In response to 9/11 terrorist onslaughts on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, United States leaders and experts have moved rapidly to originate an action against terrorist act. Therefore, the Bush ‘s Admonition has established the PATRIOT act of 2001 which intended to bolster the authorities ‘s ability to carry on condemnable and intelligence probe, to divide terrorists from their beginnings of fiscal support, to saloon and throw out foreign terrorists from the U.S. , and to turn to the demands to the direct victims of September 2001 ( Doyle, 2001 ) . September 2001 has dramatically demonstrated that the United States faces a existent terrorist domestically and abroad and in this station 9/11 epoch, terrorist act present a particular challenge to a democratic society: how to forestall and penalize ideologically-motivated force without giving freedoms and civil autonomies. This survey will analyze several different positions about the PATRIOT Act and its sensed impact on freedoms and civil autonomies.
Reappraisal of the Literature helps to find whether the proposed subject is deserving analyzing, and it gives insight into ways in which the research worker can restrict the range to a needful country of enquiry ( Creswell, 2009 ) . In his survey, Baker ( 2003 ) underlined that terrorists should ne’er be protected under the parametric quantities of the Constitution of the land. Baker besides stated that those who are charged with an act of terrorist act should be held into indefinite detainment without charge or a test. For illustration, the Boston Marathon bomber should non be processed under the judicial processs of the jurisprudence ; alternatively the authorities should utilize any methods necessary to get valuable information from the suspect to forestall another onslaught. Despite the many attempts by civil libertarians to guarantee equal protection for terrorist suspects under the jurisprudence, Baker emphasized that those of have been charged with an act of terrorist act should non be protected under the fundamental law, particularly when they are seeking to destruct the American manner of life ( Baker, 2003 ) . Using a useful position, some people might hold that the authorities should fall back to torment if the result would profit the whole state.
Baker ‘s survey primary end was to find if giving freedoms and civil autonomies would advance national security. In order to pull some illations, Baker conducted a qualitative survey utilizing the instance survey design to supply a better understand of the job at manus. Harmonizing to Leedy and Ormrod ( 2010 ) a instance survey design is appropriate for larning more about a small known or ill understood state of affairs. After analysing extended informations about civil autonomies and freedom, Baker ( 2003 ) concluded the authorities should non be soft on those who are seeking to ache the state, instead they should penalize them badly in order to discourage others from fall ining the cause.
In the contrary, Preston ( 2002 ) disagreed with the construct of anguish persons for the interest of national security. In his survey which examined the first five commissariats of the PATRIOT Act-The Uniting and Strengthening America by Supplying Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, Preston concluded that this Act does more injury than good. Preston farther stated the first five commissariats of the PARTIOT Act has affect fiscal establishments beyond the U.S. boundary lines and the manner that the United States behavior concern minutess with foreign fiscal establishments in assorted ways ( Preston, 2002 ) . In add-on, the PATRIOT Act poses great menace to citizens ‘ civil autonomies and has impacted equality in the state and increased the possibility for the debasement of freedom. Using a content analysis attack, Preston ( 2002 ) collected secondary informations like newspapers, and other relevant paperss and broke them down in smaller direction sections in order to placing form, subjects or prejudices on the behaviour of the authorities when it comes to protecting freedoms and civil rights.
Despite the populace ‘s sentiment about protecting their civil autonomies, the PATRIOT Act has allowed authorities functionaries to prosecute in illegal surveillance, trusting that they will garner valuable information to utilize in their counterterrorism attempts ( Conaway, 2007 ) . In fact, it is has been documented that intelligence bureaus such as the FBI and CIA have abused the powers given to them. For illustration, Conaway ( 2007 ) noted that the FBI and the CIA have operated under the umbrella of the PATRIOT Act even in instances that do non hold anything to make with national security. In add-on, this Act has increased the domestic authorization of the CIA by giving the Director of the CIA a duty to place which Americans to aim for illegal wiretapping and secret hunts ( Cole & A ; Dempsey, 2002 ) . Overall, the PATRIOT Act has expanded the authorities ‘ ability to roll up information under the rubric of look intoing terrorist act which transformed the landscape of the authorities power, and did so in ways that in fact warrant repeat of some of jurisprudence enforcement ‘s worst maltreatments of the yesteryear ( Cole & A ; Dempsey, 2002 ) .
The intent of Preston ‘s survey was to turn out to the public how their rights and the international concern relationship can be impacted by the PATRIOT Act. Although, the PATRIOT Act has changed the manner that authorities bureaus have operated prior to September 2001, it besides has contributed to debasement of freedom in a democracy society. Now, granted that September 2001 has revealed a exposure that the state has ne’er accepted before but it has besides ignited a cardinal argument about the tenseness between autonomy and security and the authorities ‘s ability to protect us within the confines of due procedure, regard for freedoms of address and association and a system of authorities powers subject to cheques and balances ( Cole & A ; Dempsey, 2002 ) . Lustic, Beers and Luttack ( 2009 ) emphasized that it is necessary for the United States to win the war on panic but it should non been done at the disbursal of our freedoms and civil autonomies. Leting the authorities to go against those rights which are supposed to be protected by the fundamental law would underscore the true rules of a free society which are life, autonomy and the chase of felicity ( Cole & A ; Dempsey, 2002 ) .
Preston ‘s survey concluded that a new bureau is needed to be established with a better theoretical account that would advance the protection of civil rights. Besides, Preston proposed that the new bureau should presume the duties of both the FBI and CIA to guarantee that everyone is treated every bit under the jurisprudence except in utmost instances of terrorist act ( Preston, 2002 ) . Nevertheless, leting a new bureau to replace the function of those foresaid bureaus would make confusion in the head of many Americans which may greatly impact our counterterrorism attempts because many citizens may lose religion in the system and halt sharing information with their local bureaus about leery activities in their vicinity ( Martin, 2008 ) . Citizens are the anchor of the war on panic, they frequently provide valuable information to local constabulary bureaus which so frontward to the intelligence community to be analyzed and used in our counterterrorism attempts ( Martin, 2008 ) . Overall, Preston ‘s survey has attempted to supply an alternate method that can be used to get the intelligence necessary to win the war on panic without restricting civil autonomies and freedoms ( Preston, 2002 ) .
Scahill ‘s ( 2006 ) survey explored an effectual attack to win the war on panic without compromising civil autonomies. In order to underscore such method, Scahill investigated the nature of modern terrorist act, how their methods of operations have changed. For case, modern terrorist groups seek to enroll persons who are already populating in the United States to transport out their onslaught because of the security beds that have been installed in the air power industry ( Scahill, 2006 ) . Terrorists are utilizing new agencies to besiege security steps established by our authorities. Scahill besides pointed out that our authorities needs to look at terrorist act at a different paradigm wholly because triumph will non go on as a individual shaping minute ( Scahill, 2006 ) . The United States is non contending against a individual group, a political government and merely spiritual fiends, alternatively our enemies are much greater than the public can conceive of. The state is contending against a web of persons who seek to impact a clearly different political behavior through assorted agencies of force and threatened force ( Scahill, 2006 ) .
Scahill farther stated that the United States need to utilize different schemes such as soft and difficult power to alter the political orientation of people in states that birth terrorist groups. Soft power is chiefly being present when the other state needs our aid. By making so, citizens may get down developing a different mentality of America so they will be less likely to “ seize with teeth the custodies that fed them ” . Besides, difficult power is utilizing military power to supply aid to a state that needs military aid ( Chertoff, 2011 ) . For illustration, the United States sent their military personnels to Afghanistan to throw out the Taliban out of the state and helped put up their ain military forces ( Chertoff, 2011 ) . Heymann ( 2002 ) stated that the U.S. must seek to better our security against major terrorist onslaughts by tilting about a terrorist ‘s web program before its executing, thwarting their attempts and denying them entree in our states and impede their attempts to increase their support which is indispensable to their operations ( Heymann, 2002 ) .
In his qualitative survey, utilizing secondary informations about the PATRIOT Act, the Domestic Security Enhancement Act ( DSEA ) , Scahill ( 2006 ) underlined three-pronged onslaught on civil autonomies by the authorities in this war on panic. Scahill Underlined that DSEA would be more effectual than the PATRIOT Act because its commissariats geared to restrict the power of the authorities on civil autonomies and at the same clip would better our counterterrorism attempts to spread menace of terrorist act. DSEA understands that terrorists can strike at any clip ; topographic point and such menace will non be ceased in the close hereafter. The state ‘s best shooting at winning this thing is to alter its modus of operandi by changing the political orientation of those who seek to destruct America. Scahill concluded that since terrorists are either politically, economically or spiritual motivated, our state should seek to promote them through peaceable dissent as an effort to alter their extremism political orientation ( Scahill, 2006 ) .
In his Study, Davis ( 2002 ) discussed the dark side of the PATRIOT Act and counterterrorism ‘s possible menace to spiritual freedom. The intent of his survey was to underscore that some of the commissariats of the PATRIOT Act can great impact the manner that people worship or express themselves in this great state we call America. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States protects the right to freedom to religion and look, nevertheless, the PATRIOT Act placed certain limitations on what an person can state. In fact, a individual can be prosecuted for showing his positions which violates the democratic rights of the freedom of political look. This Act has besides abuses the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by leting authorities functionaries to obtain private information without set uping likely cause which is the demand to obtain a warrant ( Cole & A ; De, psey, 2002 ) . Furthermore, the PATRIOT Act allows the authorities to hedge the protections set Forth by the fundamental law whenever it states that its probe besides has a important foreign intelligence intent ( Cole & A ; Dempsey, 2002 ) .
The PATRIOT Act has besides affected the in-migration processs in the state to the point that the authorities can deny entry to aliens for “ pure address ” even though it does undermine U.S. attempts to battle terrorist act ( Cole & A ; Dempsey, 2002 ) . Using a phenomenological attack, Davis analyzed informations which he gathered through the interviews of several participants in order to supply an apprehension of the public perceptual experiences about allowing the authorities to go against their civil autonomies when there is no warrant that national security would be improved. Davis at last concluded that the PATRIOT Act should be revised in a manner that freedoms and civil autonomies would be protected. Davis highlighted that “ equal watchfulness is required to protect the philosophical foundations of what many consider to be, if measured by its committedness to autonomy, the greatest state in human history ” ( Davis, 2002, p.17 ) .
Supporters of the PATRIOT Act have disagreed with the thought that the Act cause more injury than good. In fact, in his survey which explored the advantages of the PATRIOT Act, Gould ( 2010 ) underlined that the PATRIOT Act has established the Homeland Security Information Sharing Act to advance the sharing of information between intelligence bureaus and jurisprudence enforcement bureaus and to extinguish the sod issues embedded in big bureaucratisms, such as the sod that existed between the FBI and CIA which was a major subscriber to the intelligence failure of 9/11. Gould besides described the primary end of the Security Information Sharing Act is to “ seek to equilibrate and accommodate the demands of State and local forces to hold entree to seasonably and relevant fatherland security information to battle terrorist act with the demand to protect and safeguard both classified and sensitive but unclassified information ” ( Gould, 2010, p. 76 ) . However, late there have been many concerns about obtaining the proper clearance to entree information. For case, at the local degree merely a few sheriffs and constabularies heads receive entree to the intelligence databases and they merely have read-only entree which makes it harder to go through relevant information to the intelligence community ( Gould, 2010 ) . Another concern is one time information is disseminated to the lower degree of authorities ; the Constitution compels the province and local authorities to uncover the beginnings for their information for any instance that they wish to prosecute ( Gould, 2010 ) .Having the right information at the right clip enable politicians to do informed determinations about national security issues and the state ‘s public assistance would non be compromised.
Gould ( 2010 ) overall concluded that the PATRIOT Act has created a clear way that the authorities needed to forestall another onslaught as September 2001. This Act has besides allowed drastic governmental alterations to take topographic point to do the state safer in the hereafter. Nevertheless, Preston ( 2002 ) disagreed with the unconventional methods and proposed that the authorities must concentrate on the roots of terrorist act and at the same clip retain the rules of freedom upon which the state was founded.
The PATRIOT Act which was established as an attack to advance national security has been criticized as a failed policy that caused more injury than good. Those who opposed the Act believed that it trampled on the First, Fourth and Fourteen Amendments of the fundamental law by leting authorities functionaries to transport out probes without any inadvertence of the authorities. Furthermore, those citizens believed that the PATRIOT Act should be reenacted to guarantee the protection of civil autonomies and the authorities should use alternate attacks such as the soft and difficult power attack to alter the extremism political orientation in order to win the war on panic. However, those who support the Act felt that it is an effectual policy to contend the war on panic and they justified their logical thinking by indicated that life is more of import than civil rights.