The Patriot Act: Purposes, Controversies, And Recommendations

Threats of Terrorism: Problems and Promises in Subordinate States

Controversies and Criticisms

Discuss about the Threats of Terrorism for Problems and Promises in Subordinate States.

The Patriot Act has been passed by the Congress for the purpose to showing response towards the terrorist attacks which took place on 11^th September, 2001. From the very beginning, the objective of the Act was to strengthen the nature of the domestic security and at the same time widen the powers of the agencies of law enforcement in order to reduce the acts of terrorism (“Introduction to Security (8th Edition), 2008). It is evident that, the Act has been allowing the officials of federal government greater authority in tracking and intercepting communications as well. As a result of this, the Secretary of the Treasury has been entrusted with regulatory powers in order to combat corruptions of the financial institutions of US involved in the process of money laundering (Sheppard, 2008).  In this regard, it is important to categorize the purposes of the Patriot Act for the purpose of deterring and reducing terrorism in the United States and all around the world. The purposes of the Patriot Act can be summarized as-

1. Strengthening measures on the part of U.S for the purpose of preventing, detecting and at the same time prosecuting the processes of international money laundering and financial terrorism.
2. To involve in the process of special scrutiny foreign jurisdictions, financial institutions of foreign countries and certain classes of international transactions and accounting types that are susceptible to various criminal abuses.

• To investigate in detail the relevant and underlying elements of the financial service industry for the purpose of reporting potential money laundering.

1. Strengthening measures for the purpose of preventing the utilization of the U.S. financial system in order to gain personal interest by corrupting the foreign officials. In regard to this, it has facilitated the reimbursement of the stolen assets to the citizens of the country to whom the assets actually belonged.

In spite of several attempts on the part of the Patriot Act, it faced various criticisms. Firstly, the Act was declared to be unconstitutional and unethical by many critics. As a result of it, the implementations on the part of the federal government did not receive assistance from the major cities (Halibozek, Jones & Kovacich, 2018). Secondly, criticism was faced regarding the fact that, the power of the executive was unfairly expanded by the Act which in turn has created discrepancies in the process of crucial checks and balances (Theissen & Phil, 2017).  Thirdly, the most vital criticism faced by the Patriot Act was in regard to the provisions of Section 215 of the Act. The right to privacy and freedom as a result of unreasonable investigation and seizures caused infringement. This is due to the reason that most of the seizures were conducted without notification. Fourthly, the Act faced major criticism in regard to the presence of controversial provisions concerning electronic surveillance of the individuals threatening the natural security of the country to the large extent (Halibozek, Jones & Kovacich, 2018). However, it is noteworthy to mention here that, such practice was not initiated by the Act because surveillance methods and practices have been established by the Foreign Surveillance Act (FISA).

Georgetown National Security Critical Issue Task Force’s Recommendations

  The validity of the abovementioned criticisms can be measured in this regard. It is worthwhile to refer here that, the Patriot Act from the very beginning emphasized on the investigation of potential terrorists other than spying upon the innocent people of America (Welch, 2015). However, the nature of the Patriot Act was such that it never paid attention on reducing the activities of potential terrorists (FEMA.gov”, 2018). It is worth noting that, the controversial provisions depicted in the Act were considered to be the same expansions of the law enforcement authorities which has been sought by the officials of the State and the federal government after the Waco siege and the Oklahoma City (Howard et al., 2016). In this context, arguments can be raised on the part that from the very beginning most of the Democratic and Republican critics were of the opinion that, the nature of the surveillance powers of the Act was such that it could be utilized for the investigation of other political offences rather than that the activities of terrorism (Ombres, 2015). It is evident that the criticisms made in regard to the Patriot Act can be easily addressed by the amendments that created limitations to the extraordinary surveillance powers of terrorism rather than emphasizing upon the criminal investigations (Griffith, 2015). The criticisms in regard to the provisions of Section 215 of the Act have been considered to be most valid because it has permitted the government to seize any tangible object without warrant.

It is evident that the Georgetown National Security Critical Issue Task Force (NSCITF) has undertaken a study on the Lone Wolf Terrorism in the United States. In regard to this, the valuable findings and the recommendations, it is important emphasize on the part that, whether the nature of the recommendations are such that it would efficiently address the threat to the Lone Wolf Terrorism (Wilner, 2017). It is worthwhile to mention here that, the (NSCITF) has articulated eight findings for the purpose of informing the collective understanding of the Lone Wolf Terrorism. The findings can be categorized below-

1. It was found by the (NSCITF) that there is no single definition in relation to the U.S Government regarding the existence of the Lone Wolf Terrorism.
2. The (NSCITF) has identified four major trends of domestic LWT attacks that have been highlighting multiple issues considered by the policy makers of US. Firstly, it has increased the targets of law enforcement and military personnel. It has identified the increasing use of firearms for the purpose of conducting attacks. In this context, it has increased radicalization with the help of the internet extremist media.
3. In spite of the existence of overarching trends, the (NSCITF) has determined that, the nature of the profiling is such that it failed to target the potentiality of the LWT.
4. In regard to the fourth finding, the (NSCITF) has provided a structural framework for the purpose of understanding that how an individual transforms into a LWT in order to identify the possible points of intervention.
5. In the fifth finding, a typology has been developed by the (NSCITF) for the purpose of organizing lone wolves in regard to the nature of their ideological autonomy and the presence of social competence.
6. The (NSCITF) has identified the major challenges of utilizing traditional law enforcement tactics for the purpose of identifying and limiting the powers of the LWTs. In such finding, the (NSCITF) has highlighted the expansion of the internet and other social media that has created an ability on the part of the individuals to become fully radicalized without physical interaction with the others.
7. In the seventh finding, the (NSCITF) has demonstrated upon the enforcement of law tactics that includes- surveillance, monitoring of targeted individuals and mistrust on risk communities as a result of infringement on the civil and private rights.
8. In the eighth finding, it has been noted by the (NSCITF) that the US lacked the comprehensive approach in real has been systematically organizing the efforts on the part of the federal, local and the state governments for the purpose of combating Lone Wolf Terrorism.

It is noteworthy to mention here that, various recommendations were made in the research conducted by the (NSCITF) which has rightly addressed the threat of the Lone Wolf Terrorism. These recommendations can be categorized as-

• There is no standard definition of the lone wolf terrorism which needs to be adopted by the US Government.
• Appointment should be made on clear leadership over the issues regarding Lone Wolf Terrorism for the purpose of addressing the nature of future policy responses and thereby improving the coordination of the government authorities in federal, state and local spheres.
• Finally, it is important on the part of the US government to initiate the prevention the preventions and the short-coming of the process of radicalization.

It is worth noting that the natures of the recommendations are such that it would prove to be beneficial for the USG in streamlining the responses of future policy. In this regard, these recommendations can improve the coordination of the government at federal, state and local level for the purpose of preventing future attacks on LWT (McCauley & Moskalenko,  2014). It can be observed that, since time immemorial, from the beginning of the rise of the Lone Wolf Terrorism, it has introduced new challenges towards the enforcement of law and the efforts regarding counter terrorism. Mention can be made of the part that, the issues regarding lone wolf terrorism is not a new threat; the nature of the threat is such that it is old and re-emerging (Moskalenko & McCauley, 2017). It is known to all that the activities of the Lone Wolf Terrorist is such that it has made it difficult for the authorities to detect and at the same time prevent the attributes on the part of Lone Wolf Terrorists and as a result of this, it made counterterrorism and intelligence gathering much more difficult.

References:

FEMA 452 – Risk Assessment: A How-To Guide to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings | FEMA.gov. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/fema-452-risk-assessment-how-guide-mitigate-potential-terrorist-attacks-against-buildings.

Griffith, I. L. (2015). The Quest for Security in the Caribbean: Problems and Promises in Subordinate States: Problems and Promises in Subordinate States. Routledge.

Halibozek, Jones, Kovacich, E. (2018). The Corporate Security Professional’s Handbook on Terrorism – 1st Edition. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/books/the-corporate-security-professionals-handbook-on-terrorism/halibozek/978-0-7506-8257-2.

Howard, P. N., Shorey, S., Woolley, S. C., & Guo, M. (2016). Creativity and critique: Gap analysis of support for critical research on big data.

Introduction to Security (8th Edition). (2008). Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Security-Eighth-Robert-Fischer/dp/0750684321.

McCauley, C., & Moskalenko, S. (2014). Toward a profile of lone wolf terrorists: What moves an individual from radical opinion to radical action. Terrorism and Political Violence, 26(1), 69-85.

Moskalenko, S., & McCauley, C. (2017). Toward a Profile of Lone Wolf Terrorists: What Moves an Individual From Radical Opinion to Radical Action. In Lone Wolf and Autonomous Cell Terrorism (pp. 79-95). Routledge.

Ombres, D. (2015). NSA Domestic Surveillance from the Patriot Act to the Freedom Act: The Underlying History, Constitutional Basis, and the Efforts at Reform. Seton Hall Legis. J., 39, 27.

Sheppard, B. (2008). The psychology of strategic terrorism: Public and government responses to attack. Routledge.

Theissen, M. N., & Phil, M. (2017). The PATRIOT Act–A closer look on Sec. 213 and Sec. 215. GSTF Journal of Law and Social Sciences (JLSS), 1(2).

Welch, K. (2015). The Patriot Act and Crisis Legislation: The Unintended Consequences of Disaster Lawmaking. Cap. UL Rev., 43, 481.

Wilner, A. (2017). Cyber deterrence and critical-infrastructure protection: Expectation, application, and limitation. Comparative Strategy, 36(4), 309-318.