Patriot Act: protection against terror
Editor:
A loud majority of Americans, including some groups on campus and some professors, have a problem with the Patriot Act because they believe that it infringes on civil rights. They rally behind the now clich? quote of Benjamin Franklin: “They who can give up their essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Let us analyze the Patriot Act and some common complaints against it.
The Patriot Act was passed overwhelmingly by both the Senate and the House and had huge bipartisan support. The vote was 98-1 in the Senate and 357-66 in the House of Representatives. The Patriot Act had four major goals. The first goal was to give investigators tools combat terrorism that were already available for other crimes, such as the roaming wire tap and other forms of electronic surveillance. The second goal was to facilitate better communications between agencies investigation terrorism. The third was to update statutes against terrorists to reveled threats from newer technologies. The fourth was to increase penalties against those convicted of terrorist-related crimes.
The Patriot Act has also increased money and manpower to help fight the war on terror. Since the passing of the Patriot Act, there has been nearly three-fold increase in counter-terrorism funds, approximately one thousand redirected FBI agents dedicated to counter-terrorism and counterintelligence and a 337 percent increase in Joint Terrorism Task Force staffing.
Opponents of the Patriot Act claim that abuses of civil liberties are widespread; however, a Fox News/Dynamic Opinion poll only four percent of Americans said they, or someone they knew, has had their civil rights affected by the Patriot Act (the margin of error in the poll was 3 percent.) Opponents also claim that the Patriot Act restricts civil liberties too much while combating terrorism and 22 percent of Americans agree according to a CNN/USA Today poll. However, 21 percent say that the Patriot Act does not go far enough in restricting people’s rights to fight terrorism. No one sums it up better than former Attorney-General Janet Reno, “Generally, everything that’s been done in the Patriot Act has been helpful, I think, while at the same time maintaining the balance with respect to civil liberties.”
While some Americans still complain about how the Patriot Act combats terrorism, our fellow countrymen give their very lives to combat terror. I think that those still opposed to the Patriot Act need to seriously reconsider their position.
Chris Hicks
Communications Director
GC&SU College Republicans
Posted by Colonnade Archives
on Oct 8 2004. Filed under Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
