In light of the 9/11 attacks, the US government revamped its interest of expanding its power against terrorism. It was on October 26, 2001 – exactly 43 days after the terrorist attacks – when the Public Law 107-56 or commonly known as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, or simply USA PATRIOT Act, took effect. As controversial as it is, the question now is: will the said Act protect the public or will it bring more harm than protection?
Our basic premise is that USA PATRIOT Act was designed with good intentions, however, due to ordinary human limitations, certain unintended consequences built into its design. The aim of this article is to highlight them and then outline the ways the Act can be improved by reducing if not eliminating these unintended consequences.
While the ‘War on Terror’ initiative is acceptable since the US government is seriously taking the appropriate measures to combat terrorism that threatens national sovereignty and civil liberties per se, there are inadvertent outcomes of the Act. Here’s a comprehensive list of the unintended consequences of the US PATRIOT Act. In general, the Act:
1) Jeopardized constitutional freedoms;
2) Endangered individual rights;
3) Blurred boundaries between domestic and non-domestic law enforcement agencies; and
4) Threatened the freedom of expression.
Specifically, the Act:
1) Alienated domestic Muslim citizens;
2) Reduced confidence in the ‘hawala’ system;
3) Led to unrestricted information sharing about non-US citizens’ identity;
4) Violated privacy of the people who come in close casual contact with a suspected person;
5) Detained suspected individuals and imprisoned them without legal protections;
6) Led to unprecedented examination of public records; and
7) Resulted in the issuance of search warrants surreptitiously and without probable cause which led to unreasonable searches and arrests.
On the other end, the possible remedies to the Act’s unyielding consequences may not be far. The following are recommendations on how these issues can be addressed.
First, there should be more congressional oversight. The Congress has a role in protecting national defense by actively shaping various policies. Thereby, the Congress can protect the people by passing public policies that focus on the people’s welfare. The role of the Congress, however, does not stop here. Instead, the Congress should have a deeper involvement in the delivery of these policies.
Second, there should be more freedom of information request. The Amnesty International, for instance, is keen in publicizing information while also mobilizing public opinion. Information is the lifeblood of the organization. If the information is withheld from public scrutiny, how can the public mold its opinion, and how can Amnesty International release the most crucial information relating to human right issues when its access to information is suspended. There is freedom of information legislation, which forms part of the transparency goal, in approximately 72 countries worldwide. How such legislation is being delivered for public utilization is another issue though.
Third, there should be public petitions and signature campaigns in areas people feel strongly. A petition is a direct, formal request to government officials to require action including amendment of a law or passing a new law depending on the public agenda at hand. A signature campaign, on the other hand, is a process of gathering a specified number of signatures for government official’s attention and then action. Either of the two processes, the goal is to get the message across that the public perceives something as unlawful, unfair, unreasonable or just plain illegal.
Finally, the web space can be utilized as a public bulletin board. The power of the bloggers cannot be underestimated. The most unpretentious bloggers blatantly criticize the government and its [lack of] action. The uncensored nature of blogging makes it an effective avenue to make the government officials know the pulse of the public.
Going back, the Act features sunset provisions which mean that some sections will automatically expire after the pre-determined date (December 31, 2005) unless new, additional legislations extend it. Provisions were, nonetheless, extended until March 10, 2006, and controversies were renewed especially that the Congress is debating whether to make the Act permanent or not. A congressional hearing was conducted on June 10, 2005, and eventually, a compromised bill was passed into law by March 9, 2006. PATRIOT Act II was born, but there remain questions about specific provisions especially those that affect the protection of civil liberties.
Do Things Write 