The Patriot Act Controversy

As citizens of the United States, we hold pride in the many liberties and freedoms that we share. We depend on the government to protect us from anything that harms these values and look to them to provide citizens with healthy and safe lifestyles. When devastating, tragic incidents like September 11, 2001 occur, do we expect government to provide solutions in better protection and security over our lives or to leave us to fend for ourselves? Several controversies have risen over the Patriot Act that came into law soon after the effects of September 11th to watch over America and keep them free from terrorist activities that may put it?s people in danger. Some argue that the Patriot Act strips citizens of their civil liberties that we hold so dear, but is it necessary if we want the government to be able to protect us efficiently and quickly to provide the secure nation that we strive for, or is it a malicious act on the morality of our nation? It is clear that the American Government was looking into the best interest of our people but many critics question if this act was worth confiscating the rights we were entitled and promised.
Evidently America?s government is very much a necessity to the success of our country as it guides and creates sufficient operations in building a better environment for people to live. The protection of its citizens is without a doubt a top priority but others such as former presidential candidate Ron Paul believe that our country?s leaders ?cannot resist the temptation to spy on their citizens when it suits government purposes? (Paul 1). The U.S. Constitution protects the rights of citizens and should not be allowed to be meddled with in any way by the federal government, but many false evaluators of the Patriot Act tend to not understand that ?the Patriot Act does not allow federal law enforcement free and unchecked access to libraries, bookstores or other businesses? and ?it provided for only modest, incremental changes in the law? (Ryan 1). People commonly seem to feel as if their civil liberties are at stake because of the Patriot Act, but this is a large misconception because this act in reality only modernizes and brings our laws we?ve known for so long up to date with current technology. Numerous misleading information sources cause many critics of this policy to be convinced that agents in the past gained approval in investigations by ?requiring evidence? and now through the act are allowed rights to investigate by ?merely stating a personal belief? (Sanders 1). This sounds like a major leap in our freedoms from interference but ?Section 219 preserved all of the pre-existing standards? in the original laws and investigators still must be able to provide ?probable cause? in criminal activity in order to obtain a warrant for analysis (Stevens 1). Countless individuals tend to recognize the Patriot Act as a rash and careless solution to the attacks of September 11th. Though it may seem the decision were made to bring forth this act immediately after such an act of terrorism, most citizens don?t realize that ?many of the provisions of the Act relating to electronic surveillance were proposed before September 11th? (EPIC 1).