英语论文网

broadly; agencies could demand that grocery stores reveal customer’s buying patterns, for instance, or, that libraries hand over citizens’ reading records. NPR mentions that critics of the PATRIOT Act believe that 218 makes it easier to abuse foreign intelligence operations. Critics also argue that the ability to delay warrant notification (213) should only be used for investigations dealing with terrorism and espionage, not any crime. [xxxi]

Yet, despite these objections, the PATRIOT Act serves a necessary purpose. There has not been a major terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11. Conservatively, it’s estimated that the PATRIOT Act has prevented fifteen attacks. [xxxii] One expert from the Heritage Foundation believes that the act has been a “‘big part’” of stopping “‘twenty-eight terrorist attacks since 9/11.’” [xxxiii] The PATRIOT Act has been “instrumental” in terrorist investigations, resulting in three hundred and ten charges. One hundred and seventy-nine convections or guilty pleas had been obtained as of July 14, 2004. Improved information gathering and sharing networks enabled the identification and apprehension of terrorist cells in Lackawanna, NY and Portland, OR and of “a person who had sent two hundred threatening letters laced with white powder in Lafayette, LA.” [xxxiv] Additional cells have also been discovered Buffalo, Detroit, Northern Virginia, and Seattle. With the help of the PATRIOT Act, over one hundred and fifty foreign and domestic terrorist threats or cells have been addressed. The Department of Justice asserts that the PATRIOT Act is wholly or partly responsible to the removal of two thirds of Al Qaeda’s senior leadership and the global incapacitation of “more than three thousand operatives.” [xxxv] Additionally, the Department of Justice stated that 805 is “critical to cutting of the networks of support that make terrorism possible.” [xxxvi]

Moreover, supporters of the PATRIOT Act note that many of the claims made by critics are “unsubstantiated” and “intended to frighten law-abiding citizens.” Critics object to the government’s ability to obtain records (215). Yet, these records were already “obtainable pursuant to grand jury subpoenas” and were sometimes provided voluntarily. [xxxvii] The same section (203) that might lead to “massive databases” removes barriers that “made investigators afraid of sharing information.” In reality, 206 makes very little difference in the way agencies conduct investigations. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, investigators could submit warrants for each device a suspect might use. Likewise with 215; supporters “insist that…there was no hard barrier against” investigating foreign agents. Delayed warrants (213) were already used on drug dealers or to fight organized crime. [xxxviii] The conflict between PATRIOT Act supporters and critics has sparked numerous court cases dealing with the constitutionality of certain titles or sections.

The first court case to declare part of the PATRIOT Act unconstitutional was Humanitarian Law Project et al. v. Ashcroft et al, filed January 22, 2004. It concerned Section 805 of the act. The plaintiffs in this case wanted to support the Kurdistan Workers’ Party and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The two groups were deemed foreign terrorist organizations by Secretary of State Albright in 1997 but also engaged in lawful, nonviolent activities. The plaintiffs stated that they refrained