Comment by Alison A. Bradley
On September 11, 2001, the world watched a complex terrorist operation unfold when four commercial airplanes were hijacked and used as crude weapons, destroying the World Trade Center and a portion of the Pentagon. From military strikes and worldwide economic downturn, to anthrax scares in the mail and an incredible outpouring of charity, the world as we knew it on September 10th no longer exists. Indeed, it has already become cliché to say that September 11th changed everything. However, beyond the transformations evident in our private and professional lives lie other less obvious alterations, the implications of which can only be imagined. One of these troubling changes includes legislation extensively expanding the powers of federal agents to conduct counterintelligence within the borders of the United States.
Less than six weeks after the terrorist attacks, The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (better known by its handy acronym, the USA PATRIOT ACT) was endorsed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The USA PATRIOT ACT is a sweeping piece of legislation making changes to more than fifteen different statutes with massive potential implications for the protection of civil liberties. Attitudes toward increased surveillance and the protection of rights have naturally changed in the wake of the September 11th disaster; however, there is some concern that this law strikes a tremendous and unnecessary blow against the civil liberties of Americans and that the checks and balances that previously tempered the use of investigative powers have been eliminated by the USA PATRIOT ACT. Many go so far as to accuse the government of using the current political power of public perception of the need for increased security to expand investigative powers not even aimed at detecting terrorists. These views illustrate the tenuous balance between the guarantee of personal freedom and the protection of national security.
Controversy concerning this delicate balance is not new. There has always been a certain tension in the United States between the protection afforded our individual rights and privacy under a democratic system and the duty of government to protect its citizens and enforce its laws. President Carter, whose administration played a critical role in the eventual enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), recognized this tension, stating that “one of the most difficult tasks in a free society like our own is the correlation between adequate intelligence to guarantee our nation's security on the one hand, and the preservation of basic human rights on the other.” The use of electronic surveillance in the name of domestic security and law enforcement in this country has a short but rocky history.
About the Author
Alison A. Bradley. J.D. candidate 2003, Tulane Law School; B.S. 1999, Texas A & M University at College Station.
Citation
77 Tul. L. Rev. 465 (2002)