2 of 16

Write now Article Tools

Page 3 of 3

Post on Friday, March 23, 2007 exposes the illegality of obtaining information about a client from business organization. In the piece, the writer reportedly received a national security letter requesting for information about his client, in which he was directed not to disclose that the FBI was seeking the information. To him, the secrecy associated with the FBI's action is dangerous and unwarranted for America's democracy, and hope that the legislative arm of government will consider it as such.

Prominent critics of Patriot Act include the American Civil Liberties Union. In a newsletter released on February 14, 2003, the organization alerted the public about the Department of Justice's drafting of a comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation, and enumerated potential problems associated with the Patriot Act. Among these are the possibility of government bypassing the existing procedures in crime investigation, and conducting wiretaps and searches without a warrant. Ordinary people in America have spoken vehemently against sections in the Patriot Act they consider as a violation of their fundamental rights and privileges. They argue that, even for the Justice Department to have refused disclosing the most basic information about detainees in respect of what they are being detained for, and where they are held amounts to an abuse of power by the Executive branch of government.

The American media also represent a formidable opposition to the Patriot Act. In a piece written by David Corn and published in The Nation of September 22, 2005, it was reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) sought for the issuance of administrative subpoenas to enable it acquire the power greater than that provided by both the national security letters and the controversial section 215 of the Patriot Act, especially since a federal court had earlier declared the national security letters unconstitutional. According to Corn, in the military tribunals, the "defendants have no right to a public trial, no right to trial by jury, no right to confront the evidence or to object to illegally obtained evidence and no right to appeal to an independent court." Critics are of the view that, since there are many existing criminal tools, the FBI can use them in the investigation on suspected terrorists as oppose to acquisition of a new piece of legislation. In this regard, undaunted opposition to controversial sections of the Patriot Act had continued to grow in leaps and bound. Another writer on the stable of The Nation, David Cole summarizes his criticism of Patriot Act in his view which I think most Americans share. "For one thing, we are afraid, and in times of fear we crave security above all. For another, in the face of an attack we naturally and properly seek to stick together, to show a united front. But in times of fear and crisis we also panic. And panic causes us to abandon our principles."

References
www.aclu .org/safefree/general/172031eg 20030214.html
www.answers.com/t opic/partiot-act
www.thenation. com/docprint.mthml?i=20051010& s=corn
www.washingtonpost.com/w p-dyn/content/aricle/2007/03/2 2/AR2007

Learn more about this author, Femi Sobowale.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3

Add your voice

Know something about The Patriot Act: Invasion of privacy?
We want to hear your view. Write now!