The PATRIOT Act was framed swiftly and passed within 45 days to serve as an anti-terrorism legislation in wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, in the name of national security. The complex Act was subject to almost no Congressional deliberation or debate and was promulgated by the then President George Washington Bush on 26 October, 2001. This Act was designed to extend law enforcement's supervision and surveillance and investigative powers. The provisions of the Patriot Act also are some of the most significant threats and breaches to civil liberties, privacy, and democratic traditions which have been embodied in the US history and Constitution.1 The Patriot Act, although framed to protect the American citizens from terrorism, has been criticized for a number of reasons and rightly so. Certain provisions of the Act stand contrary to the
…show more content…
This provision can be seen as an erosion of the Sixth Amendment which includes the rights to due process of court and trial by a jury. The Sixth Amendment states that the person accused is entitled to “the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed” and also have the right to “be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense”.2
At this point, the Act and the constitution are in conflict. This provision of the law can be wrongly used against non-terrorist criminals. In fact, there have been reports that homeless people from train stations have been removed citing this Act and drug rings and financial data collection on random visitors to Las Vegas are being facilitated by this.
This provision can be seen as an erosion of the Sixth Amendment which includes the rights to due process of court and trial by a jury. The Sixth Amendment states that the person accused is entitled to “the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed” and also have the right to “be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense”.2
At this point, the Act and the constitution are in conflict. This provision of the law can be wrongly used against non-terrorist criminals. In fact, there have been reports that homeless people from train stations have been removed citing this Act and drug rings and financial data collection on random visitors to Las Vegas are being facilitated by this.