Where is the balance between civil rights and national security?

While the Patriot Act allows the US government the ability to monitor terrorists, drug cartels, and attacks on US soil, this law should not give government agencies the right to invade US citizens’ privacy. Did this law that was passed, soon after the 9/11 attacks, go too far in the name of national security? Are the seizures, wiretaps, and physical searches that are required to have probable cause sometimes overlooked? In several cases, outlined in this essay, our government has performed unpatriotic acts in the name of “national security” and has repeatedly challenged the very foundation of our constitutional freedoms. Fundamentalist groups and terrorists within them have been around for decades. Our government has the ability to monitor them, both here and abroad, and determine if there will be another threat against our Nation. Where is the balance between civil rights and national security?

On October 26, 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the Patriot Act with an overwhelming majority from Congress. The law was intended, in Bush’s words, to “enhance the penalties that will fall on terrorists or anyone who helps them.” ("George W. Bush Signs The Patriot Act", n.d. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/george-w-bush-signs-the-patriot-act). The bill broadly expanded law enforcements ability to investigate and perform surveillance and altered more than 15 different statues that had been in place since the early 1970’s. This law was enacted in great haste and does not provide a check and balances approach to safeguard the American citizens’ civil liberties.
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects the right of the people to be secure in their own persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure. This includes law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before these rights can be forfeited. This does not protect the US citizens from the right of privacy though.
The Bill of Rights reflects the concern of many patriots that formed the US Constitution to allow the citizens to protect themselves, protect against self-incrimination, and have the freedom of speech. The 14th Amendment forbids states from denying any person life, liberty or property, without due process of law or to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited more genuinely than any other amendment
The Act increased the ability to share information within government agencies and lift restrictions in some fashions. It also gave the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Security Agency (NSA) increased powers to access personnel information on suspects. This Act was to prevent further attacks against terrorists and to protect and secure our borders. It is speculated that the Patriot Act was designed and planned long before the attacks on 9/11. Several presidents had attempted to put similar laws into place as early as the Reagan era, but Congress voted against the law several times.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) was created in 1978. The court was created to approve or deny warrant applications relating to national security. This courts main goal, during the Cold War, was to approve intelligence gathering operations worldwide, in a classified setting. These operations include electronic surveillance, physical searches, electronic device to capture outgoing telephone calls, and trap-and-trace to identify the originating number or other dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information. Some examples of approved orders are drug trafficking, homicide, robbery, and assault.
Since 1979, 34,000 warrants have been issued and only 11 requests have been denied. Since September 11, 2001, as reported by the attorney general, the average number of requests has tripled. In 2013, The Guardian, a London, UK – based newspaper revealed exclusively that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) has and continues to vacuum up millions of Verizon customer details, including information on phone calls both within the U.S. and between the U.S. and other countries. Phone records, text messages, and emails were compromised without the approval of the FISC. This action is still under investigation. This is the broadest surveillance order to have ever been issued since the FISC’s existence. ("Verizon Records Vacuumed Up By NSA under 'Top Secret' Patriot Act Order", June 6, 2013. http://www.zdnet.com/article/verizon-records-vacuumed-up-by-nsa-under-top-secret-patriot-act-order/).

The Patriot Act has many provisions that protect our national security and the US population at the expense of privacy and due process. Some of these processes modify the capacity of law enforcement by utilizing the tools, given by law, to access phone records, internet usage, and other telecommunication technology. Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, states “There is an inescapable tradeoff between security and liberty. Before Sept. 11, 2001, the tradeoff resulted in a series of laws and constitutional norms that people believed adequately balanced these two values.” (Posner, E., Terror in Balance: Security, Liberty and the Courts, 2013 June, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/09/07/do-we-still-need-the-patriot-act/theres-still-a-need-for-the-patriot-act).
As we relinquish some of our security and civil rights, is it proper for our government to heighten surveillance and other measures to ensure the Patriot Act is performing to its potential? The threat of terrorism is real and alive in the United States, and as on terrorist group diminishes another is created. The Patriot Act, at least some portion of it, is designed to protect the safety of our country and the citizens who live within it.
Several government agencies have been putting fear, through the media, into the American public. Since 9/11, there can be no question that we need stronger national security and to be protected from another terrorist attack on American soil. The ability to have a firm intelligence community is essential. Should national security come before civil rights? In 2001, according to Pew Research Center, 55% of Americans felt it was necessary to give up civil liberties. In 2011, that number fell to 40%. Another concern is business corporations being invaded by our government to produce personal information that is not relevant to the intrusions of the American public.

For these reasons, the ability to control crime and seek a balance with other nations to combat terrorism is a must. All antiterrorism investigations should be conducted according to the laws regulated by our Constitution. We need to return to a more traditional understanding of the Constitution to better balance our civil rights and government regulations. It is clear that our intelligence agencies have wanted change for some time, but more restrictions on these carefully crafted, unconstitutional laws against the American citizens must be prohibited. Lastly, let us never forget the 2,977 people who perished on September 11, 2001 and the 6,845 military personnel fatalities fighting against terrorism abroad.

References

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION, Bill of Rights in Action, 2003 http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-19-4-a-the-patriot-act-what-is-the-proper-balance-between-national-security-and-individual-rig

George W. Bush signs the Patriot Act, 2001, http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/george-w-bush-signs-the-patriot-act

Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute, n.d., https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

History of the Federal Judiciary, Federal Judicial Center, n.d., http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/courts_special_fisc.html

Verizon Records Vacuumed Up By NSA under 'Top Secret' Patriot Act Order", June 6, 2013. http://www.zdnet.com/article/verizon-records-vacuumed-up-by-nsa-under-top-secret-patriot-act-order/

Posner, E., Terror in Balance: Security, Liberty and the Courts, 2013 June, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/09/07/do-we-still-need-the-patriot-act/theres-still-a-need-for-the-patriot-act).

The Right of Privacy,The Issue: Does the Constitution protect the right of privacy? If so, what aspects of privacy receive protection?, n.d., http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.htm