Student Post # 5

Julio Gonzalez

On the Advent of the PATRIOT Act

            This post addresses the advent and evolution of the U.S. PATRIOT Act, the constitutionality of the legislation, and concerns that have been voiced regarding the legislation. In addition, the essay will offer a brief discussion regarding government abuse and overreach from a Biblical perspective, and conclude with a summary of the ideas and topics discussed throughout.

Evolution of the Act

            With smoke still billowing from the Twin Towers and Pentagon, Democrat and Republican legislative leaders gathered to declare a new-found determination to fight terrorism. As Zegart (2015) suggests, “[t]he moment seemed ripe for a major transformation of the U.S. intelligence agencies” (p. 474). However, she argues, nobody seized the chance to do so. After countless recommendations urging intelligence reform, Congress decided that they needed to study the issue further. In the meantime, the White House spent the weeks after 9/11 touting the USA Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act (Zegart, 2015), which granted the FBI and other agencies a number of authorities that had been rejected in past years. Zegart quotes one congressional staffer as saying “‘[t]he administration wanted to look like they were doing something…but there was no effort connect the contributing factors of 9/11 and what the PATRIOT Act would solve” (p. 474). An FBI official agreed: “‘Everyone wants to do something…It’s human dynamics. Logic and common sense are not part of the formula” (p. 474). And so, the new law sailed through Congress with overwhelming speed and little deliberation (Taylor & Swanson, 2019; Zegart, 2015; American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], 2001). In fact, as Taylor and Swanson (2019) point out, “many members of Congress themselves reported that they themselves had not read the entire act all the way” (270; see also ACLU, 2001). According to Zegart, during the course of the following years, the president and Congress missed multiple opportunities to reform the US Intelligence Community (Zegart, 2015). Instead, the Congress and president created a massive new cabinet department by merging twenty-two agencies into a new Homeland Security Department. Indeed, as Taylor and Swanson point out, it was “the largest reorganization of the federal bureaucracy since the National Security Act of 1947” (p. 300). And what the PATRIOT Act did, was to expand the “traditional tools of surveillance used by law enforcement and intelligence agencies with significantly reduced checks and balances” (Taylor & Swanson, 2019; ACLU, 2001).      

Increased Surveillance and Unchecked Power

            The PATRIOT Act increases the government’s power in several ways. For example, it expands the ability of the government to access personal records held by third parties, allows the government to search private property without notice to the owner, permits what is referred to as  trap and trace searches, and broadens the pen register exception in wiretap law (ACLU, 2001; Department of Justice, n.d.; Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, 2001). These provisions clearly implicate several provisions of constitutional law. For example, allowing the government to conduct searches without notifying the resident or property owner clearly runs afoul of the 4th Amendment’s provision against unreasonable searches. This  sneak and peek power can easily be abused be government agents since the warrants granting such searches generally contain some limit as to what may be searched. By allowing government agents to conduct the search without notice clearly impedes the ability of the property owner to protect his or her property interests (ACLU, 2001). The ability to conduct a search without a warrant if the search is conducted when the significant purpose of the search is intelligence, likewise runs counter to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement (ACLU, 2001). The idea that the government is able to access personal records held by third parties is also troubling. As Takeuchi (2019) points out, under the Act, the government can collect and record any tangible thing such as telephone records on millions of Americans without a warrant (see also Donohue, 2022; Chin, 2021). The ability to do so is difficult to reconcile with 4th Amendment jurisprudence.  

A Biblical Perspective

            The statutory schemes outlined in the PATRIOT Act suffer from what some have referred to as a “dangerous lack of balance” and have taken to calling the provisions cited above as unconstitutional (Morgan, 2013). Some of these alleged civil rights abuses have been acknowledged by the government on several occasions but continue to surface from time to time (ACLU, Morgan, 2013; Taylor & Swanson, 2019). God spoke about the role of government and its responsibility to do good, but cautioned those in government to adhere to righteousness and good governance: “It is an abomination to kings to do evil, for the throne is established by righteousness” ( English Standard Bible, 2001/2023, Proverbs 16:12).   

Conclusion

            This post addressed the advent and evolution of the U.S. PATRIOT Act, the constitutionality of the legislation, and concerns that have been voiced regarding the legislation. It was mentioned that immediately after 9/11 congressional leaders gathered to reform the intelligence community but, eventually settled for a quick fix and enacted the PATRIOT Act. The Act granted the FBI and other agencies a number of authorities and sailed through Congress with little opposition or scrutiny. It was also mentioned that the PATRIOT Act increases the government’s power in several ways and that its provisions clearly implicate several provisions of constitutional law. Examples were provided. In addition, the essay offered a brief discussion on government abuse and overreach from a Biblical perspective.