Lee 1

Andrew Lee
ENC 1102
[Removed]
Apr. 25, 13
Patriot Act: Guardian or Menace?
The Boston Marathon bombings on Monday, April 15, 2013 represent the most recent act
of terrorism on US soil, where two homemade bombs exploded in a dense crowd at the finish
line of the Boston Marathon. Three were killed and 144 injured. By Thursday night of the same
week, FBI agents had begun the manhunt for brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev (Carter
Botelho). Throughout Friday and into the weekend, both brothers lives were revealed to the
world, from birthplace to immigration history to martial relationships. To the public, reports
only discuss the Tsarnaev brothers, but the investigation unlikely stopped at the two; to catch the
culprits and prevent future attacks if they were associated to a terrorist group many others needed
to be screened. And so the questions pervade, who else did the FBI investigate? Did I get
investigated? What did they investigate about me? Would I even know if I got investigated?
On September 11, 2001, under the leadership of Osama Bin Ladin, nineteen al-Qaeda
operatives hijacked four passenger airliners and executed an attack on the World Trade Center
(WTC), Pentagon, and Capitol Building. Of the four hijacked airliners, three succeeded in
collapsing the North and South WTC towers and damaging the Pentagon. The attack killed
nearly 3000, caused the stock market to plummet, and sent the nation into a domestic frenzy.
Americans cried out for tighter security against another tragedy. In response, the Department of
Homeland Security was created, and in just six weeks, in the name of national security and in
less than 48 hours, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (or Patriot Act), a 132 page legal
Lee 2

document, passed through both the House and Senate with overwhelming support from President
Bush, Republicans, Democrats, and everyday Americans. This piece of legislation expanded
federal jurisdiction, revising
A number of existing federal statutes, significantly increasing the governments
ability to conduct surveillance domestically and through intelligence agencies, to
monitor financial transactions, to monitor and collect Internet-based and other
forms of electronic communication, and to detain anyone suspected of or possibly
connected to terrorist-related activities. (Zeljak 63)
However, in the years following the attack, many have come to see the law as an overextension
of federal power, an invasion of privacy and a violation of the first and fourth amendment, the
right to free speech and the right against unreasonable search and seizure respectively. Groups
such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), congressmen such as Senator Rand Paul
and Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, journalists such as Pamela Hetherington, and everyday
Americans have spoken against the bill, urging the necessity to revise and further define the
powers of the government.
People are quick to offer liberty for security, thereby accepting the Patriot Act, as a
necessary tool to combat terrorism. But many Americans forget to consider the day when
existing government powers may prove insufficient. If left unchecked and unregulated,
Americans may very well find themselves not only less free, but also less safe. Americans
deserve protection from both acts of terrorism and a government that disregards civil liberties for
the sake of national security. To defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic while continuing to promote security (US Army Oath of
Lee 3

Enlistment), the Patriot Act must undertake modifications that better define government powers
and the rights of its citizens.
In 2002, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents arrested and, in 2005, convicted
public-defense lawyer Lynne Stewart for assisting in acts of terrorism. While Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales cheered that the verdict was an important step in the Justice Departments
war on terrorism, editorial writers, Columbia law professors, and Stewarts lawyer criticized
the FBI for abusing government power (Hetherington 3). At the age of 60, Stewart had built a
unique reputation for defending unpopular clients. Her preference in defendants would
ultimately have her cross paths in 1995 with the Blind Sheik, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a man
charged with masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, conspiring to bomb the
UN, kill Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and bomb New York City tunnels (Hetherington
1).
Stewart ultimately lost the case defending Rahman, but continued represent him, later
even releasing a statement by the convicted terrorist despite signing an FBI written agreement
stating that she would not pass information between third parties. As a result, for the next two
years, unbeknownst to Stewart, she became subject to intense and unrestricted surveillance. The
Department of Justice gained access to phone calls, emails, faxes, other documents, and even
communications presumed to be private with her client, a clear violation of attorney-client
confidentiality and the sixth amendment (Hetherington 3).
Under the Patriot Act, the age-old rule of attorney-client privilege was nullified.
Stewarts conviction became a warning to other criminal lawyers to not represent terrorists as
1) theres no point in expecting a fair trial; 2) if you behave in any way that the Department of
Lee 4

Justice deems suspicious, youll probably get arrested, and 3) [the FBI will] be listening and
watching everything you do anyway (Hetherington 2). Although the government may have
been correct in judging her a terrorist, the lengths to which they forewent to gain sufficient
information violated a number of constitutional rights, and continues to show the power of the
words national security. The FBI fully utilized tools established by the Patriot Act, specified in
Sections such as 206, 215 and through the use of National Security Letters (NSLs) to aid in
convicting Lynne Stewart. Through the Patriot Act, the FBI obtained a warrant without
evidence, or through proper procedure. But when the FBI captured Stewart, the nation cheered.
Not every suspected terrorist will be a terrorist, but the lack of restrictions allows the
government to continue to investigate recklessly and belligerently. Those affiliated to or labeled
as terrorists, even if not, will be subjected to the same unconstitutional surveillance and treatment
as Lynne Stewart. The US prides itself its freedom to speech and privacy, but in post-9/11
America, where an innocent misstep could invite mass surveillance, that seems questionable.
The American Civil Liberties Union is one of the leading advocates for the repeal/reform
of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, more specifically Section 206 and 215 in light of their recent
four-year extensions on May 26, 2011, by President Obama. Section 206, or roving John Doe
wiretap, allows for surveillance without explicitly identifying the person or facility being
tapped, contradicting original notions of search and seizure (ACLU 1). The Patriot Act gives
government officials the ability to obtain a wiretap without first releasing to the court who or
where the wiretap will be implemented. The ease at which an agent can attain surveillance alters
the fundamental idea of probable cause to skeptical suspicion. Most significantly, Section 215
authorizes the government to obtain any tangible thing relevant to a terrorism investigation,
even if there is no showing that the thing pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities
Lee 5

(ACLU 1). Under 215, all records, such as books, medical records, papers, financial documents,
and other items, are subject to investigation under minimal suspicions. To ensure secrecy, 215
also carries a gag order, a means of suppression, preventing any party involved disclose to any
one the FBIs involvement. In conjunction with 206, the FBI heavily utilized these two sections
to gather any information on Stewart, gagging everyone else involved. The wide range of
personal information that can be investigated has led Section 215 to gain the unofficial title of
Library Records provision.
In the past, unless permitted by law, and under reasonable pretenses, libraries were
prohibited from releasing records to anyone, including law enforcement. Today, agents still
require court orders, but with the assistance of the Patriot Act, secretly attaining the individuals
records and entire databases becomes a matter of when (Minow 2). Additionally, for the
librarians involved, the FBI and other agents impose gag orders in order to operate in secrecy.
The government argues that Patriot Act is used to prevent acts of terrorism. However, Senator
Rand Paul reminds Americans that because of the secretive cloud that shrouds intelligence
agencies actions, [you] dont know if [youve] been investigated Have [you] been
investigated? [You] dont know (Paul and Durban). In between complete secrecy and
unrestrained surveillance, finding enough evidence to criminalize the government for misusing a
law that the creators claims is necessary, and critical to promoting national security, becomes
increasingly difficult.
The extent of the Patriot Act is witnessed in every public computer at the University of
Florida. Before signing into a public computer on campus, the user is required to accept a notice
that [the Libraries] may be obligated to release [user circulation records and computer use] to
law enforcement agents in response to a warrant, subpoena, or other lawful directive issued in
Lee 6

accordance with [the USA PATRIOT Act], and sometimes without informing the user (Library
Privacy Notice). Unlike banks and other financial institutions, the Patriot Act does not require
libraries to report suspicious activity, but Gators and Americans should understand that simply
perusing the topic bomb making may attract unwanted attention from law enforcement agents
and lead library staff to releasing such searching without notification. More so, the non-ill-
intentioned curiosity may result in investigation reaching beyond the victims library history.
In response to librarian concern across the nation, Attorney General Ashcroft labeled
them hysterics and asserted although the Patriot Act, especially section 215, can make any
American susceptible to surveillance based on the books read and websites visited, the
Department has no interest in the reading habits of ordinary Americans (Comey 5). However,
because the investigators operate in secrecy, and gag those with privileged knowledge, the term
ordinary Americans becomes extremely subjective. Maybe Caucasian US citizens earning
$80,000 or more are ordinary, or non-Muslims who do not curiously search bomb making are
ordinaryonly the investigators know the true definition. Despite their assertions of reasonable
use, the Departments Inspector General, in 2007, concluded that the Department severely
misused and abused the National Security Letter (NSL) and failed to report the uses to Congress
(Paul and Durban). Significantly understated, the use of NSLs increased exponentially from
approximately 8,500 (pre-9/11) to 47,000 (post-9/11).
National Security Letters, a long-standing and physical tool expanded in Section 215 of
the Patriot Act, allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to obtain communication,
financial, credit. [Internet, and other business] records of anyone deemed relevant to a terrorism
investigation even if that person is not suspected of unlawful behavior (ACLU 1). For example,
under the Patriot Act, if John Doe attended a dinner party in which one of the attendees is a
Lee 7

Saudi Arabian suspected of funding terrorist organizations, John Doe, along with the other
guests, according to Deputy Attorney General James Comey, would be subjected to investigation
(Comey 6). All of John Does private records would be searched without his knowledge or
consent because he enjoyed a night out.
When confronted by law enforcement agents with a NSL, out of fear of repercussion for
noncooperation, Internet service providers or medical record holders have consistently released
the requested information with little resistance. On multiple instances, the Attorney General
cited cases where these companies released even more information than the FBI originally
requested. New security measures, codified by laws such as the Patriot Act, now over-encourage
banks to report suspicious activity, such as money transfers over a $5000, else risk a $100,000
fine (Paul and Durban). The Patriot Act, through its broad power, undervalues privacy and
places the US into a situation where to be safe, one must be willing to live transparently and
openly to unexpected check-ups.
In March 2007, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III admitted to improper and sometimes
illegal misuse of NSLs by his bureau. The FBI had poor record keeping where Departments
Inspector Generals report revealed the actual number of NSLs issued was much greater than the
numbers the bureau were required to report to Congress. The report also revealed that the bureau
used exigent letters, a letter meant to be used to obtain information in an extreme emergency and
when the bureau has already sought subpoenas for the information, in nonemergency
circumstances and without first seeking subpoenas (Stout). NSLs are extremely powerful tools
for investigators when used correctly against those who threaten the safety of Americans. NSLs,
however, because of its broad definitions have allowed agents to opt for the simpler and quicker
route of attaining evidence.
Lee 8

As Jefferson once stated, if the government were composed of angels, there would exist
no need for external or internal controls on government. Unfortunately, the government is not
composed of angels; without regulation on the government, the very tools designed to protect
innocent Americans will be used against them. To truly be safe, the United States must not only
monitor enemies abroad, but also itself.
Despite opposition from the ACLU and Congressmen, such as Dennis Kucinich, Senator
Rand Paul, and Senator Dick Durban, the Patriot Act, primarily unchanged, continues to receive
support from the White House, other Congressmen, the Department of Justice, and unaware
Americans. Advocates defend that the Patriot Act, and its expansion of federal power in
surveillance, has been an integral tool in fulfilling its purpose of deter and punish terrorist acts
in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and
other purposes (USA PATRIOT Act). Oddly, though the Act was created to deter and punish
terrorist acts, Comey acknowledges the Patriot Acts integral role in capturing and convicting
twenty-one individuals with conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to
distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base (12). Albeit used in a rightful manner, battling
the War on Drugs, due to its broad nature, the Patriot Act was expanded beyond its original
purpose. In a country where the government is not run by angels, the wide scope of the Acts
surveillance power has proven to be easily manipulable to the will of the wielder.
In June 2005, homeless man, Richard Kreimer, sued a New Jersey town for unlawfully
evicting him from its train station as per the Patriot Act. Law enforcers cited the law regarding
attacks and other violence against mass transportation systems (Parry). Hardly a threat to
national security, law enforcers utilized a broadly defined federal law and bent the laws purpose
to fit their purpose despite their purpose being completely unrelated to the catching of terrorists.
Lee 9

Without strict definitions, law enforcers could continue to easily and creatively reclassify any
action as a violent attack against the public.
The Department of Justice argues that without the assistance of the Patriot Act, the US
may not have captured Hemant Lakhani, a terrorist trying to sell an antiaircraft missile, or
Zacarias Moussaoui, a man who pled guilty to six counts of conspiracy (Comey 2). The
Department proudly claims this because it is impossible to have evidence indicating the contrary.
Senator Paul disagrees though that the broad nature of the Patriot Act is beneficial to the US.
Paul argues that the terrorists were captured because of good investigation, not by taking a
shotgun approach and assuming everyone to be terrorists, as the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) pats down every man, woman, and child. Investigators foil terrorist plots
because they connected various pieces of evidence to a specific target. Hence when tragedies
occur, the fault is not in the lack of investigative tools available, but rather a lack of
investigation.
In the case of the 19
th
hijacker in 9/11, Zacarias Moussaoui, law enforcement had already
detained the suspected terrorist for a month but still could not prevent the unfortunate event.
Law enforcement failed not because they did not have the toolsagents requested searching
Moussaouis computer, but was denied in over 70 emailsbut because they did not recognize
the connection between Moussaoui and the 9/11 attackers (Paul and Durban). Improvements in
national security should focus on the investigators, not their tools.
The terrorist attack on 9/11, if nothing else, proved to the nation that existing domestic
security efforts were inefficient or not enough to protect Americans from new modern threats.
To combat terrorism, agents need the tools to catch a terrorist with his hands on the check
Lee 10

instead of his hands on the bomb (Comey 1). However, in just six weeks following 9/11 and
with only fifteen minutes to read one copy before voting, the Patriot Act is not the best
resolution.
The Patriot Act, and those who use it, requires more stringent checks. Many of the
clauses that have been misused by the FBI and other law enforcers must be amended so that the
innocent are not victimized and civil liberties are not compromised. Government surveillance
tools and resources can be better implemented to specifically target those who seek to incite
national panic, and not every person with a face. If Americans were to continue to justify minor
sacrifices in liberty for security and do not stand against an overreaching government, Americans
may one day find themselves, in a worst-case scenario, justifying the need for a police-state and
a suspension of the Bill of Rights to ensure national security. As founding father Benjamin
Franklin once said, Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Our government is not run by angels; so the burden
is on us to protect our own rights when challenged; if we allow our freedoms to be compromised,
we only aid those whom we oppose in defeating us.

Lee 11

Works Cited
Carter, Chelsea J., and Greg Botelho. "Boston Police Announce Marathon Bombing Suspect in
Custody." CNN. CNN, 20 Apr. 2013. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.
Hetherington, Pamela. "Land of the Free; Home of the Closely Observed; The Patriot Act Brings
Big Brother to the Courtroom." Iris (2005): 50.GenderWatch. Web. 15 Mar. 2013.
Kucinich Continues Unstinting Defense of Constitution. Targeted News Service [TNS] 15 Feb.
2011. Student Edition. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.
"Library Privacy Notice." University of Florida, n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.
Minow, Mary. "The USA PATRIOT Act." Library Journal 127.16 (2002): 52.Business Source
Alumni Edition. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.
Parry, Wayne. "Patriot Act Cited by City in Defense of Ousting Homeless." Philadelphia
Inquirer [Philadelphia] 29 June 2005: n. pag. Philadelphia Inquirer. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.
Paul, Rand, and Dick Durbin. "Senate Debate on USA Patriot Act Provisions." Speech. Senate
Debate on USA Patriot Act Provisions. Washington D.C. C-SPAN. C-SPAN, 26 May
2011. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.
"Reform the Patriot Act." Reform the Patriot Act. American Civil Liberties Union, 26 May 2011.
Web. 15 Mar. 2013.
Statement of James B. Comey Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice
Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives, 1-14
(2005) (testimony of James B. Comey). Print.
Lee 12

Stout, David. "F.B.I. Head Admits Mistakes in Use of Security Act." New York Times. New
York Times, 10 Mar. 2007. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.
USA. Department of Justice. Dispelling Some of the Major Myths about the USA PATRIOT Act.
N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
USA. Department of Justice. The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty. N.p.: n.p.,
n.d. Print.
USA. Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office. Oaths of Office. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
"USA PATRIOT Act." USA Patriot Act. United States Department of the Treasurey, n.d. Web.
26 Apr. 2013.
Zeljak, Cathy. "The USA PATRIOT Act." Problems of Post Communism 51.1 (2004): 63-65.
Web.