3.2 The threat of terrorism in the united states: the emotional  (Page 5/5)

PATRIOT is not limited to terrorism. The Government can add samples to DNA databases for individuals convicted of "any crime of violence." Government spying on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) requires no court order. Wiretaps are now allowed for any suspected violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, offering possibilities for Government spying on any computer user.

Foreign and domestic intelligence agencies can more easily spy on Americans. Powers under the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) have been broadened to allow for increased surveillance opportunities. FISA standards are lower than the constitutional standard applied by the courts in regular investigations. PATRIOT partially repeals legislation enacted in the 1970s that prohibited pervasive surveillance of Americans.

PATRIOT eliminates Government accountability. While PATRIOT freely eliminates privacy rights for individual Americans, it creates more secrecy for Government activities; making it extremely difficult to know about actions the Government is taking.

PATRIOT authorizes the use of "sneak and peek" search warrants in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors. A "sneak and peek" warrant authorizes law enforcement officers to enter private premises without the occupant's permission or knowledge and without informing the occupant that such a search was conducted.

Today, the U.S. Department of Justice, with the support of the Bush administration and its supporters, are currently promoting follow-up legislation tiled “Patriot Act II”. This particular Act aims at continuing, and at times, enhancing, the components established by the first Patriot Act. Needles to say, it is the source of much concern to civil rights activists that claim this is a continuation of infringement of the due process and civil rights of American citizens.

Many questions have emerged as a result of the likely continuance of the Patriot Act provisions. Some of these pertain to migration issues relevant to the current campaign to “secure the borders”. Recently, a group of vigilantes have taken it upon themselves to volunteer their time in assisting the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) to identify illegal aliens (mostly from Mexico) crossing the border in states like California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Although these individuals have been labeled by the U.S. government as “vigilantes” and unlawful, it is clear that there is a growing national momentum among certain members of the population to “address the immigration” issue in light of the lingering terrorist threat.

Another issue that has emerged from this particular legislation has to do with racial profiling. That is, a law enforcement official engaging in the identification, detection, and prosecution of an individual based on that person’s racial or ethnic composition as opposed to a criminal act. This is a growing problem in the United States and will likely continue in the near future as images of terrorists are portrayed synonymously with images of Middle Easterners wearing their traditional garments. Sadly, some people have started to project their anger and frustration to all individuals who appear to look Middle Eastern including, in some cases, Hispanic immigrants who can be easily confused for Middle Easterners.

The United States is faced with a challenge to either continue to embrace legislation that may have a deterrent effect on acts of terrorism or to simply abandon this legislation and engage in a more passive crime control strategy. Most experts agree that the former is likely to take place as legislators continue to impress, upon their constituents, the need for a legislative act that allows law enforcement to “continue protecting the United States” against its enemies. Critics, however, disagree. They affirm that the United States is carrying an agenda that aims at substantially reducing the due process rights of individuals while grossly exaggerating the terrorist threat against the United States. Restated, critics argue that the United States, in its enactment of the first Patriot Act and the possible enactment of Patriot Act II, is seeking a crime control model while ignoring, to a large extent, its historical commitment to due process.

References

Clark, Richard. (2004) Against All Enemies. Free Press.

Combs, Cindy C. (2000). Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century. (2 ^nd ed). Prentice Hall.

Del Carmen, Alejandro (2003). Terrorism: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. (2 ^nd edition). Wadsworth Publishing.

Doyle, Charles. CRS Report for Congress. The USA Patriot Act: A Sketch . (April 18, 2002). American Law Division. Congressional Research Service. The Library of Congress.

Electronic Frontier Foundation. The USA Patriot Act. (2005). www.eff.org

Maniscalco, Paul and Christen, Hank (2002). Understanding Terrorism and Managing the Consequences. Prentice Hall Publishing.

Simonsen, Clifford and Spindlove, Jeremy. (2000) Terrorism Today: The Past, The Players, The Future. Prentice Hall.

White, Jonathan R. (2002). Terrorism: An Introduction. (3 ^rd ed.) Wadsworth.

Alejandro del Carmen is a associate professor and chair in the department of Criminology at The University of Texas at Arlington.