More Articles

Title: When Patriots Dissent. Author: David Weigel. Source: Reason; Nov2005, Vol. 37 Issue 6, p32-38, 7p, 4c
This article began with the events of 9/11 that led up to the passing of the U.S. Patriot Act. It also showed how the media along with the Republican support of the bill put a man into the Senate, and since then, has had the popularity of the Bill has declined. It then goes onto to show the hasty passing of the Act through Congress in that it was met with little opposition and even fewer people who cared to read through the four-hundred some pages of the act. It then goes further to discuss various anti-legislation acts against the bill, but none really were effective until 2005, because of violations of the power in the Patriot Act that occurred against a professor in 2004. It then concludes with how the margin of victory in congress over the bill has been declining as attempts to amend it have come to the table.
Title: The Civil Rights of “Others”: Antiterrorism, The Patriot Act, and Arab and South Asian American Rights in Post-9.11 American Society. Author: Sekhon, Vijay. Source: Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights; Spring2003, Vol. 8 Issue 1, p117, 32p.
This article begins with how the Patriot specifically targets Arabs and other races by simply placing their race in the very articles of the Patriot Act. It then continues to various other violations of the 1st Amendment as well as violations of cases previously decided on matters involved with the right to privacy. It finished by pointing out the unconstitutionality in obtaining warrants to search suspects.
Title: STATEMENT OF BARBARA COMSTOCK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGARDING SECTION 215 OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT: Author: Agency Group 07 Source: FDCH Regulatory Intelligence Database; 07/30/2003
This was a statement released by the Director of Public Affairs, in which Barbara Comstock defended section 215 of the Patriot, one of the most criticized sections. She did so by noting that the Patriot Act was passed almost unanimously, that section 215 has a very narrow scope of power, and that it cannot be used in domestic terrorism crimes. Furthermore, it can only be used with a court order, and the Attorney General is required to address Congress with the amount of times it has been sought after, granted, denied, and/or modified.