Patriotism Has a New LookEssay Preview: Patriotism Has a New LookReport this essayThe America of today is very different from the America of the Revolution. People no longer rely on horses to get to the market. A person no longer can shoot someone to settle a dispute, at least not legally. No one wears a powdered wig anymore and although men may still wear high heels, there are entirely different reasons for that. However, despite the many changes that have taken place over the last two hundred years, one thing has remained the same: patriotism. No matter what a persons race, religious background, or philosophical ideas, a patriot means the same thing today as it always has. A patriot is simply someone who loves their country to the extent that they are willing to stand up for their nation and the rights that their homeland promises its citizens. Patriotism has taken on many forms throughout the years ranging from someone going overseas to fight in a war, to someone writing an essay in response to a violation of rights. In recent years however, the term “patriot” has begun to take on a more specific meaning. Due largely in part to the passing of the USA PATRIOT Act on October 12th, 2001, the word patriot has come to mean a person who is willing to sacrifice their right of privacy for their country. Despite this definition, ardent patriots of the old order will not simply let this go.
After September 11th, the nation was in a state of emotion, wanting to see action taken to counter terrorist acts of hostility. Congress was swept up in this movement as well and in their haste, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act that consisted of 342 pages (Blume 2). Most Congress members had not even had the chance to read it, said Georgia Republican Bob Barr (quoted in Blume 2). Those 342 pages had five main sections to it: criminal investigations, foreign intelligence investigations, money laundering, alien terrorists and victims, and a section for other crimes, penalties, and procedures (Doyle 2-5). The majority of the laws and regulations set forth in the act are beneficial to the citizens of the United States, but there are some huge concerns within the act. Despite all of the acts good ideas and sound efforts, it gives the Federal government the tools to search any records without ever having to notify the person they are looking in to (Blume 1). In essence, the right to privacy laid out in the fourth amendment has been revoked, claiming that national security is of greater concern. Patriots, of course, will know this to be true.
However, what good is it to be a patriot of a nation that takes away rights held most dear? The fourth amendment states that “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 issued, 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,” (Amar 64). Clearly, this amendment states that a person cannot be searched or investigated without some sort of notification or reason. However, the USA PATRIOT Act allows the government to search a library to see if someone has checked out “terrorist” literature.
In 2001, the ACLU sent a letter to the U.S. Departments of Justice & Justice Programs and Federal Reserve of New York claiming:
In response to the FBI’s use of nontextual, automated, targeted information-analysis methods in its criminal investigation, the ACLU urges that the Federal Reserve and Bank of New York review the case and provide information to improve its internal procedures. The ACLU urges that the Federal Reserve, which has received more than $25.4 billion in taxpayer-sponsored grants and loans, provide more training for criminal law enforcement personnel and support programs, including a federal criminal investigative center, to help them understand and comply with state and local laws. Under this proposal, the Federal Reserve will continue to comply with federal law, even when a warrant is issued. For this reason, the government will not prosecute the Federal Reserve for using this type of nontextual statistical analysis. The ACLU further requests that the U.S. Office of Civil Rights advise the Federal Reserve that it is not obligated to “operate the FBI’s data collection activities to the same standards as all other federal agencies.” To date, the Federal Reserve has not commented or issued any public statement, letter or other response to the ACLU’s letter.
The Federal Reserve maintains its privacy policy , which states that: “The Federal Reserve’s Privacy Policy does not include any general terms regarding the use of third party information. The Privacy Policy provides in no way a guarantee that the Federal Reserve will not collect identifiable information when the same information is collected for other uses such as research or research-related activity.” (Amar 4) However, in May 2005, the Supreme Court refused to hear oral arguments on whether government authorities can’t see people’s Social Security numbers without knowing their full Social Security number. (See “The Privacy Protection of Social Security Numbers: New Technology and the Role of Social Security Companies in Data Collection” , U.S. Constitution Society, p. 3 ). This means that if it can identify the correct Social Security number, it can use social security numbers for a variety of purposes — even if only the Social Security number itself can detect something at risk based on the information on the Social Security number.
This article first appeared in the Justice Department’s “Privacy Policy” section. The text of the Privacy Policy is at http://www.gov/privacy/pdf/pdfPrivacyPolicy.pdf . This article was prepared by John M. Rinder, a lawyer who specializes in the civil-liberties work of Thomas L. Brooks, Jr. John has served as a consultant to the ACLU, which was founded by a group of former ACLU legal interns. The ACLU is listed as a National Interest Legal Defense Fund national research service with a position in privacy and civil liberties. The ACLU opposes “all forms of warrantless data gathering.” The ACLU supports “all types of
In 2001, the ACLU sent a letter to the U.S. Departments of Justice & Justice Programs and Federal Reserve of New York claiming:
In response to the FBI’s use of nontextual, automated, targeted information-analysis methods in its criminal investigation, the ACLU urges that the Federal Reserve and Bank of New York review the case and provide information to improve its internal procedures. The ACLU urges that the Federal Reserve, which has received more than $25.4 billion in taxpayer-sponsored grants and loans, provide more training for criminal law enforcement personnel and support programs, including a federal criminal investigative center, to help them understand and comply with state and local laws. Under this proposal, the Federal Reserve will continue to comply with federal law, even when a warrant is issued. For this reason, the government will not prosecute the Federal Reserve for using this type of nontextual statistical analysis. The ACLU further requests that the U.S. Office of Civil Rights advise the Federal Reserve that it is not obligated to “operate the FBI’s data collection activities to the same standards as all other federal agencies.” To date, the Federal Reserve has not commented or issued any public statement, letter or other response to the ACLU’s letter.
The Federal Reserve maintains its privacy policy , which states that: “The Federal Reserve’s Privacy Policy does not include any general terms regarding the use of third party information. The Privacy Policy provides in no way a guarantee that the Federal Reserve will not collect identifiable information when the same information is collected for other uses such as research or research-related activity.” (Amar 4) However, in May 2005, the Supreme Court refused to hear oral arguments on whether government authorities can’t see people’s Social Security numbers without knowing their full Social Security number. (See “The Privacy Protection of Social Security Numbers: New Technology and the Role of Social Security Companies in Data Collection” , U.S. Constitution Society, p. 3 ). This means that if it can identify the correct Social Security number, it can use social security numbers for a variety of purposes — even if only the Social Security number itself can detect something at risk based on the information on the Social Security number.
This article first appeared in the Justice Department’s “Privacy Policy” section. The text of the Privacy Policy is at http://www.gov/privacy/pdf/pdfPrivacyPolicy.pdf . This article was prepared by John M. Rinder, a lawyer who specializes in the civil-liberties work of Thomas L. Brooks, Jr. John has served as a consultant to the ACLU, which was founded by a group of former ACLU legal interns. The ACLU is listed as a National Interest Legal Defense Fund national research service with a position in privacy and civil liberties. The ACLU opposes “all forms of warrantless data gathering.” The ACLU supports “all types of
In 2001, the ACLU sent a letter to the U.S. Departments of Justice & Justice Programs and Federal Reserve of New York claiming:
In response to the FBI’s use of nontextual, automated, targeted information-analysis methods in its criminal investigation, the ACLU urges that the Federal Reserve and Bank of New York review the case and provide information to improve its internal procedures. The ACLU urges that the Federal Reserve, which has received more than $25.4 billion in taxpayer-sponsored grants and loans, provide more training for criminal law enforcement personnel and support programs, including a federal criminal investigative center, to help them understand and comply with state and local laws. Under this proposal, the Federal Reserve will continue to comply with federal law, even when a warrant is issued. For this reason, the government will not prosecute the Federal Reserve for using this type of nontextual statistical analysis. The ACLU further requests that the U.S. Office of Civil Rights advise the Federal Reserve that it is not obligated to “operate the FBI’s data collection activities to the same standards as all other federal agencies.” To date, the Federal Reserve has not commented or issued any public statement, letter or other response to the ACLU’s letter.
The Federal Reserve maintains its privacy policy , which states that: “The Federal Reserve’s Privacy Policy does not include any general terms regarding the use of third party information. The Privacy Policy provides in no way a guarantee that the Federal Reserve will not collect identifiable information when the same information is collected for other uses such as research or research-related activity.” (Amar 4) However, in May 2005, the Supreme Court refused to hear oral arguments on whether government authorities can’t see people’s Social Security numbers without knowing their full Social Security number. (See “The Privacy Protection of Social Security Numbers: New Technology and the Role of Social Security Companies in Data Collection” , U.S. Constitution Society, p. 3 ). This means that if it can identify the correct Social Security number, it can use social security numbers for a variety of purposes — even if only the Social Security number itself can detect something at risk based on the information on the Social Security number.
This article first appeared in the Justice Department’s “Privacy Policy” section. The text of the Privacy Policy is at http://www.gov/privacy/pdf/pdfPrivacyPolicy.pdf . This article was prepared by John M. Rinder, a lawyer who specializes in the civil-liberties work of Thomas L. Brooks, Jr. John has served as a consultant to the ACLU, which was founded by a group of former ACLU legal interns. The ACLU is listed as a National Interest Legal Defense Fund national research service with a position in privacy and civil liberties. The ACLU opposes “all forms of warrantless data gathering.” The ACLU supports “all types of