The situation has become so large that not far from the capital of Kabul are endless fields of poppy (the plant used to make heroine). (Rubin, 2006) This is problematic because the large amounts of profits that are being made from the crops; are being used to buy influence within the Afghan government
"Critics say that investigators should have to explain why information is being shared, and that only information related to terrorism or espionage should be released. They warn that unrestricted sharing could lead to the development of massive databases about innocent citizens" (Abramson & Godoy, 2066)
Even though it is not without safeguards, critics challenge some of its provisions go too far. Although it allows a lot of the enhancements sought by the Department of Justice, others are worried that it does not go far enough (Doyle, 2002)
The Rule of Law on the Local Level The rule of law is a legal maxim. It has to do with applying legal principles that are already known in an effort to create and manage decisions made by the government (Craig, 1997; Goldsworthy, 2001)
That was good news for a country that was trying to get back on track and trying to recover from a devastating blow that they would never have expected. Affecting Social Change One of the things that the Patriot Act has done is bring about some changes in society (Donnelly, 2002; Giddens, 2006)
The discussion on this is ongoing. Everything that is part of the rule of law filters down from the federal level, all the way down to the local level (Goldsworthy, 2001)
did not think about terrorism at all. They did not have any reason to feel threatened by outside influences, and they felt safe in their own country (Haralambos & Holborn, 2004)
In the United States, the President and members of Congress, as well as all of the Supreme Court Justices, take a pledge to uphold the U.S. Constitution before anything else (Lieberman, 2005; Tamanaha, 2004)
This is true at the federal level, and trickles down all the way to state, county, and city officers who patrol the streets each day. The Patriot Act has raised the suspicion level of many people in the United States, and law enforcement officers are not an exception to that (Tamanaha, 2004)
The Patriot Act Overall, the Patriot Act is a relatively new development. President Bush signed it into law in 2001 after the terrorist attack wreaked so much havoc on the nation and caused so much fear to the American people (Wong, 2006)
All of these are examples of constitutional violations, critics contend, given that Americans are given the right to free speech under the First Amendment, the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, and the right to confront their accusers under the Fifth Amendment. As well as to conduct surveillance of a suspect's home, under the Act the government acquired sweeping powers to acquire personal data from "car rental companies, casinos, Internet hosts like Google, social networking sites like Facebook, and most likely cafes and businesses that offer Wi-Fi access to their customers" (Rose 2011)
News reporters and other members of the media have been prevented from attending proceedings in court which leads to a worry that the conduct at these proceedings are not above board. There have been cases where reporters and their associated newspapers have been prosecuted by the government for thinks like "featuring a link to Osama bin Laden's latest taped statement in connection with a story about the statement" on the basis that they are spreading the message of the enemy (Baker 2005,-page 145)
government that 9/11 happened in part because they did not have the ability to identify who were threats to the safety of the citizens. To prevent any similar events in the future, the Department of Homeland Security was created with the specific goal of identifying and eliminating threats, often at the expense of civil rights (MacDonald 2003)
This is legal according to the Patriot Act which allows for both detaining and deporting immigrants without habeas corpus (de Londras 2011). "It states that an alien is deportable for contributing funds or material support to a terrorist organization -- or for contributing to any non-designated terrorist organization, if the alien knows or reasonably should have known that the funds or material support will further terrorist activity" (Ramasastry 2001)
Included amongst these was the Patriot Act which has become the center of debate by parties who are either in favor of or against the legislation. There are many provisions to this act and the ones that are most debated include: reducing certain limits on law enforcement, giving additional powers to the Secretary of the Treasury, and giving law enforcement the ability to arrest, detain, or deport any immigrants who are suspected of involvement with terrorism (Schulhofer 2005)
Patriot Act Ecdriesbaugh Patriot Act Many of the privacy issues driven by the "war against terror" can be directly linked to the Patriot Act. Title II of the Patriot Act, "Enhanced Surveillance Procedures," increased the government's authority to seize oral, wires, and electronic exchanges; to engage in pen register and trap and trace searches; to be granted access to certain business, library, and medical records; to use a single search warrant for nation-wide searches; to utilize subpoenas for electronic communications; to search records and not notify the owners; to limit the legal responsibility of persons who divulge private records to the government (a direct infringement of privacy laws); and to authorize information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence-gathering organizations (Baker, 2004)
The sunset clause would automatically terminate some of the government's surveillance authority on or by a specific date. At this point, legislators could scrutinize how well these tools had worked, and how appropriately government officials had applied the laws (Epic, 2005)
The most notable difference between conventional wiretap authority and the new FISA-based authority is that, in the past, it was mandatory that law enforcement agents determine whether the subject of a wiretap was in fact utilizing the device to be tapped. Section 206 does not include this requirement, which suggests that it may be possible for a government agency performing an investigation to ask for consent to tap all payphones within a specific geographic location if suspected terrorists happened to hang about that vicinity (Soma, Nichols, Rynerson, Maish, and Rogers, 2005)
Some argue that the Act unjustly amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by permitting the issuance of search warrants and wiretaps without probable cause of illegal activity. They speculate that such amendments will result in the government using the less restraining FISA standard to obtain criminal evidence government agencies could not otherwise collect under a "probable cause" criterion (Thornburgh, 2005)
And so, many civil rights enjoyed by citizens were put under much more scrutiny with the promise that greater restrictions meant greater safety levels. For example, the act allowed law enforcement agencies of both federal and state agencies to have greater power in recording telephone and email conversations (Lithwick 2003)