This course has been an extraordinarily useful tool for thinking like a political scientist. To think like a political scientist, it is first important to understand political topics from a bipartisan standpoint. Political scientists needs to understand each position of an argument in order to understand the opposing opinion. Then, based on evidence from each side of the argument, a political scientist must pose a responsible and accurate argument, as well as counter points, to the opposing side.
This course has helped me think like a political scientist by helping me understand the different fallacies and political tactics some people pose as political arguments. Chapter one of our text goes into detail explaining the nature of common political fallacies, and why you should not use them to sway the views of others, or fall into being swayed by the use of these fallacies. Chapter one also expresses the importance of posing five educated questions about political decisions. These questions include: How was the decision reached? Who does this decision affect/benefit? Why? (or What is the Evidence?) Of what is this an Example? How does this relate to that? By asking yourself these questions, you hope to educate yourself of the reasoning and logic behind the political decisions that you make.
During this class, my understanding and assumptions about politics were largely reinforced. In Chapter Five, we learned about campaign finance. My assumption was always that candidates that were funded by large corporations were typically the winners of elections. Through a research discussion on campaign finance, I found that my assumptions were true in most scenarios. Another assumption that was confirmed by the assignment was that candidates who were running for reelection were typically the candidates who would win elections.
I think this class has taught me to educate myself not only on the happenings of my own political party, but also on the happenings of the opposing side. Being informed before making political decisions has always been important to me. I have always felt the need to be politically active and to be a responsible voter. I think this class will help me stress the importance of educating yourself before voting to a lot of my peers. I also think that this class has helped me to understand how to structure my arguments and viewpoints in a way that is intelligent, informed, and responsible.
I wanted to submit this assignment to my e-Portfolio because it really made me understand how easily our civil liberties can be breached if we aren’t educated and informed on our decision making process. It shocked me that the Patriot Act was passed only 45 days after 9/11. This was an act that should have been widely and publicly debated before passing, as it is a direct violation of habeas corpus and our fourth amendment rights.
U.S. Congress: Violating your civil liberties since 2001
In the wake of 9/11, Americans saw multiple changes to society. We saw the establishment of the Transportation Security Administration and The Department of Homeland Security. We witnessed the passage of the Patriot Act. We uncovered the secret of the National Security Agency. All of these things were developed by the government in an alleged attempt to combat terrorism. With the development of new laws, new agencies, and government surveillance, both the Executive Branch and Congress have illicitly infringed upon the civil liberties of Americans laid forth by our founding fathers. This infringement has caused the American people to distrust the United States government and to lose faith that the government holds the intention to protect the liberties bestowed to them under the Bill of Rights. The infringement upon the civil liberties of Americans is unjust and unconstitutional.
Terrorism can be defined as international or domestic. The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social ideology.” The fundamental difference between a terrorist and a criminal is the reason for committing the act. Terrorists commit crimes based on an ideological, political, or dogmatic agenda. Hate crimes are often confused with domestic terrorism. Hate crimes are typically directed at a group of people based on personal prejudices, whereas a terrorist act is directed at a group of people for political or social objectives.
In an effort to protect the United States population after the 9/11 attacks, special agencies were developed and new legislation was passed by the Executive Branch. The TSA was established just months later, and the Department of Homeland Security just a year after that. The more concerning change after 9/11 was the passage of the Patriot Act, which was quietly passed only 45 days after the initial terrorist attacks. The Patriot Act, or formally known as United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, was signed into law by George W. Bush on October 26, 2001 (Jo Coghlan, Foreign Policy Journalist). The Patriot Act was perceived by the American people as a law that would increase the United States intelligence regarding terrorist activities that would protect the American people from devastating acts such as the ones committed on September 11, 2001. In a time of sadness, loss, and defeat, the house and senate both supported the extended use of government power.
The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” It has been widely accepted that the Patriot Act violates Americans’ fourth amendment rights by making lawful search and seizure of a person’s self or property without probable cause, a warrant, or without said person being convicted of a crime. The Patriot Act also entitled the FBI to Americans’ education, health, internet, library, cell phone, and consumer records. Not only does The Patriot make Americans’ records transparent to law enforcement, it also allows the surveillance of all Americans by the FBI. The Patriot Act expired as a law in 2015, however many of these regulations are still upheld in the Freedom Act, which passed just months later (American Civil Liberties Union).
By far the most disturbing provision of The Patriot Act is the ability to detain non-U.S. citizens without cause. The Military Commissions Act strips these detainees of habeas corpus, a right that grants them protection from arbitrary detainment that was established by the Parliament of England in 1679 (Amnesty International). Since 2001, over 700 “unlawful enemy combatants” have been held in a United States detention camp called Guantanamo Bay. According to the American’s Civil Liberties Union, of the hundreds of prisoners who passed through the walls of Guantanamo Bay, eighty prisoners remain incarcerated, of these eighty men, twenty-six of them have been cleared for release by the U.S. government but are still being detained. Twenty-eight of the prisoners have not been charged, but are being held indefinitely by the U.S. Federal Government on the grounds of being “too dangerous to be released”. Guantanamo Bay held prisoners from an age range of 13 to 89. The detention center detained a total of 26 children. To this day, nine prisoners have died, three of those deaths are presumed to be the result of torture (American Civil Liberties Union). President Obama released a statement in 2016 announcing that he was putting laying out plans to shut down Guantanamo Bay, saying that the detention center is “contrary to American values”. President Obama announced to America, “It has been clear that the detention center of Guantanamo Bay does not advance our national security.
Not only does Guantanamo Bay not advance our national security, but the Patriot Act can not be proven to have advanced national security at all. According to the NSA, the Patriot Act has saved the United States from “dozens of terrorist attacks”, however, none of this can be proven because all of the evidence surrounding those potential terrorist attacks is confidential. Aside from that fact that the government cannot prove that the Patriot Act or Freedom Act makes America more safe, but these acts are actually being used to prosecute Americans. The Patriot Act allows law enforcement to use what is known as “Sneak and Peek” warrants. These warrants allow law enforcement to spy on American citizens without having a warrant and without their knowledge. In 2013, over 11,000 Sneak and Peek warrants were issued in cases involving drug sales and drug use (Kevin Drum, civil liberties journalist). When the Patriot Act was passed, John Ashcroft said, “Only terrorists need to fear the U.S.A. Patriot Act.” If this is true, why was it being used to prosecute American citizens for petty crime?
The United States Government argues that these new implications for preventing terrorism are just under the Necessary and Proper Clause. This clause states, “The Congress shall have Power … To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” The United States government claims that these new practices and processes are “necessary and proper” to combat terrorism. However, when the practices and procedures aren’t combatting terror, they lose their necessity and therefore should not be considered under this clause.
The NSA, the Patriot Act, and Guantanamo Bay have failed the American people. These three tactics to combat terrorism has done nothing but infringe on the birth rights of those board in America and abroad. These methods to combat terrorism are unjust, cruel, and in the case of Guantanamo Bay, absolutely vile. They are not a reflection of American values or the American people. Under the writ of habeas corpus and the United States Constitution, the NSA, the Patriot Act, and Guantanamo Bay infringe on the rights of the American people, and hundreds of non-American citizens. These methods of prevention are unjust, they are not Necessary and Proper, and they simply do not work.
- The Executive Branch and Congress have created a whole new process of law enforcement with regards to terrorism. What is the difference between terrorism and other forms of crime? How does this new process affect society, citizens, and the country as a whole? What are the predominate methods of preventing terrorism within the country? What, if any, civil liberties do these methods overstep? Are these methods necessary and proper?
Works Cited:
Drum, Kevin “Patriot Act Warrants Used More For Drugs Than Terrorism” MotherJones.com, Mother Jones and the Foundation for National Progress. October 31, 2014 Web. April 20, 2016.
“Guantanamo Bay by the Numbers” ACLU.org, American Civil Liberties Union. 2016. Web. April 25, 2016.
“Habeas Corpus” amnestyusa.org, Amnesty International. N.d. Web. April 25, 2016.
Coghlan, Jo “The Patriot Act: A civil liberties breach or a foreign policy necessity? Foreignpolicyjournal.com, Foreign Policy Journal. June 17, 2001. Web. April 20, 2016