Mom says Patriot Act stripped son of due process, dated April 29, 2009 Research Paper

Mom says Patriot Act stripped son of due process, dated April 29, 2009 - Research Paper Example Admittedly, there are various powers given to the Federal agents under the Patriot Act. Firstly, they have the right to conduct surveillance and searches even without any probable cause to suspect criminal activity. Moreover, it is allowed to conduct searches without giving prior notice. Another serious issue is that after conducting electronic search or wiretapping, it is possible for the federal agents to secretly arrest a person and divulge no information to the family. Moreover, as McNeill (2011) points out, the Act allows federal agents to keep the matter away from media and attorney for as long as charges are not brought. That means a person who is suspected of terrorist activity may lose all the rights as a citizen. Evidently, the case is interpreted to be Patriot Act case because of the nature of the case. First of all, it was a bomb threat and the medium was internet calls. It is the Patriot Act that gave federal agents the right to search electronic communication, and arres t and retain people without disclosing the matter. In the case of Ashton Lundeby, the federal agents allegedly gave no information to the family or media. Moreover, there was no legal representation allowed. Thus, the case is interpreted as a Patriot Act case. ... For example, if the situation involves a bomb threat by a student against a school, the case is supposed to be deferred to the State or local authorities. Furthermore, it is pointed out that investigations as provided under Section 844(e) do not need to be initiated if a pattern or plan for the offense does not exist. Thus, it becomes evident that the case does not need to be treated under Patriot Act. Evidently, any law like the Patriot Act will have a very negative impact on the quality of civil rights in a nation like America. This is so because the Patriot Act has provided the federal agents the right to look into the private lives of people and listen to everything they communicate. Moreover, it is seen that instead of addressing real terrorism, this new step has touched every sphere of life and protest, and affected areas like freedom of association, freedom of information, freedom of speech, right to legal representation, freedom from unreasonable searches, right to a public t rial, and right to liberty. However, the problem with the new step, according to SNR Denton report (n.d.), is that the government has not so far proved that these initiatives are useful in preventing terrorism. Admittedly, it is not possible to counter terrorism without introducing stringent laws. Secondly, though the search by federal agencies intrude privacy, it is better to have ones privacy taken away by the government than by terrorists. Moreover, as Brawley and Perekrestov (n.d.) argue, only those who communicate something illegal need to fear the close monitoring by federal agencies. For others, it offers added sense of security and belonging. However, the present problem with the