Usa Patriot Act Summary Essay Sample

Feb. 14, 2006 -- The USA Patriot Act seems headed for long-term renewal. Key senators have reached a deal with the White House that allays the civil liberties concerns of some critics of the law.

Passed in the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, the law expanded the government's powers in anti-terrorism investigations. Controversial surveillance provisions were set to expire at the end of last year; attempts to re-authorize them long-term were filibustered last December. The compromise reached last week, which has the support of both House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, makes three major changes to the law:

1 - Recipients of court-approved subpoenas for information in terrorism investigations now have the right to challenge a requirement that they refrain from telling anyone. However, recipients must wait a year before challenging the gag order.
2 - The second change concerns recipients of a so-called National Security Letter, which is an administrative subpoena issued by the FBI demanding records. Recipients will no longer be required to tell the FBI the name of any attorney consulted about the letter.
3 - Most libraries -- those that act in traditional roles, such as lending books and providing Internet access -- will not be subject to National Security Letters demanding information about suspected terrorists. However, libraries that act as an Internet Service Provider will still be subject to National Security Letters.

Below, NPR examines the act's most controversial provisions:

Information Sharing

Sections 203(b) and 203(d) of the Patriot Act are at the heart of the effort to break down the "wall" that used to separate criminal and intelligence investigations. The Justice Department has frequently blamed the wall for the failure to find and detain Sept. 11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar prior to the attacks. CIA agents had information that both men were in the United States and were suspected terrorists, but the FBI says it did not receive that information until August 2001.

U.S. officials also blame the wall for the failure to fully investigate Zacarias Moussaoui, who has since pleaded guilty in connection with the Sept. 11 plot. The government says that existing procedures made investigators afraid of sharing information between the intelligence and criminal sides of the probe. Supporters say these provisions have greatly enhanced information sharing within the FBI, and with the intelligence community at large.

Civil libertarians say the failure to share information was largely a result of incompetence and misunderstanding of the law. They say investigators were always allowed to share grand jury information, which is specifically authorized by this section. They warn that the scope of the Patriot Act language is far too broad and encourages unlimited sharing of information, regardless of the need.

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.

« Back to top

Roving Wiretaps

The Justice Department has long complained about restrictions that required separate court authorizations for each device used by the target of an investigation, whether it's a computer terminal, a cell phone or a Blackberry. This provision of the Patriot Act specifically allows "roving wiretaps" against suspected spies and terrorists. The government says it has long had this type of flexibility in criminal cases, and that such authority is needed in dealing with technologically sophisticated terrorists.

Surveillance experts point out, however, that criminal wiretaps must "ascertain" whether the person under investigation is going to be using the device before the tap takes place. Civil liberties groups say the language of the Patriot Act could lead to privacy violations of anyone who comes into casual contact with the suspect. They want Congress to require investigators to specify just which device is going to be tapped, or that the suspect be clearly identified, in order to protect the innocent from unwarranted snooping.

« Back to top

Access to Records

Probably the most hotly debated provision of the law, Section 215 has come to be known as the "libraries provision," even though it never mentions libraries or bookstores. Civil liberties groups attack the breadth of this section -- which allows investigators to obtain "any tangible thing (including books, records, papers, documents and other items)," as long as the records are sought "in connection with" a terror investigation.

Library groups said the law could be used to demand the reading records of patrons. But the government points out that the First Amendment activities of Americans are specifically protected by the law. The Justice Department has released previously classified statistics to show the law has never been used against libraries or bookstores. But the act's critics argue that there's no protection against future abuse.

Civil liberties groups have proposed numerous amendments: special protections for libraries and bookstores; a requirement that investigators explain the reason the records are sought; and an end to the "gag rule" that prohibits people who receive a 215 order from talking about it with anyone. The Justice Department has agreed that recipients can consult with an attorney and is open to an amendment that specifies this right. But the government says the controversy over this provision is an overreaction, and that this section merely expands longstanding access to certain business records.

« Back to top

Foreign Intelligence Wiretaps and Searches

Criminal investigators have a high bar to reach when asking for permission to wiretap or search a suspect's home. The bar is lower in counterterror or counterintelligence probes, where investigators must only prove the suspect is an "agent of a foreign power." Previously, investigators had to show that the "primary purpose" of the order was to gather foreign intelligence; the Patriot Act lowered that requirement to a "significant purpose." The government said this change takes away another brick in "the wall" separating criminal and intelligence probes: It allows investigators to get a foreign intelligence wiretap or search order, even though they might end up bringing criminal charges.

Civil liberties groups insist that "the wall" rose up through misunderstandings, and that there was no hard barrier against launching a criminal probe against someone being investigated as a spy or terrorist. They point to a 2002 ruling by the Foreign Intelligence Court of Review that buttresses this point.

But critics say the Patriot Act creates a new risk in Section 218 -- that investigators will too easily use spying and terrorism as an excuse for launching foreign intelligence wiretaps and searches. They point to the fact that the number of intelligence wiretaps now exceeds the number of criminal taps. Since these probes are conducted in secret, with little oversight, abuses could be difficult to uncover. Civil liberties groups say one antidote would be to require that the Justice Department release more information about foreign intelligence investigations.

« Back to top

“Sneak & Peek” Warrants

This section allows for "delayed notice" of search warrants, which means the FBI can search a home or business without immediately notifying the target of the investigation. The Justice Department says this provision has already allowed investigators to search the houses of drug dealers and other criminals without providing notice that might have jeopardized an investigation. Investigators still have to explain why they want to delay notice, and must eventually tell the target about the search.

Critics say that investigators already had the power to conduct secret searches in counterterror and counterespionage probes. The Patriot Act, they say, authorized the use of this technique for any crime, no matter how minor. They say that "sneak and peek" searches should be narrowly limited to cases in which an investigation would be seriously jeopardized by immediate notice. Legislation to cut off funding for such searches passed the House in 2003. However, this provision does not face a sunset as other controversial provisions do, so it may be harder for opponents to amend it.

« Back to top

Material Support

The antiterrorism law passed in 1996, in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, outlawed providing "material support" to foreign terrorist organizations, and expanded the definition of support to include "personnel" and "training." Section 805 of the Patriot Act extended that ban to "expert advice or assistance."

The Justice Department has said this expansion is critical to cutting off the networks of support that make terrorism possible. But many legal scholars -- and even some judges -- contend the provision is vague. They say it will lead to guilt by association and might criminalize unwitting contact with a terrorist group.

Opponents also argue that it stifles free speech, by raising fears that any charitable contribution could somehow be linked to a terrorist group by the Justice Department, and then construed as "material support." Courts have differed on the constitutionality of these efforts to cut off the "lifeblood" of terrorism. Some have ruled they are unconstitutionally vague, others have upheld these laws. In response, Congress tried to tighten the definitions in the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terror Prevention Act. But the language in that law is also being challenged in court.

« Back to top

The Patriot Act Threatens Fundamental American Freedoms

by Feross Aboukhadijeh - 11th grade

Forty-five days after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, also known as the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” Act, or more simply, the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was created with the noble intention of finding and prosecuting international terrorists operating on American soil; however, the unfortunate consequences of the Act have been drastic. Many of the Patriot Act’s provisions are in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution—a document drafted by wise men like Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington in order to protect American rights and freedoms. The Patriot Act encroaches on sacred First Amendment rights, which protect free speech and expression, and Fourth Amendment rights, which protect citizens against “unwarranted search and seizure” (Justice). The Patriot Act authorizes unethical and unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens with a negligible improvement in national security. Free speech, free thinking, and a free American lifestyle can not survive in the climate of distrust and constant fear created by the Patriot Act.

The great American patriot Robert F. Kennedy once said in his famous “Day of Affirmation Address” that the first and most critical element of “individual liberty is the freedom of speech; the right to express and communicate ideas, to set oneself apart from the dumb beasts of field and forest . . .” Modern American politicians and lawmakers, it seems, have lost sight of the important ideals that Kennedy spoke about and upon which this country was founded—ideals like civil rights, personal freedom, and the right to privacy. No longer can a newspaper editor publish an article that is critical of the government—even if it is legal—without fear that Big Brother may begin to survey his every thought and action. This may very well be the most frightening aspect of the Patriot Act: the fact that the Act allows the government to spy on any of its citizens, not just the bad ones. The Patriot Act does not demand sufficient proof that alleged “suspects” are engaged in criminal activity before authorizing government surveillance. Even upstanding American citizens can become targets of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) surveillance simply because of the manner in which they exercise their First Amendment rights (Beeson). Simply put, the Patriot Act fails to secure American liberties; in reality, the Act exposes Americans to potential abuses of power by creating an environment that encourages government corruption, secrecy, fraud and discrimination while using “national security” as a pretense for violating basic Constitutional rights like privacy and free speech. As the century drags on, it is becoming painfully obvious that the Patriot Act has actually moved the United States further away from an ideal democratic society since its passage in October of 2001.

Ever since 1776, when American colonists first abandoned their ties with Britain to create an independent nation, American citizens have always cherished basic rights like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures (United States). But after the unpredictable events of September 11, 2001, many citizens began to feel that they should give up some of their cherished rights in order to punish the perpetrators of the attacks and avoid future tragedies. An overwhelming sense of national unity overtook the country and Americans united to face the newly discovered threat of terrorism in a modern age. The President’s approval rating increased from 54% to 86%—its highest level ever—in a matter of days (Ruggles). The American people rallied behind the Federal government and provided support. Tragically, Congress drafted the Patriot Act and decreed that it would be the solution to America’s problems. According to Congress, the Patriot Act would protect America from its enemies who operated on American soil. Many Americans unquestionably accepted the Act to avoid the risk of being labeled “unpatriotic.” However, thousands of far-seeing Americans publicly questioned the actions of the government, but their cries were not heard. When the House of Representatives sent the Patriot Act to the Senate, it passed with a vote of 96-1. Peter Justice put it best when he said that “. . . the climate of fear in the weeks after the September 11 attacks and the haste with which the Patriot Act was passed allowed some of its more controversial aspects to escape adequate congressional scrutiny.” Clearly, the “fear frenzy” that took place after the September 11 attacks caused Americans to sacrifice essential civil rights in exchange for a sense of security.

The only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act was Senator Feingold. Feingold is significant because he was the only Senator to fight against the Patriot Act before it was signed into law. The arguments that he made against the Act during September and October of 2001 continue to point out the negative effects the Act has had on American life and will continue to have moving forward in the twenty-first century. When asked why he voted against the Patriot Act, Feingold responded that “we [Americans] will lose that war [on Terrorism] without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people.” Essentially, Feingold argued that the Patriot Act is counter-productive: if government “security” is meant to protect American liberties, then the American people should not have to sacrifice their liberties to purchase security. What purpose will “security” serve if there are no liberties left to defend? If the Federal government curtails American liberty, then security is rendered worthless. Colonial statesman Benjamin Franklin once said that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” According to Franklin, real American patriots constantly question their government’s intentions in order to ensure that their elected politicians are keeping the “core of American values and principles” at heart while in office (Justice). The Patriot Act does not keep the interests of American citizens in mind because it sacrifices crucial civil rights that have been guaranteed by the Bill of Rights ever since 1776 (United States).

There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally, the government can not conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a warrant and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may commit) a crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is ever questioned about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation is crucial to national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more recent years the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a search, the FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by the Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has only rejected six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s creation (“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain American citizen, it will most likely be able to do so, even without sufficient evidence.

Certainly, the United States government needs to have the power to monitor suspected terrorists—no upstanding American citizen is arguing about that—but the problem lies in the manner in which government monitoring occurs. The Patriot Act fails to strike a desirable balance between protecting American lives against the threat of terrorism and protecting the rights of Americans against potential government abuse (“Reform”). Particularly upsetting about the Act are several critical provisions designed to widely expand government power with limited “checks and balances” and nearly limitless potential for abuse.

Section 213 is one such provision which greatly expands the power of the Federal government. Section 213 of the Patriot Act authorizes law enforcement agents to conduct “sneak-and-peek” operations in a U.S. resident’s home. This provision violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to require that those persons who are the subject of search orders “be told that their privacy has been compromised” (“Reform”). If an individual does not know that the government has been in his home then he will be unable to verify that the government conducted a reasonable search using a valid warrant. If the government indeed did overstep its bounds, the individual will have no means to take recourse against the government. After all, how can a person protect their rights if they do not know that their rights have been violated? Section 213 erodes the “sacred rights of western society” as described by Kennedy, and reduces U.S. civil rights to nearly the same level as those of the Nazi Socialists in Russia during the 1930s and 40s.

Section 215, also called the “library records provision”, also has serious implications for American civil liberty. Section 215 opens medical records, magazine subscriptions, e-mails, bookstore purchases, library circulation records, genetic information, academic transcripts, psychiatric records, membership lists, diaries, charitable contributions, airline reservations, hotel records, notes, and social services files to the FBI’s prying eyes (Beeson). For example, the FBI can request the names of all the patrons that have checked out a certain book from the library, simply because they do not like the topic of that particular book. Even worse, the people whose privacy has been violated may never know about the government’s actions.

Section 505 is another particularly threatening provision of the Patriot Act. Section 505 facilitates the use of “national security letters”, or NSLs, in federal investigations. NSLs are a form of administrative subpoena that legally compel an entity or organization to turn over personal records and information about certain individuals. Previously, the FBI could only use NSLs to access records of foreign agents and known terrorists, but Section 505 of the Patriot Act adds non-terrorism suspects to the list of entities that the FBI can use NSLs to spy on (“Controversial”). The problem with this is that NSLs are substantially easier to obtain than regular subpoenas; NSLs do not have to be authorized by a judge like normal subpoenas—they merely must be signed by certain key FBI agents. This means that the FBI can use NSLs to illegally obtain information about an American citizen who may be involved in some sort of crime. While many Patriot Act supporters may argue that Section 505 is beneficial because the FBI can more easily obtain information about all types of criminals, the truth is that Section 505 violates the Fifth Amendment’s “due process of law” clause. According to the Fifth Amendment, no person should be “. . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .” Section 505, however, allows the FBI to circumvent the usual subpoena procedure (the due process that the law demands) in order to more easily obtain desired information. This means that NSLs can legally be used to obtain information about ordinary criminals like robbers, shoplifters, and drug users—and even people who have presented little or no evidence of wrongdoing. NSLs are extremely serious legal weapons and should be reserved for only the most serious of crimes, like terrorism.

While the potential for government abuse of the Patriot Act is all too clear, another alarming fact is that the Patriot Act fails to secure American liberties—proving that the Act has failed in its purpose. According to Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the NYCLU, “Effective law enforcement in the aftermath of September 11 does not call for a return to the bad old days when there was open season on dissent and dissenters . . . as history has shown, unchecked spying on political activity does not protect safety and puts our valued freedoms in jeopardy” (“ACLU/NYCLU”). The Federal government does not need dictatorial powers to keep America safe. Kennedy would have opposed the Patriot Act for the same reasons that he opposed communism. Kennedy said “I am unalterably opposed to communism because it exalts the state over the individual . . . and because its system contains a lack of freedom of speech, of protest, of religion, and of the press, which is characteristic of a totalitarian regime . . .” It is frighteningly un-American to assume that giving politicians authoritarian powers will make America safer. Furthermore, Kennedy would have argued that the way to oppose terrorists is to “enlarge individual human freedom”—not take it away. By allowing the Federal government to take away freedoms and civil rights, Americans are actually helping the terrorists to erode the ideals of the American system. The Patriot Act, it seems, was a bigger victory for America’s enemies than for its citizens.

Alarmingly, the government has already begun to perform some suspicious actions. The FBI is keeping secret “even the most basic information” about FBI surveillance (“Reform”). For example, the FBI classified information that should have been available to the public—information that would have shown how often the FBI has spied on people based on the manner that they exercise their First Amendment rights. Although this action in and of itself does not prove that the FBI or the Federal government has explicitly broken the law, it does hint that the government is trying to hide its activities from public scrutiny. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote that “. . . the few known cases of rights violations under the Patriot Act are likely the tip of the iceberg in terms of abuses of the investigative powers the government has under the Patriot Act because most such investigation is conducted secretly.” In other words, the few verified cases of government abuse of the Patriot Act may indicate many more abuses which are not disclosed to the public.

Although some Americans may say, “I don’t mind the Patriot Act because I have nothing to hide from the government”, this thinking is flawed for several reasons. First of all, if the American people know that their actions and communications are being monitored they will feel less comfortable expressing their thoughts and exercising their rights to free speech and free thinking; this is especially so if the person’s thoughts are not what the government wants them to think. Second, by eroding American civil rights in order to obtain a sense of security, Americans are actually helping the terrorists to achieve their mission of destroying democratic ideals in the western world. The last and most compelling reason to oppose the Patriot Act is the fact that it is a direct attack on American ideals. The Patriot Act essentially destroys the protections offered by the First and Fourth Amendments and exposes Americans to potential abuses at the hands of Big Brother.

Protecting Americans from foreign threats is critical; the Federal government should do whatever it takes to keep its citizens safe, but it should never infringe upon their civil rights. No doubt, the Patriot Act represents an emerging trend in American government today—a trend of sacrificing the American Creed’s ideals in exchange for security. Americans fought the Revolutionary War to earn basic liberties that they felt were their God-given rights—rights that no humans should live without. Americans should not so easily relinquish the rights and liberties cherished for so long as the cornerstone of American society for the mere illusion of security.

Works Cited

"ACLU/NYCLU Mobilize Members and Supporters to Keep America ‘Safe and Free’." NYCLU. ACLU Foundation. 5 Mar. 2007 <http://www.nyclu.org/safe_free101602.html>.

Beeson, Ann, and Jameel Jaffer. "Unpatriotic Acts: the FBI's Power to Rifle Through Your Records and Personal Belongings Without Telling You." ACLU. July 2003. ACLU Foundation. 25 Feb. 2007 <http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/spies_report.pdf>.

"Controversial Provisions of the USA Patriot Act." Facts on File News Services. 14 Apr. 2006. 5 Apr. 2007 <http://www.2facts.com/ICAH/Search/has00001371.asp>.

Feingold, Russell. "Senator Feingold's Speech Explaining Why He Voted Against the Patriot Act (Excerpts)." Facts on File News Services. 12 Oct. 2001. 8 Feb. 2007 <http://www.2facts.com/ICAH/Search/had00000278.asp>.

Justice, Peter. "USA Patriot Act." Facts on File News Services. 14 Apr. 2006. 8 Feb. 2007 <http://www.2facts.com/ICAH/Search/haa00001370.asp>.

Kennedy, Robert F. "Day of Affirmation Address." University of Capetown, Capetown. 6 June 1996. 5 Apr. 2007 <http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/ Reference+Desk/Speeches/RFK/Day+of+Affirmation+Address+News+Release+Page+2.htm>.

“Newstrack - Top News." United Press International 26 Dec. 2005. 5 Apr. 2007 <http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2005/12/26/ bush_was_denied_wiretaps_bypassed_them/>.

"Reform the Patriot Act: Section 215." ACLU. ACLU Foundation. 25 Feb. 2007 <http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/215.html>.

Ruggles, Steven. "Historical Bush Approval Ratings." 5 Mar. 2007. University of Minnesota. 5 Mar. 2007 <http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm>.

United States. The Bill of Rights. 5 Mar. 2007 <http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm>.

Works Consulted

"A Case of Justice That Stinks: the Administration's Forced Resignations Among U.S. Attorneys Tell the Tale of the Corrupting Influence of Unchecked Power." The Roanoke Times. 21 Jan. 2007. McClatchy-Tribune Business News. 8 Feb. 2007 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62W63048083835&site=src-live>.

"ACLU/NYCLU Mobilize Members and Supporters to Keep America ‘Safe and Free’." NYCLU. ACLU Foundation. 5 Mar. 2007 <http://www.nyclu.org/safe_free101602.html>.

Beeson, Ann, and Jameel Jaffer. "Unpatriotic Acts: the FBI's Power to Rifle Through Your Records and Personal Belongings Without Telling You." ACLU. July 2003. ACLU Foundation. 25 Feb. 2007 <http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/spies_report.pdf>.

Berlau, John. "Show Us Your Money: the USA PATRIOT Act Lets the Feds Spy on Your Finances. But Does It Help Catch Terrorists?" Reason (2003). 8 Feb. 2007 <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_6_35/ai_109085440/pg_1>.

"Controversial Provisions of the USA Patriot Act." Facts on File News Services. 14 Apr. 2006. 5 Apr. 2007 <http://www.2facts.com/ICAH/Search/has00001371.asp>.

Feingold, Russell. "Senator Feingold's Speech Explaining Why He Voted Against the Patriot Act (Excerpts)." Facts on File News Services. 12 Oct. 2001. 8 Feb. 2007 <http://www.2facts.com/ICAH/Search/had00000278.asp>.

Justice, Peter. "USA Patriot Act." Facts on File News Services. 14 Apr. 2006. 8 Feb. 2007 <http://www.2facts.com/ICAH/Search/haa00001370.asp>.

Kennedy, Robert F. "Day of Affirmation Address." University of Capetown, Capetown. 6 June 1996. 5 Apr. 2007 <http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/ Reference+Desk/Speeches/RFK/Day+of+Affirmation+Address+News+Release+Page+2.htm>.

"Newstrack - Top News." United Press International 26 Dec. 2005. 5 Apr. 2007 <http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2005/12/26/ bush_was_denied_wiretaps_bypassed_them/>.

"Reform the Patriot Act: Section 215." ACLU. ACLU Foundation. 25 Feb. 2007 <http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/215.html>.

"Robert F. Kennedy." Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. 8 Feb. 2007 <http://www.answers.com/topic/robert-f-kennedy>.

"Robert F. Kennedy." Who2? Biographies. 8 Feb. 2007 <http://www.answers.com/topic/robert-f-kennedy>.

Ruggles, Steven. "Historical Bush Approval Ratings." 5 Mar. 2007. University of Minnesota. 5 Mar. 2007 <http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm>.

United States. Cong. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (Usa Patriot Act) Act of 2001. 107th Cong. 26 Oct. 2001. 8 Feb. 2007 <http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107>.

United States. The Bill of Rights. 5 Mar. 2007 <http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm>.

"USA Patriot Act (2001)." The United States At War. 26 Oct. 2001. ABC-CLIO. 8 Feb. 2007 <http://www.usatwar.abc-clio.com/Research/Display.aspx?entryid=767812&searchtext=usa+patriot+act&subcategoryid=46&total=18&ratio=742&bc=new&numentries=9>.

Aboukhadijeh, Feross. "Sample Research Paper - "The Patriot Act"" StudyNotes.org. Study Notes, LLC., 17 Nov. 2012. Web. 13 Mar. 2018. <https://www.apstudynotes.org/english/sample-essays/research-paper-patriot-act/>.

One thought on “Usa Patriot Act Summary Essay Sample

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *