Nature of Logic and Perception

USA PATRIOT Act

On 9/11, the world was shocked and awed by the scenes of destruction and mayhem that unfolded in the United States of America. The carnage that unfolded that fateful day made it quite clear that the United States had entered a new era of constitutional interpretation. Never before has an unconventional enemy ever been able to inflict such damage with an unprecedented attack on American soil. Shortly after this attack, American lawmakers constructed the controversial Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act). There are many new or expanded laws in the USA PATRIOT Act. Some of the laws are seen, by some groups, as unconstitutional, and some groups say that the new laws are a necessity to combat or deter terrorism. Perhaps one of the biggest proponents of the PATRIOT Act is the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The FBI states that the PATRIOT Act allows the sharing of intelligence and it effectively tears down "the Wall" (Baginski, 2005, para 9). "The Wall" is a barrier that prevents various intelligence organizations from sharing intelligence. This lack of intelligence sharing plagued the FBI and other intelligence services prior to 9/11 and contributed to the events that unfolded on 9/11. The USA PATRIOT Act effectively allows the sharing of all intelligence amongst agencies that are conducting terrorism investigations. Not only does the USA PATRIOT Act strengthen the intelligence gathering and dissemination process, but the USA PATRIOT Act also strengthens and enhances the government's overall border security posture.

The USA PATRIOT Act allows tighter security and screening by the border patrol by widening the definition of terrorist activity. The newest definition of terrorist activity allows the border patrol to disallow entry into the United States any alien who is in possession of anything that could be construed as a weapon (Sokol, 2001).

Perhaps the biggest proponent of the USA PATRIOT Act is the President of the United States. The President is a staunch believer that the USA PATRIOT Act ensures that every American's civil rights are not violated by mandating strict compliance of law enforcement officials in the execution of their expanded capabilities ("President Discusses Patriot," 2005). This compliance is enforced through the stringent application of requirements placed upon federal judges to ensure that these new capabilities are consistent with the intent of the constitution. On the other hand, these new capabilities are viewed as unconstitutional by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The ACLU claims that certain provisions are blatant civil rights violations. The ACLU argues that Section 215, production of tangible things, is clearly unconstitutional because the defendant has no way to object to Section 215 (ACLU, 2004). The ACLU also makes mention that the USA PATRIOT Act also allows the government to renounce the citizenship of Americans who support legal activities of terrorist organizations (ACLU, 2004). Finally, the ACLU also mentions that the USA PATRIOT Act expands the death penalty to offenses that were not previously punishable by death. These new offenses were not previously covered by the old definition of terrorist activity (ACLU, 2004).

I personally feel that the creation of USA PATRIOT act is purely a reflection of the times that we live in. The men who wrote the constitution constructed it with the intent for it to be changed as conditions warrant. Thomas Jefferson even referred to this possibility in 1803 when he said (Amending the constitution, n.d., para 2):

No work of man is perfect. It is inevitable that, in the course of time, the

imperfections of a written Constitution will become apparent. Moreover,

the passage of time will bring changes in society which a Constitution

must accommodate if it is to remain suitable for the nation. It was