Notably, there has been massive outcry from the public as the two acts USAPA & USAPA II continue to tear them apart. By the end of the year 2004, over 149 cities and three states had passed additional laws to guarantee the people’s freedom of expression and prevention from unwarranted invasions (Mark, 2007). In Massachusetts, the Civil liberties safe zones resolutions to protect citizens indicated by the state management shows the overwhelming support for war on terror. However, it indicated that the civil rights and liberties would not be compromised under all circumstances.
To add to that, Florida and New Mexico have indicated their dissatisfaction with section 215 that gives the federal agents power to search without prior notice of one’s books store, libraries, and other online reading interconnects. To add to that, it has been considered highly controversial to request the media of submission of various reports given to the people with regard to specific individuals and terrorism. This is seen as a direct trial to deny the media of its long struggled autonomy to gather and report the correct information.
As indicated earlier, the federal security agencies may demand concealing information they want to use in trailing suspects of terror (Nancy & Bernard, 2007). Conclusion Patriotic Act and Patriotic Act II have brought massive controversies that have overshadowed their overall good. Arguably, terrorism has mostly been an icon perpetuated from the foreign systems and directed to the country. However, the extended definition of the term should be re-looked at to ensure that the local people are engaged more to fight the vice as opposed to being viewed as part of it.
Following the terrorist attacks on the world trade center, all the people in USA have been strongly willing to prevent such occurrences. As a result, their privacy should be enhanced to a higher level to ensure better interlink and secret offer of terror suspects related information. To add to that, the federal security agencies should be taken to further training on how to handle the varying cases with regard to the Acts. This should establish the democratic rule where the decisions that are made by the people are directly invoked by their demand for satisfaction and efficiency.
Finally, the government should commence a study into the effectiveness and impacts that the law has caused to the people and then propose USAPA III that would rectify the various contentious sections. Reference list Craig, E. (2004). Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light Or Shadow. New York: SAGE. Bill, S. (2005). The USA Patriot Act: Antiterror Legislation in Response to 9/11. Los Angeles: The Rosen Publishing Group. Mark, S. (2007). More Secure, Less Free? : Antiterrorism Policy & Civil Liberties After September 11.
Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Michael, Y. , Hor, V. , Vridar, R. & Michael, H. (2005). Global Anti-terrorism Law and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nathaniel, P. , Jack, C. & Patrick, J. (2008). Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy. Oxford: Oxford University Press US. Nancy, S. & Bernard, I. (2007). Controversies of the George W. Bush presidency: pro and con documents. New Jersey: Greenwood Publishing Group. Thomas, A. (2005). An introduction to the policy process: theories, concepts, and models of public policy making.
New York: Sharpe. Van, B. (2003). “In the Absence of Democracy: The Designation and Material Support Provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Laws”. Cardozo Pub. [? ] Law Policy & Ethics Journal 2:107. Wong, K. (2006a). “The making of the USA PATRIOT Act I: Legislative Process and Dynamics”. International journal of sociology of law 34(3):179-219. Wong, K. (2006b). “The making of the USA PATRIOT ACT II: Public Sentiments, Legislative Climate, Political Gamesmanship, Media Patriotism”. International journal of sociology of law