmation Address” that the first and most critical element of “individual liberty is the freedom of speech; the right to express and communicate ideas, to set oneself apart from the dumb beasts of field and forest . . .” Modern American politicians and lawmakers, it seems, have lost sight of the important ideals that Kennedy spoke about and upon which this country was founded—ideals like civil rights, personal freedom, and the right to privacy. No longer can a newspaper editor publish an article that is critical of the government—even if it is legal—without fear that Big Brother may begin to survey his every thought and action. This may very well be the most frightening aspect of the Patriot Act: the fact that the Act allows the government to spy on any of its citizens, not just the bad ones. The Patriot Act does not demand sufficient proof that alleged “suspects” are engaged in criminal activity before authorizing government surveillance. Even upstanding American citizens can become targets of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) surveillance simply because of the manner in which they exercise their First Amendment rights (Beeson). Simply put, the Patriot Act fails to secure American liberties; in reality, the Act exposes Americans to potential abuses of power by creating an environment that encourages government corruption, secrecy, fraud and discrimination while using “national security” as a pretense for violating basic Constitutional rights like privacy and free speech. As the century drags on, it is becoming painfully obvious that the Patriot Act has actually moved the United States further away from an ideal democratic society since its passage in October of 2001.

Ever since 1776, when American colonists first abandoned their ties with Britain to create an independent nation, American citizens have always cherished basic rights like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures (United States). But after the unpredictable events of September 11, 2001, many citizens began to feel that they should give up some of their cherished rights in order to punish the perpetrators of the attacks and avoid future tragedies. An overwhelming sense of national unity overtook the country and Americans united to face the newly discovered threat of terrorism in a modern age. The President’s approval rating increased from 54% to 86%—its highest level ever—in a matter of days (Ruggles). The American people rallied behind the Federal government and provided support. Tragically, Congress drafted the Patriot Act and decreed that it would be the solution to America’s problems. According to Congress, the Patriot Act would protect America from its enemies who operated on American soil. Many Americans unquestionably accepted the Act to avoid the risk of being labeled “unpatriotic.” However, thousands of far-seeing Americans publicly questioned the actions of the government, but their cries were not heard. When the House of Representatives sent the Patriot Act to the Senate, it passed with a vote of 96-1. Peter Justice put it best when he said that “. . . the climate of fear in the weeks after the September 11 attacks and the haste with which the Patriot Act was passed allowed some of its more controversial aspects to escape adequate congressional scrutiny.” Clearly, the “fear frenzy” that took place after the September 11 attacks caused Americans to sacrifice essential civil rights in exchange for a sense of security.

The only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act was Senator Feingold. Feingold is significant because he was the only Senator to fight against the Patriot Act before it was signed into law. The arguments that he made against the Act during September and October of 2001 continue to point out the negative effects the Act has had on American life and will continue to have moving forward in the twenty-first century. When asked why he voted against the Patriot Act, Feingold responded that “we [Americans] will lose that war [on Terrorism] without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people.” Essentially, Feingold argued that the Patriot Act is counter-productive: if government “security” is meant to protect American liberties, then the American people should not have to sacrifice their liberties to purchase security. What purpose will “security” serve if there are no liberties left to defend? If the Federal government curtails American liberty, then security is rendered worthless. Colonial statesman Benjamin Franklin once said that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” According to Franklin, real American patriots constantly question their government’s intentions in order to ensure that their elected politicians are keeping the “core of American values and principles” at heart while in office (Justice). The Patriot Act does not keep the interests of American citizens in mind because it sacrifices crucial civil rights that have been guaranteed by the Bill of Rights ever since 1776 (United States).

There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally, the government can not conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a warrant and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may commit) a crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is ever questioned about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation is crucial to national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more recent years the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a search, the FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by the Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has only rejected six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s creation (“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain American citizen, it will most likely be able to do so, even without sufficient evidence.

Certainly, the United States government needs to have the power to monitor suspected terrorists—no upstanding American citizen is arguing about that—but the problem lies in the manner in which government monitoring occurs. The Patriot Act fails to strike a desirable balance between protecting American lives against the threat of terrorism and protecting the rights of Americans against potential government abuse (“Reform”). Particularly upsetting about the Act are several critical provisions designed to widely expand government power with limited “checks and balances” and nearly limitless potential for abuse.

Section 213 is one such provision which greatly expands the power of the Federal government. Section 213 of the Patriot Act authorizes law enforcement agents to conduct “sneak-and-peek” operations in a U.S. resident’s home. This provision violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to require that those persons who are the subject of search orders “be told that their privacy has been compromised” (“Reform”). If an individual does not know that the government has been in his home then he will be unable to verify that the government conducted a reasonable search using a valid warrant. If the government indeed did overstep its bounds, the individual will have no means to take recourse against the government. After all, how can a person protect their rights if they do not know that their rights have been violated? Section 213 erodes the “sacred rights of western society” as described by Kennedy, and reduces U.S. civil rights to nearly the same level as those of the Nazi Socialists in Russia during the 1930s and 40s.

Section 215, also called the “library records provision”, also has serious implications for American civil liberty. Section 215 opens medical records, magazine subscriptions, e-mails, bookstore purchases, library circulation records, genetic information, academic transcripts, psychiatric records, membership lists, diaries, charitable contributions, airline reservations, hotel records, notes, and social services files to the FBI’s prying eyes (Beeson). For example, the FBI can request the names of all the patrons that have checked out a certain book from the library, simply because they do not like the topic of that particular book. Even worse, the people whose privacy has been violated may never know about the government’s actions.

Section 505 is another particularly threatening provision of the Patriot Act. Section 505 facilitates the use of “national security letters”, or NSLs, in federal investigations. NSLs are a form of administrative subpoena that legally compel an entity or organization to turn over personal records and information about certain individuals. Previously, the FBI could only use NSLs to access records of foreign agents and known terrorists, but Section 505 of the Patriot Act adds non-terrorism suspects to the list of entities that the FBI can use NSLs to spy on (“Controversial”). The problem with this is that NSLs are substantially easier to obtain than regular subpoenas; NSLs do not have to be authorized by a judge like normal subpoenas—they merely must be signed by certain key FBI agents. This means that the FBI can use NSLs to illegally obtain information about an American citizen who may be involved in some sort of crime. While many Patriot Act supporters may argue that Section 505 is beneficial because the FBI can more easily obtain information about all types of criminals, the truth is that Section 505 violates the Fifth Amendment’s “due process of law” clause. According to the Fifth Amendment, no person should be “. . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .” Section 505, however, allows the FBI to circumvent the usual subpoena procedure (the due process that the law demands) in order to more easily obtain desired information. This means that NSLs can legally be used to obtain information about ordinary criminals like robbers, shoplifters, and drug users—and even people who have presented little or no evidence of wrongdoing. NSLs are extremely serious legal weapons and should be reserved for only the most serious of crimes, like terrorism.

While the potential for government abuse of the Patriot Act is all too clear, another alarming fact is that the Patriot Act fails to secure American liberties—proving that the Act has failed in its purpose. According to Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the NYCLU, “Effective law enforcement in the aftermath of September 11 does not call for a return to the bad old days when there was open season on dissent and dissenters . . . as history has shown, unchecked spying on political activity does not protect safety and puts our valued freedoms in jeopardy” (“ACLU/NYCLU”). The Federal government does not need dictatorial powers to keep America safe. Kennedy would have opposed the Patriot Act for the same reasons that he opposed communism. Kennedy said “I am unalterably opposed to communism because it exalts the state over the individual . . . and because its system contains a lack of freedom of speech, of protest, of religion, and of the press, which is characteristic of a totalitarian regime . . .” It is frighteningly un-American to assume that giving politicians authoritarian powers will make America safer. Furthermore, Kennedy would have argued that the way to oppose terrorists is to “enlarge individual human freedom”—not take it away. By allowing the Federal government to take away freedoms and civil rights, Americans are actually helping the terrorists to erode the ideals of the American system. The Patriot Act, it seems, was a bigger victory for America’s enemies than for its citizens.

Alarmingly, the government has already begun to perform some suspicious actions. The FBI is keeping secret “even the most basic information” about FBI surveillance (“Reform”). For example, the FBI classified information that should have been available to the public—information that would have shown how often the FBI has spied on people based on the manner that they exercise their First Amendment rights. Although this action in and of itself does not prove that the FBI or the Federal government has explicitly broken the law, it does hint that the government is trying to hide its activities from public scrutiny. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote that “. . . the few known cases of rights violations under the Patriot Act are likely the tip of the iceberg in terms of abuses of the investigative powers the government has under the Patriot Act because most such investigation is conducted secretly.” In other words, the few verified cases of government abuse of the Patriot Act may indicate many more abuses which are not disclosed to the public.

Although some Americans may say, “I don’t mind the Patriot Act because I have nothing to hide from the government”, this thinking is flawed for several reasons. First of all, if the American people know that their actions and communications are being monitored they will feel less comfortable expressing their thoughts and exercising their rights to free speech and free thinking; this is especially so if the person’s thoughts are not what the government wants them to think. Second, by eroding American civil rights in order to obtain a sense of security, Americans are actually helping the terrorists to achieve their mission of destroying democratic ideals in the western world. The last and most compelling reason to oppose the Patriot Act is the fact that it is a direct attack on American ideals. The Patriot Act essentially destroys the protections offered by the First and Fourth Amendments and exposes Americans to potential abuses at the hands of Big Brother.

Protecting Americans from foreign threats is critical; the Federal government should do whatever it takes to keep its citizens safe, but it should never infringe upon their civil rights. No doubt, the Patriot Act represents an emerging trend in American government today—a trend of sacrificing the American Creed’s ideals in exchange for security. Americans fought the Revolutionary War to earn basic liberties that they felt were their God-given rights—rights that no humans should live without. Americans should not so easily relinquish the rights and liberties cherished for so long as the cornerstone of American society for the mere illusion of security.

Works Cited

"ACLU/NYCLU Mobilize Members and Supporters to Keep America ‘Safe and Free’." NYCLU. ACLU Foundation. 5 Mar. 2007 <http://www.nyclu.org/safe_free101602.html>.

Beeson, Ann, and Jameel Jaffer. "Unpatriotic Acts: the FBI's Power to Rifle Through Your Records and Personal Belongings Without Telling You." ACLU. July 2003. ACLU Foundation. 25 Feb. 2007 <http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/spies_report.pdf>.

"Controversial Provisions of the USA Patriot Act." Facts on File News Services. 14 Apr. 2006. 5 Apr. 2007 <http://www.2facts.com/ICAH/Search/has00001371.asp>.

Feingold, Russell. "Senator Feingold's Speech Explaining Why He Voted Against the Patriot Act (Excerpts)." Facts on File News Services. 12 Oct. 2001. 8 Feb. 2007 <http://www.2facts.com/ICAH/Search/had00000278.asp>.

Justice, Peter. "USA Patriot Act." Facts on File News Services. 14 Apr. 2006. 8 Feb. 2007 <http://www.2facts.com/ICAH/Search/haa00001370.asp>.

Kennedy, Robert F. "Day of Affirmation Address." University of Capetown, Capetown. 6 June 1996. 5 Apr. 2007 <http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/ Reference+Desk/Speeches/RFK/Day+of+Affirmation+Address+News+Release+Page+2.htm>.

“Newstrack - Top News." United Press International 26 Dec. 2005. 5 Apr. 2007 <http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2005/12/26/ bush_was_denied_wiretaps_bypassed_them/>.

"Reform the Patriot Act: Section 215." ACLU. ACLU Foundation. 25 Feb. 2007 <http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/215.html>.

Ruggles, Steven. "Historical Bush Approval Ratings." 5 Mar. 2007. University of Minnesota. 5 Mar. 2007 <http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm>.

United States. The Bill of Rights. 5 Mar. 2007 <http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm>.

Works Consulted

"A Case of Justice That Stinks: the Administration's Forced Resignations Among U.S. Attorneys Tell the Tale of the Corrupting Influence of Unchecked Power." The Roanoke Times. 21 Jan. 2007. McClatchy-Tribune Business News. 8 Feb. 2007 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62W63048083835&site=src-live>.

"ACLU/NYCLU Mobilize Members and Supporters to Keep America ‘Safe and Free’." NYCLU. ACLU Foundation. 5 Mar. 2007 <http://www.nyclu.org/safe_free101602.html>.

Beeson, Ann, and Jameel Jaffer. "Unpatriotic Acts: the FBI's Power to Rifle Through Your Records and Personal Belongings Without Telling You." ACLU. July 2003. ACLU Foundation. 25 Feb. 2007 <http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/spies_report.pdf>.

Berlau, John. "Show Us Your Money: the USA PATRIOT Act Lets the Feds Spy on Your Finances. But Does It Help Catch Terrorists?" Reason (2003). 8 Feb. 2007 <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_6_35/ai_109085440/pg_1>.

"Controversial Provisions of the USA Patriot Act." Facts on File News Services. 14 Apr. 2006. 5 Apr. 2007 <http://www.2facts.com/ICAH/Search/has00001371.asp>.

Feingold, Russell. "Senator Feingold's Speech Explaining Why He Voted Against the Patriot Act (Excerpts)." Facts on File News Services. 12 Oct. 2001. 8 Feb. 2007 <http://www.2facts.com/ICAH/Search/had00000278.asp>.

Justice, Peter. "USA Patriot Act." Facts on File News Services. 14 Apr. 2006. 8 Feb. 2007 <http://www.2facts.com/ICAH/Search/haa00001370.asp>.

Kennedy, Robert F. "Day of Affirmation Address." University of Capetown, Capetown. 6 June 1996. 5 Apr. 2007 <http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/ Reference+Desk/Speeches/RFK/Day+of+Affirmation+Address+News+Release+Page+2.htm>.

"Newstrack - Top News." United Press International 26 Dec. 2005. 5 Apr. 2007 <http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2005/12/26/ bush_was_denied_wiretaps_bypassed_them/>.

"Reform the Patriot Act: Section 215." ACLU. ACLU Foundation. 25 Feb. 2007 <http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/215.html>.

"Robert F. Kennedy." Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. 8 Feb. 2007 <http://www.answers.com/topic/robert-f-kennedy>.

"Robert F. Kennedy." Who2? Biographies. 8 Feb. 2007 <http://www.answers.com/topic/robert-f-kennedy>.

Ruggles, Steven. "Historical Bush Approval Ratings." 5 Mar. 2007. University of Minnesota. 5 Mar. 2007 <http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm>.

United States. Cong. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (Usa Patriot Act) Act of 2001. 107th Cong. 26 Oct. 2001. 8 Feb. 2007 <http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107>.

United States. The Bill of Rights. 5 Mar. 2007 <http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm>.

"USA Patriot Act (2001)." The United States At War. 26 Oct. 2001. ABC-CLIO. 8 Feb. 2007 <http://www.usatwar.abc-clio.com/Research/Display.aspx?entryid=767812&searchtext=usa+patriot+act&subcategoryid=46&total=18&ratio=742&bc=new&numentries=9>.

Aboukhadijeh, Feross. "Sample Research Paper - "The Patriot Act"" StudyNotes.org. Study Notes, LLC., 17 Nov. 2012. Web. 10 Mar. 2018. <https://www.apstudynotes.org/english/sample-essays/research-paper-patriot-act/>.

0 thoughts on “Free Patriot Act Essay”

    -->

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *