USA Patriot Act essays

USA Patriot Act essays To borrow a term from Shakespeare, the arguments against the U.S. Patriot Act (USAPA) are much to do about nothing. Upon exploration of major concerns regarding USAPA, the arguments made are weak and often over exaggerated claims designed to inflame those concerned with protecting civil liberties. This paper discusses the opponents' major points against USAPA and finds each assertion to be inane or false. The reality is that USAPA simply allows the investigation of all suspected terrorist activity using surveillance common to other criminal investigations and improved communication across government agencies. Opponents of the USAPA argue that the expanded definition of terrorism to cover domestic as well as international terrorism expands the type of conduct that the government can investigate too broadly (How the USA Patriot Act redefines "domestic terrorism). They believe that the government will unfairly use this broader interpretation to monitor the activities of activist organizations such as Greenpeace and Operation Rescue. And, opponents are also concerned that the government can spy or suspected computer trespassers without a court order and can add samples to DNA databases for those convicted of any crime of violence (EFF analysis of the provisions of the USA Patriot Act). The notion that the government should be restricted from investigating domestic terrorism is absurd. Americans were responsible for approximately seventy-five percent of the 335 incidents between 1980 and 2000 that the FBI has classified as suspected or confirmed terrorism (American militant extremists). USAPA defines domestic terrorism as criminal acts that are "dangerous to human life", a category that clearly warrants government investigation. And, accusations that USAPA allows the federal government to secure secret search warrants with no probable cause are not true (Herron, M. an...