patriot act essay

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Patriot Act

By: History.com Editors

Updated: July 27, 2023 | Original: December 19, 2017

The Patriot Act is legislation passed in 2001 to improve the abilities of U.S. law enforcement to detect and deter terrorism. The act’s official title is, “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism,” or USA-PATRIOT. Though the Patriot Act was modified in 2015 to help ensure the Constitutional rights of ordinary Americans, some provisions of the law remain controversial.

What Is the Patriot Act?

The Patriot Act is a more than 300-page document passed by the U.S. Congress with bipartisan support and signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, just weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States.

Prior to the   9/11 attacks , Congress had mainly focused on legislation to prevent international terrorism. But after the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing in which American citizens blew up a federal building, domestic terrorism gained more attention.

On April 24, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the “Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,” to make it easier for law enforcement to identify and prosecute domestic and international terrorists.

The law, however, didn’t go far enough for President Clinton. He’d asked Congress to give law enforcement expanded wiretap authority and increased access to personal records in terrorism cases, among other things. Congress refused, mainly because many felt loosening surveillance and records rules was unconstitutional.

All bets were off, however, after 9/11, the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil. Faced with millions of fearful voters, Congress approached U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft ’s post-9/11 recommendations with a different eye and overwhelmingly passed the Patriot Act.

Details of the Patriot Act

According to the Department of Justice, the Patriot Act simply expanded the application of tools already being used against drug dealers and organized crime. The act aimed to improve homeland security by:

• allowing law enforcement to use surveillance and wiretapping to investigate terror-related crimes
• allowing federal agents to request court permission to use roving wiretaps to track a specific terrorist suspect
• allowing delayed notification search warrants to prevent a terrorist from learning they are a suspect
• allowing federal agents to seek federal court permission to obtain bank records and business records to aid in national security terror investigations and prevent money laundering for terrorism financing
• improving information and intelligence sharing between government agencies
• providing tougher penalties for convicted terrorists and those who harbor them
• allowing search warrants to be obtained in any district where terror-related activity occurs, no matter where the warrant is executed
• ending the statute of limitations for certain terror-related crimes
• making it harder for aliens involved in terrorist activities to enter the United States
• providing aid to terrorism victims and public safety officers involved in investigating or preventing terrorism or responding to terrorist attacks

Many of the Patriot Act’s requirements were slated to expire in 2005. Whether to renew the act was passionately argued in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate.

Despite continued civil liberties and privacy concerns, President Bush signed the USA Patriot and Terrorism Reauthorization Act on March 9, 2006.

Did the Patriot Act Prevent Terrorism?

Depending on whom you ask or what you read, the Patriot Act may or may not have prevented terrorism.

According to a 2015 Washington Post article, the Justice Department admitted, “ FBI agents can’t point to any major terrorism cases they’ve cracked thanks to the key snooping powers in the Patriot Act.”

But a 2012 report from the conservative Heritage Foundation states 50 terrorist attacks have been thwarted since 9/11, with 47 being the direct result of the work of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. They claim the Patriot Act is essential to helping law enforcement identify leads and prevent attacks.

In 2004 testimony before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, FBI Director Robert Mueller said, “the Patriot Act has proved extraordinarily beneficial in the war on terrorism and has changed the way the FBI does business. Many of our counterterrorism successes, in fact, are the direct results of provisions included in the Act…”

He also stated that without the provisions in the act, “the FBI could be forced back into pre-September 11 practices, attempting to fight the war on terrorism with one hand tied behind our backs.”

Patriot Act and Privacy Debate

Despite the supposed noble intentions behind the Patriot Act, the law is still hotly debated. Civil rights groups have claimed it violates American citizens’ Constitutional rights and allows the government to spy on them without due process, search their homes without consent and increase the risk of ordinary citizens being accused of crimes without just cause.

The federal government asserts the Patriot Act has safeguards to protect the rights of American citizens. Still, some parts of the law were found illegal by the courts. For instance, in 2015 the United States of Appeals for the Second Circuit found Section 215 of the Patriot Act could not be used to validate the bulk collection of Americans’ phone records.

USA Freedom Act

To help prevent the Patriot Act from infringing on Americans’ civil liberties, President Barack Obama signed the USA Freedom Act into law on June 2, 2015.

The act ended the bulk collection of all records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act and allowed challenges to national security letter gag orders. It also required better transparency and more information sharing between the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the American people.

Some ways the USA Freedom Act is meant to strengthen national security are:

• allows the government to track suspected foreign terrorists for 72 hours after they enter the United States
• increases required maximum penalties for anyone providing support to specific foreign terrorist organizations
• allows limited use of bulk data collection under Section 215 in an emergency

Despite the act’s efforts to protect civil liberties, its critics believe it doesn’t go far enough. The benefits of the Patriot Act and the USA Freedom Act to national security will undoubtedly continue to be weighed against the potential intrusion on Americans’ privacy and their civil rights.

Bush Signs Patriot Act Renewal. CBS News.

FBI Admits No Major Cases Cracked with Patriot Act Snooping Powers. Washington Post.

Fifty Terror Attacks Foiled Since 9/11: The Homegrown Threat and the Long War on Terrorism. The Heritage Foundation.

H.R.3162 – Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 . Congress.gov.

N.S.A. Collection of Bulk Call Data is Ruled Illegal. The New York Times.

Surveillance Under the Patriot Act. ACLU.

The USA Patriot Act: Preserving Life and Liberty. Department of Justice Website.

USA Freedom Act. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.

William J. Clinton, XLII President of the United States: 1993-2001, Statement on Signing the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The American Presidency Project.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

The USA PATRIOT Act

Written by: Artemus Ward, Northern Illinois University

By the end of this section, you will:.

• Explain the causes and effects of the domestic and international challenges the United States has faced in the 21st century

Suggested Sequencing

Use this narrative after covering 9/11 to discuss the post-9/11 United States and the implications for domestic and foreign policy. This narrative can be used with the U.S. Military Intervention in Afghanistan Decision Point; the Does the Threat of Terrorism Justify Increased Surveillance? Point-Counterpoint; the Was the Invasion of Iraq Justified? Point-Counterpoint; and the Security, Liberty, and the USA PATRIOT Act Lesson.

The September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States led President George W. Bush to declare a War on Terror and Congress to hastily pass the USA PATRIOT Act 45 days later. Supporters said the law would make America safer. Critics argued it gave the government too much power to pry into the private lives of citizens and violated constitutional liberties. Almost two decades after its initial passage, the law, including its most controversial provisions, is still in effect, having been renewed repeatedly by successive administrations and Congresses controlled by both parties. In the background remains the question whether American citizens should trade some of their freedom and privacy for more safety and security.

Al-Qaeda terrorists crashed planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (pictured here) on September 11, 2001. A fourth plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after the passengers fought back.

The USA PATRIOT Act’s name is an acronym for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism”. The act contained 10 titles, or sections, that covered hundreds of pages of text and amended at least 15 existing statutes. Many of its provisions were relatively noncontroversial, including increasing communication among different federal agencies in foreign intelligence gathering and granting greater regulatory powers to combat foreign money laundering and terrorism and shore up border security. However, a handful of changes to government surveillance powers in Titles II and V of the Act were widely debated. These gave the federal government greater authority to track, intercept, and gather communications and intelligence regarding suspected terrorists at home and abroad.

President George W. Bush signing a reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2005.

Under existing criminal law at the time Congress passed the act, the government had the ability to obtain “roving wiretaps” or surveillance on multiple phones for ordinary crimes. These court orders omitted the identification of specific devices or places where the surveillance was to occur when the target was likely to change locations or cell phones rapidly. The only way the government could conduct surveillance on multiple devices used by a foreign target of interest was to obtain separate court authorizations for each device. Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act allowed for roving wiretaps, which covered multiple devices without the need for individual authorizations, thus permitting the government to surveil targets of terrorist investigations who rapidly changed locations or devices. Section 207 of the Act expanded the government’s authority to conduct surveillance of agents of foreign powers and non-U.S. citizens who are members of international groups. Critics charged that these provisions could lead to the targeting of innocent American citizens and the intentional or unintentional intercept of their communications. Supporters argued that roving wiretaps were a reasonable response to changing technology not tied to a certain location or device.

Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act covered “sneak and peek” search warrants, which allowed law enforcement officers to search a home or business and seize material without the knowledge or consent of the owner or occupant. The law did not specify when the FBI had to notify the target, and critics charged that delays in notification were unconstitutional under the protections against unreasonable search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment. Section 215, nicknamed “the library provision,” allowed the FBI to ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court – a special court of federal judges selected by the U.S. chief justice who may issue warrants in foreign intelligence investigations – to compel the sharing of “any tangible thing” related to a terrorism investigation, including books, business documents, tax records, and library check-out lists.

Before the USA PATRIOT Act, the government was required to identify the place or the particular instrument it wished to search. The Act lowered that standard so the government needed only to show the court that a “significant purpose” of the surveillance was to obtain foreign intelligence information. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as well as other groups, expressed fears that the government would use this new power to circumvent the stricter probable-cause standard for criminal investigations by citing a foreign intelligence interest. In response, the government stressed that the Act explicitly prohibited the government from targeting suspects who solely exercise their freedom of speech to criticize the government or its leaders. Thus, according to the Act’s defenders, the government, in fact, would need to establish probable cause by showing the target had performed suspicious actions or had participated in activities that would lead others to believe the target was acting as an agent of a foreign power.

After Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield was wrongly jailed on the basis of these newly eased government procedures, they were struck down in 2007 by Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The provisions were reinstated, however, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Aiken’s decision in 2009, and they were extended by Congress and President Obama in 2011.

However, in 2013, the media published documents obtained by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the U.S. government had allowed the bulk collection of data from U.S. citizens under Section 215. Snowden’s released documents demonstrated that a FISA Court order forced Verizon to turn over customer metadata. In 2015, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Section 215 did not authorize the bulk collection of phone metadata. Later that year, Congress renewed Section 215 but amended the law to make plain that instead of the government collecting bulk records, the government could obtain information about individuals from phone companies with the permission of a federal court.

President Obama meeting with national security officials in the Oval Office in 2013, after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked information about government surveillance activities. (credit: “Light matters #2” by Pete Souza/The White House, CC BY 3.0)

One of the Act’s most controversial provisions bolstered existing law that enabled the FBI to use National Security Letters (NSLs), a type of administrative subpoena or order to appear in court, to demand various records and data without probable cause or judicial oversight. Although many federal agencies routinely used administrative subpoenas for information gathering, NSLs can be used only in terrorism and espionage investigations. Typically, the FBI made a request to a third party such as a bank, communication provider, or consumer credit agency for subscriber and transactional information like a suspect’s name, address, and employment and other records. NSLs did not allow inspection of the content of communications or financial transactions but instead focused on information needed to find out who was in contact with whom. This initial step allowed the FBI to determine whether additional investigation was necessary.

The Act authorized law enforcement to obtain this information through pen register (an electronic device that records phone numbers of outgoing calls from a phone line) and trap-and-trace device (which records phone numbers of calls incoming to a phone line) orders for e-mail as well as telephone conversations. This allowed internet provider (IP) addresses and phone numbers to be disclosed. The pen register and trap-and-trace provision was meant to update existing law that had allowed detectives to examine U.S. postal mail envelopes (but not their contents) for sender and receiver information. Before the USA PATRIOT Act, NSLs could only be issued if the information was “relevant to an authorized foreign counterintelligence investigation” and there were “specific and articulable acts that the person or entity to whom the information sought pertained was a foreign power.” The USA PATRIOT Act loosened the standard to allow NSLs to be issued if the information sought from the recipient was “relevant to an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities” (Section 505). In addition, NSLs could be issued by FBI field offices, as opposed to the previous practice whereby only high-level FBI officials such as the director or deputy assistant director could issue them. Finally, the Act placed a gag order on NSLs, meaning the targets whose information was sought were never notified that their information was being turned over to the FBI.

Despite the relative ease with which NSLs could be issued, it was important to note how NSLs differed from search warrants. A person or entity could refuse an NSL request if compliance would be burdensome. Accordingly, the FBI could not simply take the information it wanted. Search warrants, in contrast, required the government to go before a judge and establish probable cause before conducting a search for information. But refusing to comply with a search warrant was not an option, and the government could simply seize the information. Judges also set the scope of search warrants as broad or narrow depending on the information sought, whereas the scope of NSLs has been strictly defined by Congress.

In the years after the USA PATRIOT Act’s passage, internal Justice Department audits showed that 40,000 to 50,000 NSLs were issued each year, most of them against people in the United States. Before the Act’s passage, only 8,500 NSLs had been issued. Critics charged that this increased level of surveillance of American citizens was a direct result of the USA PATRIOT Act’s changes to the standards under which NSLs could be issued. Initial audits also showed that, in some cases, information about innocent people was mistakenly obtained and uploaded to FBI databases. Later audits found that the problems had been corrected. But the ACLU challenged NSLs in court, arguing that they violated the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee and the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Specifically, the ACLU said it was impossible for a target to legally oppose a government action he or she did not know about, and that the gag order prohibited the third parties that hold the information from even consulting with their attorneys.

The ACLU prevailed in court. When the controversial sunset provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, including the NSL provision, were set to expire at the end of 2005, Congress amended the law to allow third parties who receive NSLs to consult their attorneys. Despite this additional safeguard, additional court challenges led to a 2007 ruling striking down the amended NSL provision because, according the court, meaningful judicial review was still not possible under the gag rule.

In all, the controversies surrounding the USA PATRIOT Act prompted a dialogue among citizens and government about the proper balance between security and privacy. Despite the controversy and court challenges, the law has been repeatedly renewed by Congress and succeeding presidents, and the government has exercised greater investigatory powers in areas that were previously private. Although there has not been a major terrorist attack in America since 9/11, the USA PATRIOT Act continues to be a source of controversy and is routinely cited by critics as an example of excessive government power.

Review Questions

1. The USA PATRIOT Act’s provisions call for citizens to trade some freedoms for greater

2. Critics of the USA PATRIOT Act say it violates the provisions of which amendment(s)?

• First and Fourth Amendments
• Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
• Twenty-Fifth Amendment
• Tenth and Thirteenth Amendments

3. The passage of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 was primarily motivated by

• changes in communication technology
• the attacks on the United States on 9/11
• a decline in security on the United States’ southern border
• increasing terrorist activity within the European Union

4. As of 2019, the USA PATRIOT Act

• has expired and no longer exists
• continues to grant the government investigatory powers over previously private matters
• has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court
• led to the eradication of the al-Qaeda network

5. Publication of the government documents obtained by Edward Snowden showed

• the Soviet Union provided financial backing for al-Qaeda
• there was widespread political corruption in the U.S. Congress
• there was election fraud collusion between Russian and U.S. government officials
• the federal government had collected bulk electronic data from U.S. citizens

Free Response Questions

• Explain how the USA PATRIOT Act’s provisions were designed to make the United States safer from terrorism.
• Analyze the ways in which the USA PATRIOT Act allowed the government to investigate areas that were previously considered private.

AP Practice Questions

“We all also had our own initial reactions, and my first and most powerful emotion was a solemn resolve to stop these terrorists. And that remains my principal reaction to these events. But I also quickly realized that two cautions were necessary . . . The first caution was that we must continue to respect our Constitution and protect our civil liberties in the wake of the attacks. As the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, I recognize that this is a different world . . . Yet we must examine every item that is proposed in response to these events to be sure we are not rewarding these terrorists and weakening ourselves by giving up the cherished freedoms that they seek to destroy.”

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on the Anti-Terrorism Bill, October 25, 2001

1. This excerpt reflects which continuity in U.S. history?

• Increased nativism during challenging economic times
• Cultural tensions between urban and rural populations
• Tensions between national security and individual liberties
• National reluctance to commit to collective-security agreements

2. This excerpt about events in the United States was most directly shaped by which world events?

• Conflicts in the Middle East
• The rise of nonaligned nations after World War II
• Growing economic inequality
• The end of the Cold War

Primary Sources

Doyle, Charles. “National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: A Glimpse at the Legal Background.” Congressional Research Service RS22406. July 31, 2015. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RS22406.pdf

German, Michael, Michelle Richardson, Valerie Caproni, and Steven Siegel. “National Security Letters: Building Blocks for Investigations or Intrusive Tools?” ABA Journal . September 2012. http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/national_security_letters_building_blocks_for_investigations_or_intrusive_t/

Kerr, Orin S. “Internet Surveillance Law after the USA Patriot Act: The Big Brother that Isn’t.” Northwestern University Law Review 97 (2003): 607. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=317501

Suggested Resources

Electronic Privacy Information Center. “National Security Letters.” https://epic.org/privacy/nsl/

Furtak, Shannon. “Legislative History of the USA Patriot Act in HeinOnline.” April 19, 2016. https://home.heinonline.org/blog/2016/04/legislative-history-of-the-usa-patriot-act-in-heinonline/

Stream Team. “Timeline: A History of the Patriot Act.” Aljazeera.com. http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/the-stream/the-stream-officialblog/2013/10/23/timeline-a-historyofthepatriotact.html

U.S. Department of Justice. “Highlights of the USA PATRIOT Act.” https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm

Related Content

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

In our resource history is presented through a series of narratives, primary sources, and point-counterpoint debates that invites students to participate in the ongoing conversation about the American experiment.

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is the USA PATRIOT Act?

• Implications
• Disadvantages
• USA PATRIOT Act FAQs

The Bottom Line

• Government & Policy

Patriot Act: Definition, History, and What Power It Has

James Chen, CMT is an expert trader, investment adviser, and global market strategist.

The Patriot Act, or USA PATRIOT Act, was passed shortly after the terrorist attacks in the United States that occurred on September 11, 2001 , and gave law enforcement agencies broader powers to investigate, indict, and bring terrorists to justice. It also led to increased penalties for committing and supporting terrorist crimes.

An acronym for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism,” the USA PATRIOT Act lowered the threshold for law enforcement to obtain intelligence and information against suspected spies, terrorists , and other enemies of the United States.

Key Takeaways

• The Patriot Act is a U.S. law granting law enforcement more powers to prevent terrorist attacks.
• The act, USA PATRIOT, is an acronym for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.”
• The law requires the financial industry to report suspicious customer behaviors to prevent terrorism-related money laundering.
• Proponents of the Patriot Act claim it provides necessary tools to law enforcement in combating terrorism.
• Critics of the Patriot Act say the law infringes on constitutional rights of privacy.

History of the Patriot Act

The Patriot Act, the common reference for the USA PATRIOT Act, was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on Oct. 26, 2001, following the September 11th terrorist attacks against the United States.

It enhanced previous legislation from April 1996, entitled the “Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,” enacted during the Clinton administration following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

The Patriot Act aimed to increase homeland security and expanded tools available to law enforcement and federal agents such as:

• Surveillance, wiretapping, and roving wiretaps to track and investigate terror-related crimes.

• Obtaining bank records and business financial records to prevent money laundering for terrorism financing.

• Improved intelligence sharing between government agencies.

• Tougher penalties for convicted terrorists and those who aid them.

• Allowing for delayed search warrants.

• Preventing aliens involved in terrorist activities to enter the United States.

Implications of the Patriot Act

Police officers, FBI agents, federal prosecutors, and intelligence officials are better able to share information and evidence on individuals and plots, thus enhancing their protection of communities.

Federal agents may use court orders to obtain business records from hardware stores or chemical plants to determine who may be buying materials to construct bombs. Bank records can be obtained to determine if an individual or entity is sending money to terrorists or suspect organizations.

National Security Letters

The Patriot Act widened the use of National Security Letters issued by the FBI which are issued without a judge's approval to obtain phone records, bank records, or computer records.

The Patriot Act impacts financial professionals and financial institutions with its Title III provision, entitled "International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001,” targeting parties suspected of terrorism, terrorist financing, and money laundering.

Banks must also investigate accounts owned by political figures suspected of past corruption and there are greater restrictions on the use of internal bank concentration accounts that fail to effectively maintain audit trails .

The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA), The Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, requires banks to record cash purchases of instruments that have daily aggregate values of $10,000 or more, an amount that triggers suspicion of tax evasion and other questionable practices and the Patriot Act makes concealing more than $10,000 on anyone’s physical person an offense punishable by up to five years in prison.

The Act expanded the definition of money laundering to include computer crimes, the bribing of elected officials, and the fraudulent handling of public funds. Money laundering now encompasses the exportation or importation of controlled munitions not approved by the U.S. Attorney General.

Advantages of the Patriot Act

The Patriot Act and its merit have been debated since its inception in 2001 and advocates claim the Act has made anti-terrorism efforts more streamlined, efficient, and effective.

According to the Department of Justice, the Patriot Act has incapacitated at least 3,000 operatives worldwide, broken terrorist cells in Buffalo, Detroit, Seattle, Portland, and Northern Virginia, designated 40 terrorist organizations, and frozen at least $136 million in suspected assets around the world.

Roving wiretaps allow tracking of international terrorists trained to avoid surveillance. The option to delay notifying terrorist suspects of a search warrant gives law enforcement time to identify the criminal’s associates and eliminate immediate community threats.

The Patriot Act facilitates information sharing and cooperation among government agencies so that they can better "connect the dots." With more unity through multiple communication channels, investigating officers can act quickly before a suspected attack is completed.

Increased wiretapping under the Patriot Act lets investigators listen to conversations that could potentially be threatening to the national security of a country, but groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have questioned the risk of abuse of wiretapping American citizens.

Disadvantages of the Patriot Act

Civil rights groups have claimed the Patriot Act violates Constitutional rights and allows the government to spy on individuals without due process and search their homes without consent.

The Act enhanced the use of national security letters, NSLs, an administrative subpoena issued by the United States government to gather information, like telephone records, or bank records, for national security purposes. However, the Patriot Act does not require information obtained by an NSL to be destroyed, even for an innocent citizen.

Critics argue that basic rights under the Fourth Amendment have been compromised by the Patriot Act as delayed warrants allow officials to enter homes or offices and conduct searches while the occupant is away.

The business, finance, and investment communities are affected by heightened documentation requirements and due diligence responsibilities for account holders who conduct international business.

Suspected terrorists have been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other sites with delayed due process. In addition, following 9/11, many Muslims, South Asians, and Arabs, and their communities, were unfairly targeted and racially profiled due to the passage of the Patriot Act.

What Is the USA Freedom Act?

To help prevent the Patriot Act from infringing on the civil liberties of American citizens, President Barack Obama signed the USA Freedom Act into law on June 2, 2015, ending the bulk collection of phone records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. It also required transparency between the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the American people but allows the government to track suspected foreign terrorists for 72 hours after they enter the United States.

What Is a Sneak and Peek Search?

The Patriot Act allows federal law enforcement to delay giving notice and conduct secret searches of homes or offices as deemed necessary while the occupant of a home or business is away.

What Is the USA Patriot and Terrorism Reauthorization Act?

Many of the Patriot Act’s requirements were set to expire in 2005 and despite continued civil liberties and privacy concerns, President George W. Bush signed the USA Patriot and Terrorism Reauthorization Act on March 9, 2006, continuing the use of the provisions already in place.

The USA PATRIOT Act, commonly known as the Patriot Act, was signed into law by President George W. Bush on Oct. 26, 2001, following the September 11 terrorist attacks. It enhanced the abilities of law enforcement regarding surveillance, money laundering for terrorism financing, and improved intelligence sharing between government agencies.

History. " Patriot Act ."

U.S. Department of Justice. " The USA Patriot Act: Preserving Life and Liberty ."

U.S. Congress. " Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot Act) Act of 2001 ," Page 26.

U.S. Congress. " Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot Act) Act of 2001 ," Pages 26-72.

U.S. Congress. " Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot Act) Act of 2001 ," Pages 67-68.

U.S. Congress. " Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot Act) Act of 2001 ," Pages 38-39.

U.S. Department of Justice. " Dispelling the Myths ."

ACLU. " Surveillance Under the Patriot Act ."

ACLU.com. " SANCTIONED BIAS: Racial Profiling Since 9/11 ."

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

American Security: Triumphs And Downfalls Of The Patriot Act

How is it that American citizens have supported, and even allowed the passing of, legislature that ignores the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution? The Patriot Act, originally passed in October 2001, is one of the most controversial topics regarding American citizens’ privacy and security. The Patriot Act has elevated the investigatory power of our nation’s government to a record high. While this legislation directly contradicts the fourth amendment, it has saved many lives. The far-reaching powers of the Patriot Act have actually allowed our country to apprehend many criminals who otherwise would likely have gotten away with their crimes. The issue at hand is how much of our personal privacy are we, as American citizens, willing to leverage in return for security, as well as a much greater question: how much personal freedom is actually worth leveraging for security? In the words of Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of our nation, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" (Moncur). While the Patriot Act has helped prevent disastrous events in our nation, it is far too invasive and should be revised to maintain privacy and freedom.

The Patriot Act was passed shortly after the catastrophic events of September 11 th , 2001 to combat terrorism in the United States of America. This legislation has caused extreme dissent because it grants government agencies more investigatory power than ever before. Many of the sections within the Patriot Act have roused indignation among American citizens. For example, the Patriot Act allows for what it calls “sneak and peek” warrants, which essentially grant the ability for a government agency to search a person’s property without any warrant or notification of the search (Abramson and Godoy). Additionally, the practice of sharing any and all evidence or information between government agencies (referred to as information sharing) has become legal (Abramson and Godoy). Also, wiretapping no longer links to one device, so government agencies can now legally tap every single form of communication that a person of interest is using (Abramson and Godoy). Perhaps the most shocking facet of the Patriot Act is that it permits indefinite detention, even if the offender is not a terrorist (How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Permits Indefinite Detention of Immigrants). By the Patriot Act, any immigrant or non-citizen is legally subject to indefinite detention in America without an attorney. With all of these capabilities combined, our nation has begun to use what is known as data mining, the mass collection of information about American citizens, to determine who is a threat. The Patriot Act is clearly a controversial issue that affects a substantial amount of people, including non-Americans.

The discourse of this paper focuses largely on four components of the Patriot Act. The benefits, as well as the more abundant threats and detriments of data mining, are thoroughly discussed. Following this, the pros and cons of a related practice known as information sharing are discussed. Next, the paper delves into the subject of roving wiretaps, shortly followed by a deliberation on the topic of infinite detention of non U.S. citizens. In each case, advantages are carefully weighed against disadvantages while the increase in security is compared to the decrease in personal privacy and freedom to determine whether or not each component is a successful and worthwhile addition to American legislation. Although the exceptionally simple process the government goes through to acquire citizens’ personal information is not explicitly described in this paper, much explanation has been done elsewhere. If interested in how the government is so easily gleaning all of this information please see the cited sources by any of the following authors: Gina Stevens, Charles Doyle, Daniel J. Solove, Fred H. Cate, and Adam Martin.

The practice of data mining is one of the most disputed abilities the Patriot Act entails, likely due to it being a blatant invasion of privacy and apparently unconstitutional. Data mining is a process in which massive amounts of information on American citizens are collected by looking at internet history to determine personal information such as political affiliation and sexual orientation among other personal factoids as well as tracking the location of citizens. Surprisingly, the U.S. government does not consider seizing this information to be a search or seizure, so this practice is unchallengeable by the fourth amendment.  By doing this, the government manages to collect enough information on each citizen to construct personal profiles, which they use to compare to personal profiles of past terrorists to predict acts of terrorism in the future. All of this data is analyzed only by computer programs, rather than human eyes, which may seem to lessen the invasion of privacy. However, privacy is defined as “the state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in ones private life or affairs”, which is the opposite of what is occurring as a result of data mining (dictionary.com). If obtaining as much information as possible on citizens in order to establish explicatory profiles is not a disturbance in one’s private life, then it is impossible to determine what it is.

Data mining even stands in direct opposition to the first amendment to the United States Constitution. To elaborate, every time my mother (a five-foot tall, fifty-year-old Indian woman with a master’s degree in statistics and no criminal record) checks in for a flight she is subjected to extra security. This means that my mother’s credentials dub her to be a potential terrorist. This is a wild extrapolation because nothing about my mother aligns her with past terrorists, except maybe her religious affiliation. If this categorical information is what causes my mother to be identified as a possible threat, then the process of as data mining, as well as the Patriot Act, is unconstitutional and stands in opposition to the first amendment of the United States Constitution. The first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Bill of Rights), but obstructing a passenger on an airplane based on their religious affiliation is clearly denouncing the practice of their religion. These procedures are quite shocking and greatly oppose how the United States government’s investigative powers were designed to function.

Although the Patriot Act is extreme legislation, it has helped our country in some instances. Information sharing, enabled by the Patriot Act, has helped prevent terrorism in our nation but is far too invasive to be maintained as a practice. Information sharing is the process of government agencies freely sharing all information and evidence between them. Specifically, sections 203(b) and 203(d) of the Patriot Act effectively integrate this information (Abramson and Godoy).  In the past, government agencies kept the information they acquired separate from other agencies, which hindered the pace at which terrorists and criminals were apprehended. For instance, in 2003 a man named Lyman Faris was charged for planning the destruction of a New York City bridge. The investigation involved more than a dozen organizations working together jointly to detain Faris. As an FBI agent (who risks his life everyday to protect our country and its citizens) said, "The Faris case would not have happened without sharing information. We would never have even had the lead" ( Fact Sheet ). Without information sharing, Faris may never have been incarcerated, in which case many people would have died in the destrcution of the bridge. In fact, three eminent sections of our government all promulgated that this separation of information is part of what led to the events of September 11 th , 2001; “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” (Abramson and Godoy). It is true that the Patriot Act allows for our government to identify terroristic threats much faster than if information remained separate; however, with these benefits come great perils.

While information sharing can aid national security, unrestricted information sharing leads to the formation of enormous databases of information on non-criminal citizens and is unnecessary as well as largely unconstitutional. It turns out that the lack of information sharing in past instances was not due to legal issues, but rather out of hesitance. As National Public Radio puts it “investigators were always allowed to share grand jury information, which is specifically authorized by this section” (Abramson and Godoy). Since information sharing was essentially always legal, all the Patriot Act has done is promote a needlessly large amount of information sharing. Rather than considering why certain information should be relayed to other government agencies, all information is now routinely circulated between government agencies. Since criminal and innocent Americans are equal in the eyes of the Patriot Act, vast amounts of personal information about innocent American citizens are being accrued in multiple places across the nation for no reason.

Meanwhile, the fourth amendment to the Constitution is supposed to be the “keystone in the protection of the citizen against government power. It ensures that the government cannot gather information about you without proper oversight and limitation” (Solove 93). Although the fourth amendment has been in place since the signing of the Bill of Rights, in this case it offers no protection. The United States government does not consider any aspects of the Patriot Act to be unconstitutional, nor does it think they are gathering information without ‘proper oversight and limitation’. In hindsight, extensive amounts of information about innocent American citizens are being collected in a limitless manner even though the fourth amendment is supposed to protect against such absurdities. As previously defined, privacy is a form of freedom, a form of freedom that is being taken away from all American citizens by sections 203(b) and 203(d) of the Patriot Act.

Roving wiretaps are another component of the Patriot Act that, although radical, have in certain instances helped to improve safety in our nation. For instance, the arrest of a man by the name of Najibullah Zazi was only possible because of roving wiretaps.  The Washington Examiner,  an established periodical, noted that Najibullah Zazi was convicted of conspiracy and intent to use weapons of mass destruction after “Nine pages of handwritten formulas for homemade explosives, fuses and detonators were later found on his laptop, e-mailed from an Internet account originating in Pakistan, court documents charge” (Patriot Act Helped Foil New York Terror Plot). Before his arrest, the FBI intercepted a call from a comrade of Zazi’s who plainly apprised him that he was being tracked. In the past, separate court orders were needed for each device that was to be tapped; the FBI would have needed a separate warrant for Zazi’s laptop and cell phone. So, if Zazi was to purchase a new phone to avoid surveillance, the FBI would again need another court order to tap Zazi’s new phone. As  The Washington Examiner  concludes, “This is exactly the kind of foreign communications the Patriot Act was designed to intercept” (Patriot Act Helped Foil New York Terror Plot). Nowadays, Section 206 of the Patriot Act allows government agencies to get court orders on specific people rather than specific devices (Abramson, Larry, and Maria Godoy). If the Patriot Act was not enacted then Najibullah Zazi as well as other terrorists would be much more likely to successfully inflict damage across the country.

However, security and privacy are quite clearly inversely proportional. Roving wiretaps severely decrease American citizens’ privacy and security in an unlawful and invasive manner. Since the Patriot Act allows roving wiretaps to be enacted with respect to any person who is a suspected spy or terrorist, it is easily possible for any one who comes in contact with these suspects to be observed and recorded. Whether the contact is brief or extended, intentional or accidental, any information obtained from the wiretaps (regarding the suspect or anyone else involved) is legally obtained as evidence fit for a court of law. As National Public Radio points out, “the language of the Patriot Act could lead to privacy violations of anyone who comes into casual contact with the subject” (Abramson and Godoy). With the unlimited scope of roving wiretaps, all Americans inadvertently subject themselves to being observed by the government. What this entails is a multitude of people’s information being collected through roving wiretaps, even if they are not suspected terrorists or spies.

This is a drastic measure, especially considering information sharing as well as data mining are both already thoroughly collecting such information from American citizens. Since there are no criteria to be considered a terrorist, the government uses the information they obtain to declare more people as threatening so that they can issue more wiretaps and further this endless, cyclical process. What does the government need all of this private information for, and how can they even claim they have the right to obtain all of this data? As Daniel J. Solove, the John Marshall Harlan Research Professor of Law at the George Washington University, expresses in his book, “There’s nothing to stop law enforcement officials from acting upon mere hunches, or even wild guesses, or just gathering information because they don’t like a person and want to catch him in a bad act” (Solove 96). The Patriot Act is promoting the persecution of innocent Americans. Ultimately, roving wiretaps defy the U.S. constitution and help the government amass huge amounts of private information on innocent American citizens.

With the abilities bestowed by the Patriot Act (a combination of information sharing, roving wiretaps, and preliminary searches without a warrant), U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, has been able to launch an extensive investigation into the financial systems of organized criminals. This investigation has been effective and helpful, but is more detrimental to Americans’ freedom than it is conducive to our safety. ICE’s nationwide efforts to avert dangerous immigrants from entering our country with illegal funds and other contraband has been quite efficacious, resulting in “the arrest of more than 155 individuals and 142 criminal indictments, over $25 million in illicit profits seized, and several unlicensed money transmittal businesses shut down” (DHS:Fact Sheet). Before the Patriot Act, ICE was not able to search people and transactions exiting and entering the country this thoroughly. Even if they were allowed to search thoroughly, information may have not been comprehensive enough to reach a conclusion. The aforementioned information sharing permitted by the Patriot Act allows for correct inferences to be made leading to lawful arrests. None of these arrests would have been made without the Patriot Act.

While this feature of the Patriot Act helps keep our country safe it is, again, at the price of freedom. Section 412 of the Patriot Act allows immigrants and other non-citizens to be detained infinitely, which is not only inhumane, but also completely irrational (How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Permits Indefinite Detention of Immigrants). Although section 412 does require that immigrants be charged within seven days, immigrants who are found responsible for an immigration violation but no terroristic violation face unrestricted detention if their home country refuses to accept them. The American Civil Liberties Union, a union well known for lobbying for individual American freedom, points out that all that is needed for someone to be placed in indefinite detention is “the Attorney General’s finding of ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ involvement in terrorism or activity that poses a danger to national security” (How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Permits Indefinite Detention of Immigrants). This benchmark is just as vague and infinitesimal as the standards required for roving wiretaps to be established. It is unheard of to allow such a serious sanction to be imposed on an individual without any clear and convincing evidence.  Meanwhile, there is nothing at all requiring, or even permitting, infinite detainees to any sort of trial or hearing in which their threatening intentions are proven. It is utterly daunting to think that our nation is empowered to assign what is essentially a life sentence without giving the arrestee any trial or hearing.

As the American Civil Liberties Union puts it, “What amounts to a life sentence should at a minimum be based on clear proof at a hearing, not on a certification of merely the level of suspicion that normally allows only a brief stop and frisk on the street” (How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Permits Indefinite Detention of Immigrants). It is scary to realize that the U.S. government is using a certain level of suspicion, a level that that normally authorizes a small altercation or search in public, to incarcerate someone for potentially the rest of his or her life. While this does not directly affect American citizens, it very well might in the future. If this becomes a standard accepted practice around the world, then American tourists who let their visas expire may soon find themselves spending the rest of their lives in foreign jails simply because one person felt that they were a group of malcontents. In no way is it fair to inflict such a hefty punishment on an individual based on opinions. All people, American or otherwise, have and deserve to maintain their right to a fair trial, a right afforded to them by the Universal Declaration of Human rights, only to be taken away by the Patriot Act.

While it can be discerned that the Patriot Act has helped make our nation more secure, it is quite obvious that this legislation is stripping American citizens of their privacy and personal freedoms. The many abilities of the Patriot Act result in the government having extremely easy access to copious amounts of people’s personal information. This is information that citizens have the constitutional right to keep private, yet the government is effortlessly obtaining it. Our nation has actually instituted legal ordinances permitting the indefinite detention of non-citizens even in the event of immigration status violation, a violation that is completely unrelated to acts of terrorism. Since these practices do assist the security of our nation, they should not be completely renounced, but revised. Perhaps evidence retrieved from roving wiretaps should be limited to cases pertinent to the suspect who was wiretapped. This way, other citizens will not reveal personal or condemning information unwittingly. Also, indefinite detention rules should be revised to be in compliance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; all persons should be granted a fair trial and subsequently issued a punishment rather than being detained indefinitely. The Patriot Act is in need of reform, and our nation is in need of new legislation that protects the security of the nation and its citizens without compromising their privacy and freedom.

Bibliography

Cate, Fred H.  Privacy in the Information Age . Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1997. Print.

Solove, Daniel J.  Nothing to Hide the False Tradeoff between Privacy and Security . New Haven, Conn: Yale UP, 2011. Print.

Stevens, Gina Marie, and Charles Doyle.  Privacy: Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping . New York: Novinka, 2002. Print.

United States of America. Department of Justice.  Report From the Field: USA Patriot Act at Work . July 2004. Web. 7 Nov. 2011. <http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/www.lifeandliberty.gov/docs/071304_report_from_the_field.pdf>

United States of America. Office of the Press Secretary.  Fact Sheet: The Patriot Act Helps Keep America Safe . 9 June 2005. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. <http://merlin.ndu.edu/archivepdf/hls/WH/20050609.pdf>

Nacos, Brigitte Lebens.  Terrorism and Counterterrorism . Boston: Pearson Longman, 2012. Print.

Forst, Brian, Jack R. Greene, and James P. Lynch.  Criminologists on Terrorism and Homeland Security . New York: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.

Abramson, Larry, and Maria Godoy. "NPR: The Patriot Act: Key Controversies."  NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR . 14 Feb. 2006. Web. 07 Nov. 2011. <http://www.npr.org/news/specials/patriotact/patriotactprovisions.html>.

"DHS: Fact Sheet: The USA Patriot Act - A Proven Homeland Security Tool."  Department of Homeland Security | Preserving Our Freedoms, Protecting America . 14 Dec. 2005. Web. 07 Nov. 2011. <http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/press_release_0815.shtm>.

"Patriot Act Helped Foil New York Terror Plot | Examiner Editorial | Opinion | Washington Examiner."  Washington Examiner | Breaking News, Local News, & Political News | Washingtonexaminer.com . 30 Sept. 2009. Web. 07 Nov. 2011. <http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/162316>.

Abramson, Larry, Maria Godoy, and Katie Gradowski. "The Patriot Act: Justice Department Claims Success : NPR."  NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR . 20 July 2005. Web. 07 Nov. 2011. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4756706>

McNeil, Jena B., and Julian Sanchez. "Has The Patriot Act Worked | The Patriot Act: Does It Actually Work? - Los Angeles Times."  Featured Articles From The Los Angeles Times . 21 Oct. 2009. Web. 07 Nov. 2011. <http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/21/opinion/la-oew-mcneil-sanchez21-2009oct21>.

"How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Permits Indefinite Detention of Immigrants."  American Civil Liberties Union . Oct.-Nov. 2001. Web. 03 Dec. 2011. <http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/how-anti-terrorism-bill-permits-indefinite-detention-immigrants>.

"Bill of Rights | LII / Legal Information Institute."  LII | LII / Legal Information Institute . Cornell University Law School. Web. 29 Nov. 2011. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights>.

Moncur, Michael. "Quote Details: Benjamin Franklin: Those Who Would Give... - The Quotations Page."  Quotes and Famous Sayings - The Quotations Page . 5 Oct. 2006. Web. 03 Dec. 2011. <http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1381.html>.

Martin, Adam. “A Justice Department Guide to How Much Data Phone Companies Keep.” The Atlantic Wire. 28 September 2011. 10 October 2011. <http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/09/justice-department-guide-how-much-data-phone-companies-keep/43059/>

“Privacy”.  Dictionary.com . 2011. <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/privacy>. 21 October 11.

"USA Patriot Act."  American Civil Liberties Union . Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://www.aclu.org/national-security/usa-patriot-act>.

Articles copyright © 2024 the original authors. No part of the contents of this Web journal may be reproduced or transmitted in any form without permission from the author or the Academic Writing Program of the University of Maryland. The views expressed in these essays do not represent the views of the Academic Writing Program or the University of Maryland.

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Patriot Act — An Overview of the Patriot Act of the United States

An Overview of The Patriot Act of The United States

• Categories: American Government Constitution Patriot Act

About this sample

Words: 2558 |

13 min read

Published: Nov 16, 2018

Words: 2558 | Pages: 6 | 13 min read

Table of contents

Introduction/overview, discussion and analysis, conclusions or recommendations.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Government & Politics Law, Crime & Punishment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 563 words

1 pages / 740 words

1 pages / 595 words

3 pages / 1445 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Patriot Act

We often conjure up images of individuals who fought valiantly for their country's independence and freedom. In American history, this term is often associated with figures such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and [...]

Everything started from the conflict that Iraq and Afghanistan had against the U.S.Iraq resisted to the idea of having U.S. military inspections. Afghanistan, since conformed from many anti-soviets, was against the U.S. power. [...]

“People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” In the nearly sixteen years that have passed since September 11th, 2001, the world has experienced a much different version of [...]

The process of development along with the expanding globalization and liberalization process has increased the number of consumer-related issues. Consumer protection has earned an important place in the political, economic and [...]

Anyone who is a writer is concerned with plagiarism. Copyright Plagiarism Laws protects copyright holders from having their works plagiarized. Many people think it is ironic that the word plagiarism derives from “kidnapper” in [...]

Australian copyright law is a very interesting topic. It has changed over time, along with the Australian government. Nowadays, it is close to other country's copyright regarding laws and is very complex, with many case-to-case [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Fordham Urban Law Journal

Home > Urban Law Journal > Vol. 30 (2002-2003) > No. 4 (2003)

The USA Patriot Act: Civil Liberties, the Media, and Public Opinion

Lisa Finnegan Abdolian Harold Takooshian

USA Patriot Act, media, public opinion, 9/11

This Essay offers an examination of the legal provision of the USA Patriot Act. It then looks at the distinct shift in U.S. media reporting on this legislation over time, and in-depth public opinion findings on people's mixed views of post-9/11 civil liberties. This Essay concludes that media coverage of events is best accompanied by tracking polls, to chart how much and why the U.S. public is coalescing or further dividing on issues of individual liberties during crisis.

Recommended Citation

Lisa Finnegan Abdolian and Harold Takooshian, The USA Patriot Act: Civil Liberties, the Media, and Public Opinion , 30 F ordham U rb . L.J. 1429 (2003). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol30/iss4/4

Since January 06, 2012

Included in

Constitutional Law Commons

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately, you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.

• Journal Home
• About This Journal
• Aims & Scope
• Editorial Board
• Urban Law Journal Online
• Most Popular Papers
• Receive Email Notices or RSS

Advanced Search

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

USA PATRIOT Act

The official title of the USA PATRIOT Act is "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001." To view this law in its entirety, click on the USA PATRIOT Act link below.

The purpose of the USA PATRIOT Act is to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and other purposes, some of which include:

• To strengthen U.S. measures to prevent, detect and prosecute international money laundering and financing of terrorism;
• To subject to special scrutiny foreign jurisdictions, foreign financial institutions, and classes of international transactions or types of accounts that are susceptible to criminal abuse;
• To require all appropriate elements of the financial services industry to report potential money laundering;
• To strengthen measures to prevent use of the U.S. financial system for personal gain by corrupt foreign officials and facilitate repatriation of stolen assets to the citizens of countries to whom such assets belong.

Below is a brief, non-comprehensive overview of the sections of the USA PATRIOT Act that may affect financial institutions.

This Section allows for identifying customers using correspondent accounts, including obtaining information comparable to information obtained on domestic customers and prohibiting or imposing conditions on the opening or maintaining in the U.S. of correspondent or payable-through accounts for a foreign banking institution.

• Listed Rulemaking

This Section amends the Bank Secrecy Act by imposing due diligence & enhanced due diligence requirements on U.S. financial institutions that maintain correspondent accounts for foreign financial institutions or private banking accounts for non-U.S. persons.

• Special Due Diligence Programs for Certain Foreign Accounts

To prevent foreign shell banks, which are generally not subject to regulation and considered to present an unreasonable risk of involvement in money laundering or terrorist financing, from having access to the U.S. financial system. Banks and broker-dealers are prohibited from having correspondent accounts for any foreign bank that does not have a physical presence in any country. Additionally, they are required to take reasonable steps to ensure their correspondent accounts are not used to indirectly provide correspondent services to such banks.

Section 314 helps law enforcement identify, disrupt, and prevent terrorist acts and money laundering activities by encouraging further cooperation among law enforcement, regulators, and financial institutions to share information regarding those suspected of being involved in terrorism or money laundering.

• Section 314(a)
• Section 314(b)

To facilitate the government's ability to seize illicit funds of individuals and entities located in foreign countries by authorizing the Attorney General or the Secretary of the Treasury to issue a summons or subpoena to any foreign bank that maintains a correspondent account in the U.S. for records related to such accounts, including records outside the U.S. relating to the deposit of funds into the foreign bank. This Section also requires U.S. banks to maintain records identifying an agent for service of legal process for its correspondent accounts.

Allows the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations governing maintenance of concentration accounts by financial institutions to ensure such accounts are not used to obscure the identity of the customer who is the direct or beneficial owner of the funds being moved through the account.

Prescribes regulations establishing minimum standards for financial institutions and their customers regarding the identity of a customer that shall apply with the opening of an account at the financial institution.

This Section expands immunity from liability for reporting suspicious activities and expands prohibition against notification to individuals of SAR filing. No officer or employee of federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial governments within the U.S., having knowledge that such report was made may disclose to any person involved in the transaction that it has been reported except as necessary to fulfill the official duties of such officer or employee.

Requires financial institutions to establish anti-money laundering programs, which at a minimum must include: the development of internal policies, procedures and controls; designation of a compliance officer; an ongoing employee training program; and an independent audit function to test programs.

Required the Secretary to consult with the Securities Exchange Commission and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to publish proposed regulations in the Federal Register before January 1, 2002, requiring brokers and dealers registered with the Securities Exchange Commission to submit suspicious activity reports under the Bank Secrecy Act.

This amends the BSA definition of money transmitter to ensure that informal/underground banking systems are defined as financial institutions and are thus subject to the BSA.

Requires FinCEN to establish a highly secure network to facilitate and improve communication between FinCEN and financial institutions to enable financial institutions to file BSA reports electronically and permit FinCEN to provide financial institutions with alerts.

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Government

Good Argumentative Essay About U.S Patriot Act

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Government , United States , Patriotism , Social Issues , Law , Terrorism , Politics , America

Words: 4500

Published: 03/09/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

The U.S. Patriot Act Americans faced one of the most horrifying episodes in their history of the United States. Many individuals watched with horror as the historical landmarks collapsed simultaneously at the hands of terrorists. Who could forget the shock as the terrorist planes embraced the Twin Towers as the terrorist snuffed the lights of many innocent victims? As a result of this horror, the American Congress waited for only forty-five days before passing the USA Patriot Act in response to that fateful date of September 11, 2001. A number of delusion individuals convinced themselves that they reserved the right to attack the United States and remove the hardworking innocent victims from their rightful place in the society. “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” Act, or the USA PATRIOT Act came into existence in order to enforce the righteous purpose of discovering and prosecuting any and all intercontinental terrorists who choose to operate in the United States. While the US Patriot act seeks to secure the American citizens, there are adverse outcomes that have proved to be extreme violation of the United States Constitution. Abramson and Godoy (2006) support the idea that the United States Patriot Act will eventually face “long-term renewal” (Abramson & Godoy, par.1) in its policy. In fact, the most-important senators arrived at a compromise “with the White House that allays the civil liberties concerns of some critics of the law,” (Abramson and Godoy, par.1) as the Act infringes on First Amendment rights. The First Amendment forms the foundations that protect the freedom of speech and expression. In addition, the Fourth Amendment Rights supports and protects the United States citizens against any form of unjustifiable investigations and apprehension. Many critics argue that the Patriot Act sanction unprincipled and unauthorized observation of United States citizens with an insignificant enhancement of national security in the country. Clearly, the imposition of the Patriot Act stifles freedom of speech, freedom of thoughts, and a freedom to live the true American lifestyle as the Act promotes an atmosphere that thrives on continuous apprehension and mistrust. If these claims are factual, the law may not have stemmed from “a rational response to the attacks of September 11, 2001,” (The US Patriot Act, par.7). Instead, the law could well have been a well-structured, long-term plan by some members of the judiciary unit “in favor of law enforcement and intelligence agencies [so] that civil libertiesmay be sacrificed as a result,” (“The US Patriot Act, par.7). Nonetheless, one could say that some aspects of the provisions of the Act interferes with the rights of individuals and therefore presents a grave threat to the municipal rights of each individuals in the country. Beale and Felman, in their study, support the PATRIOT Act, and postulate that “for the first time [the Act] permits disclosure, without a prior court order, of grand jury material that involves ‘foreign intelligence’ information to many Federal agencies whose duties are unrelated to law enforcement” (Beale & Felman, p.1). In addition, the right to disclose information protects the witnesses and “it is unlikely that these provisions will encourage witnesses to flee, because there is no reason to believe that the information will make its way back to those who might wish to harm the witnesses for their testimony,” (Beale & Felman, p.1). According to Grabianowski in his article “How the Patriot Act Works,” the main goals of this law is “to strengthen domestic security and broaden the powers of law-enforcement agencies,” (Grabianowski, par.1) in response to finding and stopping different terrorist groups. But, how can a law that seeks to protect, promote the destruction of one’s freedom? The reality is that the “passing and renewal of the Patriot Act has been extremely controversial,” (Grabianowski. par.1). Advocates for the Patriot Act suggest that the Act supports a number of investigations that leads to the prosecution and eventual arrest of terrorists who seek to destroy the United States. In contrast, advocates against the Act opine that the Patriots Act allows “the government too much power, threaten civil liberties and undermine the very democracy it seeks to protect,” (par.1). Arguably, many contemporary lawmakers and politicians in America appear to have lost the vision of essential ideas of the foundation of the American Dream. As such it is the citizens in country who suffer as a result of the Patriot Act. The aim of the US Patriot Act is to protect the citizens, but how can one call invading the privacy of others, protection? History shows that the foundation principles of America promote personal freedom, civil rights, and the right to privacy. Nevertheless, one finds that the print media faces the fear of every thought and idea becomes an avenue for the enforcement of the Patriot Act. For many individuals, this imposition on the freedom of speech serves as one of the most frightening feature of the Patriot Act. In addition, the Act allows for the government to search out any and all of its citizens whether these citizens are good or bad. Businesses also suffer as they have to be mindful of their business associates. One may innocently transact business in excess of the required amount stated under the Patriot Act and find oneself at the center of a lawsuit. The Patriot Act demands that multiple money transactions be treated as a distinct transaction if the financial institution has first-hand knowledge that the transactions total more than $10,000 during any one business day, (Risk Management Manual, n.p). But, honestly, with the current economic crisis around the world, who wants to refuse monetary transactions? The answer is simply, ‘no one.’ Still, the ridiculous rule impacts on business and force the citizens to endure the constant embarrassment of abiding by an archaic law. Interestingly, the US Patriot Act does not stipulate that there must be adequate verification that an alleged “suspect” is connected to an unlawful action prior to the government authorizing surveillance of the individual. In fact, citizens who abide by the law can become one of the targets of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) scrutiny just because of their mannerisms in the way they carry out their First Amendment rights. The harsh realities are that, in trying to protect its citizens from the outside world, the Patriot Act falls short of protecting the United States liberties. One can successfully argue that the Patriot Act exposes each American citizen to prospective exploitation of power as the Act enforces the creation of an environment that supports secrecy, government corruption, discrimination, and fraud. The truth is the Patriot Act uses “national security” as a charade for violating the fundamental Constitutional rights of the people. Consequently, many advocates against the Act suggest that with the passage of time, the Patriot Act has become increasingly distant from the ideal society that grew out of democracy. Initially, the United States citizen enjoyed the independence of being free from awkward seizures and searches. However, the volatile attack of September 11, 2001, forced many individuals into the position of having to relinquish their rights so as to protect the citizens in the country. Still, one question the sacrifices one has to make to ensure that the punishments come to the perpetrators who seek to destroy the lives of the innocent citizens and prevent future tragedies. Still, many citizens willingly support the government’s attempts to protect and serve the people of the country. Statistics show that the Americans came together to support the decision of Congress to pass the law that would seek to protect every citizen. One could say that the threat of terrorism forced the citizens to unite, and, as a result, the President’s rating increased from just over fifty percent to eighty-six percent. This statistics proved that while the Patriot Act has a number of flaws, the citizens prefer to feel safe than to face another morbid experience. The Congress believed that the Patriot Act could shield the American citizens from her enemies who work in America. But, the Act changed over time and has become one that violates the rights of the people. As with any other country, a number of Americans accepted the Patriot act without question as they feared that they could be labeled as unpatriotic. Nonetheless, a great number of American citizens publicly questioned the act of the Congress at the time. In fact, many citizens continue to question the moral stance of the act, but Congress continues to ignore their objections. Although the Patriot Act passed with a vote of ninety-six to one, many critics believe that the apprehension and terror of the period after the attack led many citizens to keep their silence about their discomfort on the law. Arguably, the swiftness with which the Patriot Act came into being quickly pushed aside much of the controversial feature that would normally attract ample congressional analysis. In essence, the fear that came with the September 11 attacks clouded the better judgment of the American people, and, as a result, there many willingly sacrificed their fundamental civil rights for a false sense of security. It is true that the state has the powers to make the necessary laws that protect the truthfulness of its country, life, liberty and property of its citizens. The US Patriot Act of 2001 surfaced to protect the American citizens against the possibility of another terrorist attack on American soil. On one hand, the Patriot Act helped law enforcement officers to find terrorists and to prevent them from executing their fatal plans. With the Patriot Act, law enforcers have better tools to prevent terrorism. But, Senators and Congressman such as the Kentucky Senator Rand Paul strongly opposes the US Patriot Act. In his address to the members of his constituency, he noted that the Patriot Act has good intentions, but the law failed to speak to the real issues. He adds that under these circumstances, the United States government garnered control over unwarranted searches in addition to other unconstitutional powers. The logical arguments of the Senator leave no doubt that the good intentions of the Patriot Act got lost on its journey into the twenty-first century. Interestingly, the very laws that seek to protect the citizens stand against the citizens to promote discrimination guaranteed and protected by the United States Constitution has become a nightmare for the citizens. Senator Feingold fought hard to protect the rights of the citizens as his arguments pointed to the negative effects that the Act would have on the Americans and their way of life as they move into the twenty-first century. Feingold believed in his arguments that the Patriot Act would remove the citizen’s liberty. Unquestionably, the US Patriot Act is undemocratic because it infringes on the essential American principles of “checks and balances” on government control. Generally, the government cannot carry out an investigation into a citizen’s dwelling without a search warrant and express a motive that the suspect will commit or has committed a crime. Nonetheless, the Act breaches the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution as it allows the government to the opportunity to carry out searches without a warrant for no apparent reason. How could this be morally and ethically right? There is no way that citizens can learn to appreciate the embarrassment that comes with an unwarranted search. In fact, no one should have to endure this violation of privacy and freedom, especially when law enforcers hide from the true reasons for such embarrassing situations. Many “victims” of the Patriot Act point out that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) hide behind the façade of saying that their actions relate to national security. The fact is that this reason is often not good enough. However, the struggle to maintain balance in the Patriot Act has improved to an extent. The law now seeks to add some amount of moral ramifications to the once closeted investigations as there is transparency in the way that searches are carried out. But, is this transparency enough to comfort those that face the unwarranted searches and the infringement on one’s rights? Ideally, the implementation of accessing a search warrant the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) would change the way the Federal Bureau abused their authority. But, how many times has this court gone against the Bureau? In the article “A Patriot Act for Everyone,” the writer notes “the Federal Bureau of Investigation and otherlaw enforcement agencies [have] access to anything and everything,” (par.3) in a citizens life. This access causes disturbances in the lives of the innocent citizens in the country. Similarly, Murphy postulates that the Bureau justified its actions by accessing anything that is relevant to section 508 and covers those suspected of carrying out terrorist actions, (Murphy, n.p). In addition, section 508 covers those suspected of engaging in acts that appear to influence the policies of a government by intimidation or coercion, (Murphy, n.p). Consequently, majority of the cases of terrorism in the Department of Justice are simple crimes instead of terrorist activities. The case against Jose Padilla in 2002 indicates the trivial pursuits of the government as they seek justice under the Us Patriot act. A federal judge ordered the release of a terrorism suspect, Jose Padilla, because of insufficient evidence after being imprisoned for more than two years. The ruling reinforced the idea that the Patriot Act has many flaws. Arguably, the case against the hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar broke down because of the government’s inability to follow Sections 203(b) and 203(d) of the Patriot Act. These sections of the Act seek to separate intelligence and criminal investigations. The Justice Department blame the wall for the failure to find and detain September 11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar prior to the attacks,” (Abramson & Godoy, par. 8). In fact, CIA agents possessed information to prove that both men entered the United States prior to the attack “and were suspected terrorists, but the FBI [revealed that] it did not receive [the] information until August 2001,” (Abramson & Godoy, par.8). How ironic? Yet, the government and law-enforcers were quick to detain the innocent Padillo. Many United States officials blame the failure to disclose information for the ineffectiveness and misapprehension of the law. Interestingly, advocates against the Patriot Act readily agree that the unrestricted sharing of information can undoubtedly result in the expansion of substantial databases that seek to protect innocent citizens. Horrowitz highlights three of the most troubling sections of the Patriot Act. He notes, “Section 206: Allows for roving wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” (Horrowitz, p. 1) and allows the court to issue “a court order to employ electronic surveillance of a foreign power or agent of a foreign power,” (Horrowitz, p. 1). Conversely, the fact that the government can listen to any and every conversations suggests that there is a complete breach of the freedom of privacy and speech. This breach should not occur as a citizens reserves the right to speak on any matter at will. One may argue that such freedom to speak should be monitored as citizens can plan daring attacks via the telephone. But, how does one determine who is a terrorist without wire tapping? The fact is that the decision to monitor individual’s calls presents a problem for the government as no one can look at a person and determine whether or not the person is a terrorist or a future threat to the stability of the country. Nevertheless, wiring tapping impinges on a person’s rights, but in the same breath the government has the responsibility to protect the citizens. The matter is further compounded when the Section 209 of the Patriot Act allows law enforcement officers to confiscate voice mail messages after obtaining a warrant, (Horrowitz, p.1). The harsh reality is that, the government must take an unpopular stance to protect the rights of all its citizens even though such actions may force one to lose one’s liberties. One can argue at length that the right to seize recorded phone messages is a matter of discretion on the part of law enforcers. But, this discretion is not practiced in many cases and citizens feel violated because of Section 210 of the Patriot act that “allows law enforcement to subpoena additional subscriber records from service providers such as “records of sessions and durations” and “means and source of payment,” (Horrowitz, p.1) However, the government notes that there is a need for roving wiretaps as they provide the opportunity to deal with technologically sophisticated terrorists who use telephones to plan and execute their actions. On the other hand, the structure of the act violates the privacy of those who makes casual contacts with a suspected terrorist. According to lawyers Dillard et.al, because of the implementation of the Patriot Act there have been more “anti-terrorism” plans, coming into the light, (Dillard et.al, p.1). This positive move had led critics to believe that despite the negative issues of the Patriot Act, the Act represents positive actions for the country. While the US Patriot Act attempts to prevent terrorist attacks in the present and in the future, the Act must be repealed as it infringes on the Constitutional rights of the innocent citizens in the country. One of the main reasons for repealing the US Patriot Act is that the act is not legitimate or constitutional. First of all, the openly defies the principles of the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution. In fact, the Act practically eliminates the Fourth Amendment. In addition, critics note that the Patriot Act goes against the First and Sixth Amendments and has become unconstitutional. Arguably, the Act limits the freedom and the rights the American citizens to speech and a speedy trial, and should therefore, be removed from the laws of the country. Under the Patriot Act, “almost any investigation can hide under the guise of an intelligence investigation, and thus be exempt from constitutional restraints. While these enhancements might help monitor terrorists, the price for our liberties is too high,” (Stanker, 38), as the real threat remains while the minor threats continue to run rampant in the society. Levy notes “the temptation will be great to write draconian new laws that give law enforcement agencies - or even military forces - a right to undermine the civil liberties that shape the character of the United States, [but] Congress must carefully balance the need for heightened security with the need to protect the constitutional rights of Americans[and] Americans of Islamic descent, who could now easily became the target for of American xenophobia and ethnic discrimination,” (Levy, p.1). Critics argue that the US Patriot Act protects the country from acts of terrorism. While this may be true, one of the most terrifying features of the Patriot Act is the emergence of domestic terrorism. No one wants to deal with this new form of terrorism, but it is real. In recent times, the United States faced three main types of terrorism in the form of international terrorism, federal terrorism and terrorism that surpasses national borders. The Oklahoma City Bombing, for example, falls within the emerging domestic terrorism category and they are “violent acts committed by politically dissident domestic groups,” (Stanker, 38). For a group to be deemed as a “domestic terrorist” group, Stanker notes that the organization must engage in “a violent act in the name of the group,” (p.38). But, there is one problem with this scenario. Most of the domestic terrorist groups are affiliated with political and religious non-conformist groups. Christianity has always been important to the Americans. Nevertheless, the implementation of the Patriot Act places churches and political groups under surveillance if there is even a hint that the members come in contact with these domestic terrorists. Interestingly, there does not have to be any concrete proof that the members of the church are in direct contact with the suspected individuals, but their phones were tapped. In all honesty, one crosses the boundaries of freedom when suspected “Christians” lose their rights to privacy because the government taps their phones and keep them under surveillance. Clearly “some aspects of the Patriot Act are necessary and completely reasonable, given advances in technology and the very real threat of terrorism,” (Stanker, 38) such as “Tripling the number of Border Patrol, Customs Service Inspectors and Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors at the northern border of the United States, and providing $100 million to improve technology and equipment on the U.S. border with Canada,” (Explaining the US Patriot Act, par. 5). On the other hand, Ronald J. Sievert notes that there is a general ignorance among the public about the Patriot Act, (p.320). Nevertheless, “other facets of the act have a chilling effect on our most sacrosanct political liberties,” (Stanker, 38). In concluding, the Patriot Act violates the Constitutional rights of the average citizen in the United States, and must be repealed. The harsh reality is that the US Patriot Act limits the freedom of the American people to speech and privacy and it abolishes a big portion of the Bill of Rights. A vast number of congressmen, senators, among other politicians do not believe that the US Patriot Act serves as a good measure in the country as it violates the rights of the people. The fact a large number of the United States Senators and Congressman oppose the Act suggests that there are serious flaws to the Patriot Act and the government’s attempt to remove the freedoms of the citizens. The truth is that every American citizen revels in the fact that they live in a society that promotes freedom, and the government acknowledges the rights of the individual as they guard the rights of everyone. However, the implementation of the Patriot Act is slowly depriving the citizens of their freedom. The law-makers, therefore, need to revise the law and repeal the laws on wire tapping, access to personal telephone conversations so as not to sacrifice the civil liberties and a feeling of being secured in one’s country. Many questions remain about the success of the Patriot Act in protecting the citizens of the United States against terrorism in the future. Arguably, the contentious additions to the Act show that the Act stands as a blockade to the privacy rights of American citizens and the likelihood that the government will abuse its power. The fact is that if law enforcement agents have the power to search any citizen’s home and personal records without a judge’s permission, then the belief that a man’s home is his castle is a thing of the past. This lack of privacy removes a citizen’s need to feel safe. The reality is that happiness comes with a feeling of comfort and privacy; and without such comfort there is no doubt that the country is taking a turn in the wrong direction. One solution to the problem is that the government must amend the Patriot Act and remove the power of law enforcers to search and seize phone records. An innocent citizen will undoubtedly feel violated if they hold personal conversation that law enforcers can expose freely. The amendment should be that careful investigation be carried out before law enforcers seize personal phone records. In fact, the Act should be revised so that all elements of wire-tapping be removed from the Act so that people can talk freely without others interpreting their meaning in an incorrect manner. One could argue that terrorists would be happy as there would be nothing to stop their planned movements. The truth is, even with or without wire tapping, terrorists will find unique ways to carry out their devious plan. Therefore, the country should put an end to punishing innocent citizens for the actions that they cannot control.

Works Cited

“A Patriot Act for Everyone” Viewed at <http://www.teenink.com/opinion/current_events_politics/article/304139/A-Patriot-Act-for-Everyone/> Accessed October 9, 2014 Abramson, Larry and Godoy, Maria, (2006, February 14) “Politics: The Patriot Act: Key Controversies,” Viewed at <http://www.npr.org/news/specials/patriotact/patriotactprovisions.html> Accessed October 9, 2014 Beale, Sara Sun & Felman, James (2002) Assessing the USA PATRIOT Act's Changes to Grand Jury Secrecy Criminal Justice Volume:17 Issue:2 Dated:Summer 2002 Pages:42 to 50 NCJ 196246 Viewed at <https://www.ncjrs.gov> Accessed October 9, 2014Chiacu, Donna, & Menn (2014, July 29) “U.S. Senate Bill Proposes Sweeping Curbs on NSA Surveillance” Washington Post. Internet Version. Viewed at <http://www.reuters.com/article > Accessed October 9, 2014 Dillard, Thomas W., et,al (2003) “A Grand Façade – How The Grand Jury Was Captured by Government – Executive Summary No. 476 May 13, 2003. Viewed at <http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa476.pdf> Accessed October 9, 2014 Grabianowski, Ed. "How the Patriot Act Works" 06 July 2007. HowStuffWorks.com. Viewed at <http://people.howstuffworks.com/patriot-act.htm> Accessed 09 October 2014. Horowitz, Richard (Esq.) “Summary Of Key Sections Of The USA Patriot Act Of 2001” Viewed at <http://www.rhesq.com/Terrorism/Patriot_Act_Summary.pdf> Accessed October 9, 2014 Levy, Sara, (2005) “For Reconciling Civil Liberty And Law Enforcement Concerns” Viewed at <http://studentorgs.kentlaw.iit.edu/jicl/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/01/s2005_sara_levy.pdf> Accessed October 9, 2014 “Padilla Must Be Released or Charged, Federal Judge Rules,” Associated Press (2005) Viewed at <http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7047710/#.VDc-ZkGol4E> Accessed October 9, 2014 Risk Management Manual of Examination Policies” (n.a) 2005 Federal Deposit Insurance Cooperation Viewed at < https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/safety/manual/section8- 1.html> Accessed October 9, 2014 Sievert, Ronald J. (2007)”The Patriot Act Grand Jury Disclosure Exception: A Proposal Patriot 2005–2007: Truth, Controversy, and Consequences”pp.320 -360 Texas Review of Law and Politics Vol. 11 Viewed at <http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v11n2/Sievert.pdf> Accessed October 9, 2014 Stanker, Michael (2003) "The USA PATRIOT Act: An Egregious Violation of Our Rights or National Necessity?"Moebius: Vol. 1: Iss. 2, Article 8. Viewed at <http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/moebius/vol1/iss2/8> Accessed October 9, 2014 “The USA Patriot Act” (2014) Department of Government and Justice Study, Viewed at: <http://gjs.appstate.edu/media-coverage-crime-and-criminal-justice/usa-patriot-act> Accessed October 9, 2014

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 2288

This paper is created by writer with

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Good the limited control course work example, good essay on organizational stakeholders, essay on apples performance, good essay about an analysis and critique of the emotional impact of the world war z novel, example of essay on negative effects, good example of argumentative essay on deemphasize individual financial incentives, good essay about recommendation letter, education appropriate scheduling essay, free ethical considerations on online social networking based health education effects essay example, good gestalt therapy essay example, type 1 diabetes islet cells transplant term paper sample, good example of essay on subway, free essay about finance 5, economic impacts of general aviation research paper, good argumentative essay about ethics of the united nations, nomination for a most excellent leader communicator essay example, example of salt lake ut 50 essay, good essay on womens rights are human rights, free grace hi weijia essay example, free the influence of the muslims religion article review example, essay on list your name, article review on a review of the importance of asset allocation, understanding samsungs usp essay, collectives essays, concretes essays, blackouts essays, cypriots essays, customizing essays, agitating essays, bour essays, confectionaries essays, crossbowmen essays, compiegne essays, cooperatives essays, sideways essays, nurse midwife essays, pople essays, holton essays, wuppertal essays, durable goods essays, seine essays, slavism essays, german nationalism essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

• Authentic custom writing service
• Confidential and secure
• Only custom written work

Essay on The U.S. Patriot Act

Introduction.

The dreadful and terrifying events of September 11 necessitated and increased government's responsibility to take effective measures for preserving lives of the people and ensuring independence of the society. In this context, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and President Bush pledged to respond within boundaries set by the Constitution confronting and preventing terrorist attacks. Through Patriot Act, the law enforcement agencies of the Untied States are given the most effective tools to combat terrorists having intentions or plans to attack the nation. It is, in fact, a significant weapon for nation's fight against terror. Major purpose of the Patriot Act is to break wall of regulatory and legal polices existing between the law enforcement agencies and intelligence to share essential as well as related information.

Significance of Patriot Act

The law enforcement agencies and the government are given wide discretionary powers to acquire information not only from suspected people but also from the law-abiding Americans. After attacks of September, 11, the nation's top most priority is to defend its citizen from the terrorists using all information in the areas of finances, religious organizations, health etc. The law focuses on improving the counterterrorism efforts of intelligence and law enforcement agencies of the United States. It is pertinent to mention that civil freedom of American citizens is not only important during wartimes but also in the period of peace, as such the Patriot Act preserves both. The critics, however, are of the view that the Patriot Act is not successful in defending nations and does not sustain the vital balance of protecting privacy or individual freedom as provided in the Constitution and information required by the nation to counter terror activities to be performed by the law enforcement agencies and, therefore, efforts are needed to change the Act. (Gerdes, 2005)

Proponents, however, highlight its significance and consider it as an effective weapon provided to law enforcement agencies while ensuring freedom privacy, and equality of American citizens. The Patriot Act provides effective tools to combat terror. Moreover, it breaks down the wall built between intelligence and law enforcement agencies using available modern technology. It is considered as the response of U.S government to the September 11 attacks and supporting to make workable strategies for the future threats. The fight against terror has to be made not only by using military means but all intelligence gathering as well as law enforcement agencies should coordinate and cooperate with each other to respond and prevent terrorist acts. Traditionally, privacy and liberty of American citizens was considered a top priority compared with the national security. However, events of September 11 have altered the scenario and the dire need of today is striking a balance between acquiring information related to national security and the civil rights. (Greenwald, 2006)

Controversies in the Patriot Act

The major criticism of the Patriot Act is that it violates the civil rights and freedom of Americans. As such it is against the First Amendment. The Act, as per critics, was altogether not necessary as it has not provided extra efforts to fight terrorists. It is argued by the opponents of the act that it delays issuance of search warrants notifications so law enforcement agencies may delay giving appropriate notice for conducting a search. (Baker, 2005)

The Patriot Act allows for 'sneak and peak' activities abridging freedom as law enforcement agencies are allowed to probe even public libraries or bookstore records without any notification. Extensive and wide discretion of searching has been given to the government providing access to educational, financial, and health records. These activities are, in fact, against the right of freedom provided to the citizens regarding their privacy in the U.S constitution. (Gerdes, 2005)

The authority given to the government to violate individuals' privacy crosses the boundaries set in the Constitution as agencies can monitor e-mails; impose new requirements of book-keeping on financial institutions to acquire information posing threats to freedom, privacy, eroding basic civil rights. Opponents also view language used in the Act as unclear allowing vague interpretation of the Act challenging basic human rights of the citizens.

The law significantly abridges essential freedom as it expands powers or authority of federal as well as state government to monitor private act of any American, whether or not suspicious, including monitoring of web surfing and phone calls, access to the records of Internet Service Providers, and even private record of any person involved in legitimate strike or demonstration. This is considered spying by the law enforcement agencies in the affairs of private people eliminating privacy rights and expanding governmental activities to violate secrecy of individuals, eventually abridging essential freedom. (Gerdes, 2005)

Chronicle Issues Involving Renewal of the U.S. Patriot Act

The U.S. Patriot Act has been renewed due to emergence of several grave and chronicle issues especially related but not limited to terrorism. Changes were needed for providing support to Federal Agents in obtaining records related to citizens as well as communications in the fight against terrorism. Taping of phones and getting access to bank record was needed to check the flow of financial transactions benefitting terrorists. For this purpose, the Patriot Act is considered as an effective tool to fight terrorism. The Act has been renewed with the intention of making America a safe place, free of all terrorist activities.

Changes in the Act were needed for protecting civil liberties also. However, it is criticized that executive branch has been given wide powers. It is believed by the American administration that terrorists are still capable of attacking American interests and shore. The changed bill support law enforcement agencies in using the tools provided by the Act not only in terrorism but also monitor and check illicit drug activities aiming to protect civil rights of Americans. Moreover, Act provides tools to protect American infrastructure including possible attacks by terrorists on seaports, airports, and transportation system.

Due to excess extra powers given in the act, especially in the 'sneak and peek' sections in which government is allowed to tape phone of any American, Act has been renewed to limit the governmental powers in acquiring information from those individuals who are being the focus of investigations for terrorism. Currently three powers are due to expire and government is planning to renew these clauses so a continuous support remains intact. Among these possible changes is that government while checking business records, probing libraries and medical records should ensure that records are directly related to foreign intelligence and investigation.

Secret courts also known as FISA courts should be allowed to issue warrants to electronically monitor a suspect terrorist. Reason for allowing FISA courts such powers is to support authorities in finding a link between investigations being performed with any illegal international group.

As already mentioned, wide powers have been given to the administration to perform their tasks of protecting nation from any foreign and domestic threat. The Patriot Act allows detaining non-citizens in America without any charge holding for an indefinite period. The issues that led to include this provision are the formation of beliefs about any non-citizen living in America and whose actions could cause a threat to national security. Therefore, this measure is considered as a pro-active approach adopted in the Act.

It is pertinent to highlight that any peaceful group, dissenting from the governmental policies, cannot be targeted by the authorities to be charged as involved in domestic terrorism. It means only such activities come under the purview of Act that violates the state or federal laws and dangerous to national security as well as human life. The aim of renewing Act is to support American government in protecting people from enemies, ensuring civil liberties for everyone.

Effective functioning of Armed forces is dependent on successful intelligence information. Without concrete information, forces are unable to strike enemy and accomplish their objectives. For this purpose, strategies designed by the Armed forces are based on intelligence, effective communication, and adequate information. Therefore, Patriot Act facilitates Armed Forces to acquire necessary information. Furthermore, American President also needs ample information to conduct domestic and international affairs. Through Patriot Act, a smooth flow of solid information can be provided to Presidential office for managing its affairs.

The paper has shown the significance and main theme of 'U.S. Patriot Act' along with renewals made to the Act. Through Patriot Act, the law enforcement agencies of the Untied States are given the most effective tools to combat terrorists having intentions or plans to attack the nation. The paper then proceeds to provide an in-depth discussion on the chronicle issues that led to the passing of the Act. Furthermore, some of the issues have also been highlighted that forms the basis of renewing the Act. It can be concluded, at the end, that although a segment of people and experts view Patriot Act abridging civil rights, the Act provides effective tools to law enforcement agencies in combating domestic as well as foreign violence. `

Baker, S (2005) Patriot Debates: Experts Debate the USA Patriot Act, American Bar Association

Gerdes, L (2005) The Patriot Act (Opposing Viewpoints Series) Young Adult

Greenwald, G (2006) How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok, Working Assets Publishing

Ibbeston, P (2007) Living Under the Patriot Act: Educating A Society, AuthorHouse

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Law

Essay Samples on Patriot Act

How the united states have changed during the 2000s.

The 2000s decade was a tumultuous and eventful decade which drastically altered the United States. 9/11 shook the United States to its core, and brought along many changes in culture and politics. The government’s power expanded to even greater heights then before, and the internet...

• American History
• Patriot Act

The Structure and Principles of American Government

As one ages and forms into an adult, one learns that it is crucial to know who their politicians are as they are the individuals who ultimately have authority over our governments. There are a number of politicians in all three governments (Local, State, and...

• American Government
• Civil Rights

Money Laundering in the United States of America and Tools to Fight It

Bank Secrecy Act According to the United States’ first anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) act – the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), US financial institutions/banks are obliged to cooperate with the US government in order to fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. In line...

• Money Laundering

Complications and Incorporation of Patriot Act in Life of USA

Summary The essay “This Is Why Poor People’s Bad Decisions Make Perfect Sense” by Linda Tirado in the Huffington Post brings out the survival and the struggling story of a poor person in a classic US society. The essay sheds light on the life of...

• Poverty in America

The Effect of USA Patriot Act on Security for Ourselves in a Free World

This paper will explain the power that companies and the government has over the citizenry of the United States within the influence(s) and confines of the cyber world, and how our introduced bill will stop, punish, and dismantle the easy ability that corporations and the...

• Homeland Security

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

• 100% unique papers
• 3 hrs deadline option

The Effects of Patriot Act on the Aftermath of the 9/11

The terrorist attacks on 9/11 did not just affect victims and their families, but it also affected the nation—as a whole—there were many events that happened on this terrifying day. There were also many events that happened after the attacks that affected our country. The...

• George W. Bush

Limiting Liberties Included in the Patriot Act of United States

The emergence of laws that promise to provide safety and security, tend to effectively challenge liberalism and civil liberties. Liberal democracies emphasize the importance of rights and freedoms, although, according to the source these liberties can be neglected when a nation is faced with external...

The Development and Consequences of the Patriot Act

October 12, 2001: Patriot Act Passed 9/11 was an event that struck fear into the hearts of people around the world, and this was understandable. The government needed to be tough on terror and reassure citizens that they and their families were safe. The Patriot...

Best topics on Patriot Act

1. How The United States Have Changed During the 2000s

2. The Structure and Principles of American Government

3. Money Laundering in the United States of America and Tools to Fight It

4. Complications and Incorporation of Patriot Act in Life of USA

5. The Effect of USA Patriot Act on Security for Ourselves in a Free World

6. The Effects of Patriot Act on the Aftermath of the 9/11

7. Limiting Liberties Included in the Patriot Act of United States

8. The Development and Consequences of the Patriot Act

• First Amendment
• Cyber Crime
• Legal cases
• Capital Punishment
• Social Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Freedom of Expression

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Crafting Stars and Stripes: the Story of the First American Flag’s Creation

This essay about the creation of the American flag explores its origins during the Revolutionary War, when the colonies sought a unifying emblem of independence. It highlights the involvement of figures like Betsy Ross and the adoption of the flag by the Continental Congress in 1777. The flag’s evolution alongside the nation and its role as a symbol of unity and justice are also discussed, emphasizing the collective effort behind its creation and its enduring significance in American identity.

How it works

Within the vibrant mosaic of American tales, a distinctive strand is painted with the colors of determination and creativity—this is the story of the emergence of the American flag, an iconic symbol of the United States. The narrative is deeply embedded in the excitement of the American Revolution, where dreams of freedom combined with the valor of revolutionaries, culminating in the creation of a symbol that would epitomize the essence of the nation.

The origin of the first American flag is set against the tumultuous era of the Revolutionary War, a period when the colonies banded together to challenge British domination.

Amid the turmoil of conflict and the roar of rebellion, the need for a cohesive emblem became apparent—a flag that would symbolize the burgeoning hopes of an emerging nation.

As legend has it, the Continental Congress formed a small committee in the summer of 1776, including notable figures like George Washington, Robert Morris, and George Ross. Their monumental task was to design a flag that would capture the spirit of the thirteen colonies’ fight for independence.

Central to this committee was Betsy Ross, an accomplished seamstress from Philadelphia. While her exact contribution remains a topic of historical debate, her name is indelibly linked with the flag’s creation, highlighting the enduring power of myths and the impact of national pride.

The story goes that George Washington personally approached Ross with a preliminary design of the flag—a pattern of thirteen red and white alternating stripes and a blue canton sprinkled with thirteen stars, representing the unity of the new nation.

With expert precision and steadfast dedication, Ross set to work, transforming the design into a concrete symbol. From her simple workshop emerged a flag that would stand as a symbol of hope and defiance against domination.

On an important day in June 1777, the Continental Congress officially adopted the Stars and Stripes as the national emblem of the United States, an event celebrated with enthusiasm and solemnity. As the flag soared over battlefields and town squares, it became more than just fabric—it became a symbol of cohesion and resilience, an emblem of the struggle for freedom and justice.

Over time, as the United States evolved, so did the Stars and Stripes, witnessing the nation’s key moments and challenges. From the revered battlefields of Gettysburg to the dynamic protests in Selma, the flag has been a constant symbol of the nation’s journey towards a more inclusive society.

The story of the flag’s inception also pays homage to the ordinary individuals who influenced history’s course. From Betsy Ross’s adept sewing to the legislative chambers of Congress, it was the collective efforts of many patriots that breathed life into the Stars and Stripes—a reminder that the fabric of a nation is woven from the threads of collective endurance and unity.

Nowadays, the flag remains a powerful symbol of American identity, esteemed by people of all backgrounds. It decorates government buildings and military bases, homes and classrooms, serving as a constant reminder of the ideals that unite us as a country.

Reflecting on its enduring stars and stripes, let us remember the legacy of those who paved the way and the promise of a future driven by the principles of liberty, equality, and justice for all. In the tale of the first American flag, we see not only the origin of an enduring symbol but also the continuous spirit of a people determined to chart their own destiny.

Cite this page

Crafting Stars and Stripes: The Story of the First American Flag's Creation. (2024, May 21). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/crafting-stars-and-stripes-the-story-of-the-first-american-flags-creation/

"Crafting Stars and Stripes: The Story of the First American Flag's Creation." PapersOwl.com , 21 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/crafting-stars-and-stripes-the-story-of-the-first-american-flags-creation/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Crafting Stars and Stripes: The Story of the First American Flag's Creation . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/crafting-stars-and-stripes-the-story-of-the-first-american-flags-creation/ [Accessed: 24 May. 2024]

"Crafting Stars and Stripes: The Story of the First American Flag's Creation." PapersOwl.com, May 21, 2024. Accessed May 24, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/crafting-stars-and-stripes-the-story-of-the-first-american-flags-creation/

"Crafting Stars and Stripes: The Story of the First American Flag's Creation," PapersOwl.com , 21-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/crafting-stars-and-stripes-the-story-of-the-first-american-flags-creation/. [Accessed: 24-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Crafting Stars and Stripes: The Story of the First American Flag's Creation . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/crafting-stars-and-stripes-the-story-of-the-first-american-flags-creation/ [Accessed: 24-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Share full article

Uncovering the brutal career of a crucial American ally.

And the hidden truths of the war in Afghanistan.

America’s Monster Who was Abdul Raziq?

Supported by

Who Was Abdul Raziq?

Uncovering the brutal career of a crucial American ally — and the hidden truths of the war in Afghanistan.

By Matthieu Aikins

Photographs by Victor J. Blue

I first heard about Abdul Raziq in early 2009, when I was a young freelance journalist newly arrived in southern Afghanistan. By chance, I had befriended two drug smugglers who told me that a powerful police commander in the area was helping them ship two metric tons of opium to Iran each month. Raziq, I learned, had a fearsome reputation in his hometown, Spin Boldak, on the border with Pakistan. Everyone I spoke to knew about the Taliban suspects tortured and dumped in the desert. Just as they knew that Raziq was a close ally of the U.S. military. My smuggler friends had offered to introduce me to Raziq, and 10 days after my arrival in Spin Boldak, he returned to town for his grandmother’s funeral.

Listen to this article, read by Peter Ganim

When I arrived at Raziq’s compound, I saw him sitting cross-legged on a carpeted platform, receiving a long line of guests. He was not what I expected. Trim and cheerful, clean-shaven and barely 30, he wasn’t much older than I, yet he was leading several thousand men under arms. I reached the front of the line, and Raziq shook my hand to welcome me before turning to the next guest. We would never get the chance to meet again, but that was the beginning of my long quest to understand the paradox he represented.

As inexperienced as I was, I knew enough to be puzzled by Raziq’s success. Why was the U.S. military, which was supposed to be supporting democracy and human rights in Afghanistan, working closely with a drug trafficker and murderer? One of his commanders, his uncle Janan, even wore a U.S. Army uniform given to him by his advisers, complete with a First Infantry Division patch and the Stars and Stripes.

Thanks to American patronage, Raziq was promoted to police chief of Kandahar and would eventually rise to the rank of three-star general. Famous across Afghanistan, he became the country’s most polarizing figure. The Taliban hated him, of course, but so did the ordinary people his commanders and soldiers extorted and abused. Journalists and human rights groups assembled damning evidence against him and warned that his brutality would backfire.

But Raziq beat back the suicide bombers and brought stability to Kandahar. In doing so, he became an icon for many war-weary Afghans who sought security at all costs. In a nation divided by ethnic and regional loyalties, you could find Raziq’s photo in taxis and at checkpoints from north to south. And he never lost his American backing: When he was assassinated by the Taliban in 2018, he was walking next to the top U.S. commander, Gen. Austin S. Miller. That day, it seemed as if half the country was in mourning; Miller hailed him as a friend and patriot.

Three years later, the United States withdrew, and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan collapsed. I was working as a journalist in Kabul at the time, and as soon as the dust settled, I went south to Kandahar. With the fighting over, I was able to visit people and places nearly impossible to access before. Here was a chance to reckon with Raziq’s legacy. I met with survivors of torture inside his prisons and visited morgues where skeletons had been unearthed from desert graves. Like a great tree in a storm, the republic had toppled and exposed the hidden places among its roots. The American war was far more brutal than we had known.

Since then, over repeated trips to the war’s fiercest battlegrounds, I found that many of Raziq’s former police officers were willing to talk about the torture, execution and cover-ups they witnessed. I also spoke with a dozen American military officers and diplomats who worked with Raziq and obtained new documents through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit and other sources, which reveal just how much the American government knew about Raziq’s crimes. And with colleagues at The Times, I interviewed hundreds of witnesses and discovered a republican archive that exposed Afghanistan’s largest campaign of forced disappearances since the Communist coup in 1978. We documented 368 cases of people who were still missing after being abducted by Raziq’s men; the true toll was most likely in the thousands.

The scale of Raziq’s abuses, carried out with American support, was shocking. But the fact that they seem to have brought security to Kandahar has even more disturbing implications. Raziq’s story complicates the comforting belief that brutality always backfires and undermines the U.S. military’s claim to have fought according to international law. Raziq’s violence was effective because it had a logic particular to the kind of civil war that the United States found in Afghanistan, one where the people, and not the terrain, were the battlefield. The reasons for this are well documented by scholars of civil war and counterinsurgency but glossed over by our generals and politicians and obscured by the myths of American exceptionalism and our righteous war on terror.

But Raziq saw those reasons clearly. He murdered and tortured because he believed it was the only way to win against the Taliban. And America helped him do it.

Two harsh realities defined Raziq’s childhood: the war and the border.

The desert around Spin Boldak and its twinned Pakistani town, Chaman, stretches westward hundreds of miles to Iran, through vast wastes and dune seas crossed by nomads. The clans of two rival Pashtun tribes dominate the area, feuding like Hatfields and McCoys of the borderlands. Raziq was from the Achakzai, who competed with the Noorzai over land and smuggling routes.

Not long after Raziq was born in a mud-walled village, the Afghan Communists seized power in Kabul, and in response rebels rose up against the government, plunging the country into a conflict that lasted for more than four decades. Although both superpowers and neighbors like Pakistan and Iran intervened for their own ends, at heart this was a civil war fought by Afghans against Afghans for control of the state. Even at the peaks of the Soviet and American occupations, Afghans constituted a majority of casualties on each side.

In times of civil war, neighbors are often at one another’s throats because of local dynamics, even if they justify their actions through religion or nationalism. In Kandahar, many Noorzai joined with the mujahedeen rebels, who were supplied by the C.I.A. and the Pakistani military, while Raziq’s Achakzai relatives eventually sided with the Soviet-backed Communists. Raziq was still a boy when the war brought grief to his home: His father, who drove people and goods to the border, disappeared. His family was never able to find his body and blamed their tribal rivals. “The Noorzai did it,” said Ayub Kakai, Raziq’s uncle. “They threw him down a well.”

In 1991, after the Soviets cut off funding, the Communist government collapsed. Kandahar’s rival warlords carved up the province with a patchwork of checkpoints, where robbery and rape were common. Raziq’s uncle Mansoor took control on the road from Spin Boldak to the city, and Raziq, by then a teenager, joined him, attracted to the thrills of war. “Raziq loved cars and guns,” his younger cousin Arafat told me.

Three years later, an armed movement of religious students known as the Taliban rose in the farmlands west of Kandahar City and swept through the province, capturing Raziq and his uncle. They hung Mansoor from the barrel of a tank but spared young Raziq, who fled with his family across the border to Chaman. For seven years in exile, Raziq worked as a driver near the border, where he peddled used car parts.

Then came Sept. 11, 2001. For the Achakzai, the Americans’ decision to invade and depose the Taliban came as a miraculous reversal of fortune. That December, the C.I.A. and Special Forces assembled an army of exiles, with many Achakzai, including Raziq, among them. With the help of U.S. air power, they routed the Taliban and seized control of Kandahar, once again trading places with their Noorzai rivals, who escaped across the border to where the Pakistani military, playing a double game, gave them safe haven.

In the new republic, the Achakzai militia was transformed into the area’s Border Police. They partnered with American troops and were trained by contractors from Blackwater and DynCorp. Like the rest of the republican forces, their weapons, ammunition and salaries were paid for by the United States and its allies. But beneath the surface, the civil war still festered, even though the Americans saw it through stark binaries: the government versus the terrorists, the Afghans versus the Taliban.

“Our viewpoint was this was a war on terrorism or a war against a group trying to overthrow a democratic government,” said Carter Malkasian, a former State Department official who advised the U.S. military in Afghanistan for more than a decade. “We don’t want to view this as us getting involved in another country’s civil war.”

Thanks to his family connections, Raziq quickly rose through the ranks. He was a natural leader who fought fearlessly and earned the loyalty of his men. Although nearly illiterate, he had a capacious memory for places and faces and was a canny operator in the spy games and smuggling rings of the borderlands, using his illicit gains to fund a growing network of sources. Early on, Raziq learned that power would earn him money, which bought the intelligence that could attract U.S. patronage, giving him more power. American officers who worked in Spin Boldak remembered Raziq as an eager and valued partner in the hunt for the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

“My brother was very close to the Americans,” said Tadin Khan, Raziq’s younger brother. “They trusted him, and he never tried to deceive them.”

Tadin Khan, Raziq’s younger brother, in Dubai last year. “I didn’t believe it when I heard he was killed,” he said. “It was a hard day.”

Gul Seema, the first wife of Raziq, in 2023. “He was under a lot of pressure. Whenever I saw him, it seemed as if the shadow of death was looming over him,” says Seema.

Raziq was as generous with his friends and family as he was ruthless with his enemies. Not long after the Achakzai appointed him leader of their militia, Raziq’s older brother, Bacha, was gunned down in the bazaar in Chaman. “Bacha and Raziq were very close,” said Arafat, his cousin. “He was killed because of Raziq.”

Raziq blamed a tribal rival, a smuggler named Shin Noorzai. In March 2006, he kidnapped Shin and 15 people he was traveling with and shot them all in a dry riverbed near the border. The massacre led to a local outcry, and Raziq was summoned to Kabul. But President Hamid Karzai intervened to protect him, according to Western diplomats involved in the case, and he was never charged. (Through a spokesperson, Karzai declined to comment for this article.) The incident, however, made it into that year’s State Department report on human rights, the first public documentation of Raziq’s abuses.

Raziq’s role in the drug trade also attracted attention from American investigators. Although the Taliban had banned poppy cultivation, opium came roaring back under Karzai’s administration, and Spin Boldak sat on one of the main trafficking routes. Classified U.S. military and Drug Enforcement Administration reports, obtained through FOIA requests, described the involvement of Raziq and his men, detailing convoys in the desert, secret meetings and the use of green ink for letters of safe passage. One referred to Raziq as “the main drug smuggler in Spin Boldak.” (His brother Tadin denied that Raziq or anyone from his family was involved in drug trafficking, murder or other crimes. “All these accusations of corruption, smuggling and abuses are because of propaganda from the Taliban,” he said.)

As it turns out, by the time Raziq and I shook hands in 2009, the United States already knew he was accused of murder and smuggling but worked with him anyway. Yet Raziq’s position had become precarious, for the U.S. military’s concept of the war was changing. When I published an article about the accusations that fall, Raziq’s career had reached a dangerous point — one where his foreign patrons might have chosen to stop supporting him.

The U.S. war in Afghanistan was going badly. Faced with a growing insurgency that threatened the Afghan government’s survival, President Barack Obama ordered a surge of tens of thousands of troops. His generals had advised him that, fixated on the enemy, the United States had neglected the true battlefield: the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.

The surge would be guided by a military doctrine known as counterinsurgency theory, or COIN, which was held to have saved the day in Iraq. “Our strategy cannot be focused on seizing terrain or destroying insurgent forces; our objective must be the population,” Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal wrote upon taking command in 2009. The U.S.-led coalition “can no longer ignore or tacitly accept abuse of power, corruption or marginalization.”

According to “population-centric” COIN, the Afghan people had to be protected against the insurgency and motivated to support their own government. Criminal officials like Raziq threatened the legitimacy of the republic, and therefore the success of the war.

Given the hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis who died as result of the U.S. invasions, this emphasis on protecting civilians may seem hypocritical. But the laws of war, which forbid targeting noncombatants or harming prisoners, are essential to how the United States distinguishes its own use of force from that of rogue states and terrorists. “I believe the United States of America must remain a standard-bearer in the conduct of war,” Obama said as he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize the same year as the surge. “That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength.”

Since the decline of the antiwar movement after Vietnam, both the U.S. military and its liberal critics have become increasingly united in the conviction that war must be fought humanely by exempting civilians, as much as possible, from its violence — a shift, the historian Samuel Moyn has argued, that risks legitimizing endless war. Underpinning this is the assumption that there is no contradiction between waging war both lawfully and effectively. “The law of war is a part of our military heritage, and obeying it is the right thing to do,” states the U.S. military manual on the subject. “But we also know that the law of war poses no obstacle to fighting well and prevailing.”

In this vein, COIN reassured the American public that the surge would be just. Because the United States needed the support of the Afghan population, it could not just kill its way to victory. Brutality would backfire by producing more resistance. In a speech, McChrystal explained “COIN mathematics” : If a military operation killed two out of 10 insurgents, instead of eight remaining, that number was “more likely to be as many as 20, because each one you killed has a brother, father, son and friends.”

But while McChrystal took prompt steps to reduce civilian casualties from airstrikes, dealing with so-called bad actors like Raziq was not as simple. It turns out that the way the United States implemented its strategy provided a test of whether COIN really worked as promised.

The surge was focused on the two neighboring provinces in the south where Taliban activity was strongest. Both received roughly equivalent investments of troops and money. In Helmand, the Marines and the British pushed for the good governance prescribed by COIN, successfully pressuring Kabul to replace corrupt officials with technocrats.

“You didn’t have a power-broker-run government at the provincial level,” said Malkasian, who served as an adviser in Helmand. But the opposite proved true in Kandahar, where U.S. commanders prioritized security and encountered dogged pushback from Kabul on anticorruption efforts. “Kandahar was just more important for the Afghan political system, for Karzai, than Helmand was.”

As so often happened during the war, Washington’s grand strategy was interpreted by a multitude of American agencies and actors. In Kabul, specialized anticorruption and counternarcotics teams had Raziq in their sights. A D.E.A.-led republican unit seized an enormous stockpile of hashish in Spin Boldak and arrested a district police commander who ran narcotics shipments for Raziq. There were plans to go after him next.

But the Army officers working with Raziq saw things very differently. He and his men were a rare example of an effective, homegrown force that delivered security on a vital supply route. The U.S. commanders were in the middle of a high-stakes offensive against the Taliban, and their own troops’ lives were on the line. Karzai supported Raziq, and according to former military and intelligence officials, so did the C.I.A. With his cross-border networks, Raziq was a valuable source of intelligence on Taliban havens and bomb-making networks in Pakistan. And he could cross lines the United States couldn’t: A declassified military report from 2010 noted that Raziq was giving shelter to Baloch rebels fighting the Pakistani government and that he used “these tribesmen to carry out assassinations and killings in Pakistan.”

And so when, in February 2010, senior U.S. officials met to discuss action against corrupt Afghan officials, no one could agree on what to do about Raziq. “There was a lack of consensus,” according to Earl Anthony, who as deputy U.S. ambassador was a co-chair of the meeting. “Some highly valued his work on the security front against the Taliban.”

In the end, McChrystal, who declined to comment for this article, sided with his commanders on the ground. Raziq, they reasoned, could be mentored to change his ways. According to a leaked cable, the senior U.S. diplomat in Kandahar even offered to craft a media plan for him, including radio spots, billboards and “the longer-term encouragement of stories in the international media on the ‘reform’” of Raziq.

In March, McChrystal visited Raziq in Spin Boldak and posed beside him for television cameras. “I am very optimistic that with the plans that I’ve heard,” he said, as Raziq looked on smiling, “we can increase efficiency and decrease corruption.”

From that point on, the U.S. military would openly promote Raziq and make him an integral part of the surge. A series of personal advisers were brought in to coach and protect the young commander; the first was Jamie Hayes, who as a Special Forces lieutenant colonel led a team assigned to Raziq in July 2010. Shortly after he arrived, Hayes was ordered to help Raziq plan a major operation to clear Malajat, an outlying neighborhood of Kandahar City where the Taliban were entrenched.

At first, Hayes was puzzled about why Raziq and his Border Police were given the job, rather than the republican army or commandos. His superiors explained that it was a political decision by Karzai and the U.S. command. “This is a guy that we want to make successful,” Hayes recalled being told. “He’s an aggressive, strong leader that we want to make sure gets the chance to shine.”

Mazloom, a 33-year-old Taliban commander, in Panjwai District last year. He said he was tortured and blinded by a U.S.-backed militia commander from his village, who recognized him as an insurgent. “Because I wouldn’t confess,” Mazloom said, “he did this.”

John R. Allen, a retired four-star Marine general, at his home in Virginia in March. As the commander of American and allied forces in Afghanistan in 2011, Allen was confronted with evidence that Raziq’s forces were committing murder and torture. “That wasn’t why we were there fighting the war,” he said, “to keep a really bad criminal because he was helpful in fighting worse criminals.”

Raziq’s charisma undoubtedly played a role in why U.S. officers were so willing to support him. Like most of the Americans I spoke to who worked with Raziq, Hayes quickly took a shine to him. Raziq was full of enthusiasm and energy, and Hayes was especially impressed by how he seemed to genuinely care for the welfare of his men, unlike many other republican commanders.

For his part, Raziq was a careful student of his foreign patrons. “He liked to learn about what made Americans tick,” recalled Hayes, who said he was never shown evidence of Raziq’s massacres or drug smuggling. Raziq understood what American officers appreciated: hard work, aggression and loyalty. To show his gratitude, he even insisted on taking part in a medal ceremony for Hayes’s troops. “He knew them by name,” Hayes recalled.

Soon after a successful operation to clear Malajat, Hayes and his team were reassigned to train the police in the provincial capital. During the spring of 2011, the situation in Kandahar City was dire. The Taliban hammered the government with gunmen and suicide attacks and, in April, freed nearly 500 inmates after tunneling into the main prison. Police morale was abysmal. “Drug use was rampant,” Hayes said. “Discipline was poor.” In the same month as the prison break, a suicide bomber got inside police headquarters and killed the provincial commander. Hayes, who narrowly missed the bombing, helped put the chief in a body bag. He was the second in two years to be killed.

Cleaning up Kandahar might have been the toughest job in Afghanistan, and both Karzai and the U.S. command wanted Raziq to do it. He agreed to become police chief on one condition: He wanted to keep his position with the Border Police. He would wear both hats, so to speak, in order to maintain his power base in Spin Boldak and would bring his own men into the city. If Raziq was going to be sheriff in Kandahar, he was going to do it his way.

The battle Raziq faced in the provincial capital, a city of nearly 400,000, was very different from the rangy desert warfare in the borderlands: Here, a tribally and ethnically mixed population lived and worked in closely packed homes and narrow alleys, industrial zones and trucking warehouses. Hiding amid them, Taliban guerrillas, the cheriki , terrorized government supporters, leaving menacing “night letters,” assassinating civil servants and imams and deploying suicide bombers whose blasts tore apart crowded streets.

The first phase of the American COIN strategy in Kandahar had called for securing the capital. To that end, the U.S. military poured in resources, building a network of checkpoints and bases for republican forces and expanding the number of police districts from 10 to 16, each with its own substation chief. Trained and equipped by American troops and contractors, the Kandahar police more than doubled in size. Raziq was the fulcrum of it all: A team of American mentors lived next to his headquarters, and he met often with U.S. brass to coordinate operations.

Raziq’s underground enemies, the cheriki , relied on an extensive network of local supporters, many of whom cooperated out of religious and nationalist fervor. Rooting them out required accurate intelligence. And because Karzai had resisted creating a system of wartime detention, those who were caught had to be criminally prosecuted, convicted and sentenced.

But for Raziq, the republican courts, corrupt and easily intimidated, were a central reason the insurgency was thriving. Too often, Taliban suspects were freed and returned to the battlefield. In Spin Boldak, he had solved this problem by becoming judge, jury and executioner. For all their rhetoric about human rights and the laws of war, the foreigners had chosen him to pacify Kandahar. Actions spoke louder than words.

Raziq brought his Achakzai militia, in their distinct spotted uniforms, into the city and placed trusted lieutenants in key posts like the substations. Raziq didn’t seem to relish cruelty — I never heard stories of him personally torturing people, for instance — but he cultivated men who did. Some were his own cousins, like Jajo, who became notorious for the atrocities he committed as commander of District 8, a predominantly Noorzai area. (Jajo was assassinated in 2014.) According to police officers and internal United Nations documents, another relative from Spin Boldak ran death squads out of a special battalion at headquarters. “They had detective badges and guns,” one substation deputy told me. “They threw the bodies in the desert.”

These plainclothes teams roamed in cars with tinted windows, snatching suspects and taking them for da reg mela , “a sand picnic.” The desert wells and dunes hid countless corpses; others were dumped in the streets. Many bore signs of horrific torture. “I saw things which made me wonder whether a wild beast or man had done them,” Dr. Musa Gharibnawaz, who oversaw the city morgue as the director of forensic medicine, told me.

Those who survived to see formal detention were also tortured for confessions, which the courts relied on almost entirely for convictions. The police didn’t have the education or capacity to collect basic technical evidence, nor did most judges understand it. This problem was much broader than just Kandahar. The same year Raziq became police chief, investigators from the United Nations interviewed more than 300 detainees across Afghanistan and found that torture was widespread in republican detention. Their report documented beatings, electric shocks and the “twisting and wrenching” of genitals. The most severe abuses by the police were in Kandahar, where a follow-up report also noted a large number of bodies found with gunshot wounds to the chest and the head after Raziq took power; by contrast, the investigators found significantly less torture in Helmand, where the Marines had stuck to the COIN playbook.

The persistence of torture in the republic — which the U.N. continued to document until 2021 — illustrates how, in wartime, certain useful but prohibited acts can be implicitly authorized as regular practices. As the U.N. reporting makes clear, those accused of torture rarely faced punishment. Their work, which ceased after confession, was instrumental, unlike the gratuitous abuse meted out by poorly supervised American soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

In Kandahar, torture was exacerbated by the surge, which overloaded the court system with detainees captured by U.S. forces; one internal military report worried that it would most likely “produce more — perhaps far more — prisoners” than the main prison could handle. During the summer of 2011, as the U.N. prepared to publish its findings, intelligence reports from the south filtered up to Western diplomats and military leaders in Kabul. The torture of detainees had already led to scandals in Britain and Canada; now the U.S. command would be forced to take notice. For the third time in Raziq’s career, his job would hang in the balance as a result of his crimes.

On July 18, 2011, two months after Raziq became police chief, John R. Allen, then a four-star Marine general, took command of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan. He was shaking hands with his guests during the ceremony in Kabul when a trio of Western officials, led by a senior British diplomat, told him that they needed to speak immediately. It was about Raziq.

Alarmed by what he heard, Allen had his staff pull up the raw intelligence reporting, which described executions and torture by Raziq’s forces in Kandahar. “I wanted a sense of the frequency,” he told me. “The reporting was pretty standard and pretty awful. It had been going on for some time.”

Allen went to the presidential palace to see Karzai. “I said that he needed to be aware that he had a senior police commander who was a serial human rights violator, and he should remove him,” Allen told me.

But at that moment, Karzai needed Raziq more than ever. In the week before Allen arrived, two of the president’s most important allies in the south were killed, including his own brother. For years, Karzai had seen the United States waffle on corruption and human rights abuses, even as they partnered with warlords, and as he often had, he called the Americans’ bluff. At a follow-up meeting, Karzai told Allen that he had checked his own sources and hadn’t heard similar allegations.

Frustrated, Allen ordered the United States and its allies to stop transferring captives in the south. “Karzai wasn’t going to do anything about Raziq, and I couldn’t permit us to continue to feed detainees into his hands,” he told me. From then on, when he traveled to Kandahar, Allen made a point to dodge the young police chief, who was eager for a photo op. “I wasn’t going to play into Raziq’s hands and appear to be an ally of his under any circumstances.”

The State Department’s diplomats also avoided meeting Raziq. But that was as far as it went. “I don’t recall there was ever a serious push to remove Abdul Raziq,” said Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador at the time. When Crocker later raised the issue with Karzai, the president responded that Raziq was working closely with the U.S. military. “He was basically saying, ‘Look, I’m told that he’s your guy,’” Crocker told me. “Which turned out to be true.”

Allen’s subordinates in Kandahar continued to fight side by side with Raziq and his officers. “The military guys, for the most part, had a different view of him on the ground, working with him day in and day out,” said Martin Schweitzer, who as a brigadier general served as the deputy U.S. commander in Kandahar.

Despite Leahy laws in the United States, which prohibit support to foreign military units credibly accused of human rights violations, Raziq continued to be ferried around in American aircraft, and his advisers ensured that he and his forces had the air support, fuel and ammunition they needed. “If I asked and it was for Raziq, mostly I was going to get it,” said David Webb, who as a colonel advised him on two separate tours in 2012 and 2017. Upon Webb’s arrival, he was given his orders in no uncertain terms by his superior, a two-star general. “He put his finger in my chest and said: ‘Don’t let Raziq die. That’s your mission,’” said Webb, whose predecessor was wounded while fighting off an attack on Raziq’s headquarters.

Both Webb and Schweitzer stressed that they never saw evidence of Raziq committing war crimes under their watch. “I was with him almost every single day from morning until night,” Webb told me. “I never saw anything bad.”

As an outsider, I often wondered how American officers, bound to uphold the laws of war, rationalized working with Raziq. His tactics in Kandahar — every mutilated corpse or disappeared person — were intended to send a message, to terrorize his enemies and those who might support them. And they were effective. When I visited Kandahar in those years, I found that most people on the streets knew exactly what was happening, even if they were too afraid to speak about it openly.

But Raziq also calibrated his actions so that they were deniable. According to former colleagues, he and his men took steps to conceal them from their American allies, like dumping corpses when dust storms obscured aerial surveillance or using veiled language over the phone. Sending someone to “Dubai” meant killing them in the desert. “His commanders would call and say: ‘We caught someone. What should we do?’ He’d say, ‘God forgive them.’ That was his code,” said a senior republican police general who worked with Raziq. “I heard it with my own ears on an operation.”

The farther you got from the streets and villages, the easier it was to ignore what was happening there. According to an interpreter who spent years translating Raziq’s meetings with his American advisers, the subject was generally avoided at headquarters. “The advisers didn’t care about Raziq’s bad activities,” he said. “We weren’t telling Raziq: ‘Hey, do you have private prisons? Do you still have people in there?’”

“I’m not saying they didn’t occur; I’m not saying they did occur,” Schweitzer said about the kinds of accusations that led Allen to halt detainee transfers. “I just know I read all the intel reports.” And whatever American officers chose to believe, they could see that Raziq was delivering where it counted: Within a year and half of his taking over, enemy-initiated attacks were down by almost two-thirds in Kandahar. “I thought he was an incredibly important figure,” Schweitzer said, “and was critical to keeping the security in the south.”

The COIN strategy was tested in the summer of 2014, when the Taliban began a bold offensive targeting the two southern provinces that had been the focus of American efforts. The surge had come to an end, and republican forces were supposed to take the lead in combat.

In Helmand, where the Marines tried to keep out abusive strongmen, the government’s defense was disastrously weak and uncoordinated. In many rural areas, the republican army stayed in their forts and allowed the police to be overrun. Despite the presence of a major American air base in the province, large sections of the northern districts fell into insurgent hands.

But when the Taliban pushed into western Kandahar, Raziq took charge and rallied republican forces. Backed by his advisers and American airstrikes, he inflicted heavy casualties. The following summer, insurgents again attacked and reached the outskirts of Helmand’s capital; Raziq led counteroffensives to lift sieges there and, the next year, in the neighboring Uruzgan province. “The Taliban have fled the area and escaped,” he boasted to a TV crew while touring the embattled district of Now Zad.

By 2017, Helmand was among the top three provinces most controlled by insurgents, according to U.S. military figures. And while the situation was deteriorating across the country, Kandahar City and its surroundings remained relatively secure under Raziq. Journalists and human rights groups had warned that supporting men like him would backfire and inspire resistance to the government. Yet here he was, holding the line against the Taliban.

A Taliban supporter whose husband was killed in battle. She used to aid the movement by smuggling weapons. “We tied pistols around our waists to get them through checkpoints,” she said.

Retired Special Forces Colonel Jamie Hayes was an advisor to General Abdul Raziq early in his rise to becoming one of the most powerful figures in southern Afghanistan.

Raziq was far from the only example: Again and again, the U.S. military felt compelled to partner with Afghan allies who were accused of human rights abuses, despite its doctrine of winning the war by winning hearts and minds. Call it the COIN paradox; for years it puzzled me, until I came across the work of the political scientist Stathis Kalyvas, who offered a convincing explanation of its logic.

In his comparative study of conflicts ranging from the Napoleonic occupation of Spain to the Tamil Tigers’ insurgency in Sri Lanka, Kalyvas asks why civil wars are so often marked by violence against civilians. Discarding explanations like cultural backwardness or ideology, Kalyvas argues that the incentive for this violence is created by the military characteristics of civil war, where the population is the battlefield.

To understand how Kalyvas’s theory applies to Afghanistan, you had to look at the rural areas where most of the fighting took place. Consider the Taliban’s stronghold in Kandahar, the Panjwai valley. A verdant delta of pomegranate and grape orchards west of the provincial capital, Panjwai was the birthplace of the movement. Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban’s leader, preached in his mosque there.

The site of major offensives by allied forces since 2006, Panjwai was arguably the longest and most grueling fight anywhere in Kandahar. During the surge, American troops fought their way in and, by the end of 2010, had built up a string of bases and strong points, many jointly manned with the republican army and the police. The Taliban ordered its fighters to melt back into the villages, where, aided by the area’s dense vegetation and mud-walled orchards, they switched to hit-and-run ambushes, assassinations and improvised explosive devices.

This kind of guerrilla struggle was an example of what Kalyvas calls irregular warfare, in which territorial control is fragmented and mixed between both sides. The Taliban hid their weapons and picked up shovels, taking advantage of American rules of engagement, which allowed soldiers to fire only on those who were armed or posing an active threat. “We basically did not see a difference between the locals and the Taliban,” said Curtis Grace, who patrolled there as an infantryman in 2012.

The Army’s COIN manual stresses the difficulty in irregular warfare of telling civilians and insurgents apart. Kalyvas’s argument is different: The distinction itself can blur. In a conflict with no clear front lines, violence is jointly produced by combatants and civilians, who have the information the troops need to fight their enemies: the location of I.E.D.s and army patrols, the identities of insurgents and government supporters. Moreover, because civil war involves rival state-building, civilians help or hinder combatants by providing logistical and political support. In Panjwai, the Taliban needed local help to operate: They tried to win it by announcing safe routes through minefields, but they were also ruthless with those suspected of being spies and government supporters.

In civil war, while indiscriminate violence, like collateral damage from airstrikes, can backfire, “selective” violence against individuals works in a straightforward way: Do this, or I’ll kill you . Winning hearts and minds can still matter, but it’s only half the story. And in wartime, sticks are often much cheaper and more effective than carrots. In this life-or-death struggle, the competitor willing to use both will have the advantage.

Kalyvas’s work is part of a larger body of scholarship on civil war and counterinsurgency that demonstrates how central the use of coercive violence against civilians has been in such conflicts, whether waged by dictatorships like Syria or democracies like France. “ ‘The bad guys win’ is not the answer that U.S. forces, policymakers or civilians want to hear about counterinsurgency success, but the historical record is clear,” writes the scholar Jacqueline L. Hazelton. In this light, COIN doctrine can be seen as a form of American exceptionalism: the idea that the United States could fight a civil war differently from anyone else — humanely.

If Kalyvas is right, then what the U.S. military faced in Afghanistan was not so much a paradox as an impossible choice. To take back places like Panjwai, there was a compelling incentive to use unlawful violence against the population, which the U.S. military could not allow itself to do. The solution to this dilemma was a division of labor, where the United States provided firepower and money to allies like Raziq, who did the dirty work.

In 2010, the United States introduced the Afghan Local Police program, or ALP. Drawing on their experience with militias in Vietnam and El Salvador, the Special Forces trained and armed villagers around the country. In the military’s hearts-and-minds framework, they were empowering communities to protect themselves against violent outsiders. But four decades of a multisided conflict meant that fault lines ran through communities, villages and even families. Most areas were tribally mixed; finding militias meant exploiting those divisions just as the Taliban had been doing. It meant arming Afghans against one another in a civil war.

As police chief, Raziq was in charge of the ALP program in Kandahar. Panjwai District was the most resistant; by 2011, its horn, as the western end was known, was the only place that the militias had failed to take root, despite the presence of several Special Forces teams. The next year, Raziq appointed one of his key lieutenants as the district police chief. Panjwai was predominantly Noorzai; Sultan Mohammad was an Achakzai like Raziq, but he was from the district. Such local knowledge, the ability to make rural Afghan society legible to outsiders, was precisely what made militias effective. They could go after the Taliban and their supporters in their own homes. The Taliban had gained sway over the villages by targeting the families of those who collaborated with the republic, and the militias, protected by American and regular government forces, could turn the tables.

Most of Panjwai was too dangerous to visit during the war, but when the republic fell in 2021, I was able to travel there, interviewing dozens of witnesses who described torture and extrajudicial killings carried out by members of the police and the ALP, targeting both active insurgents and sympathizers. In the village of Pashmul, several witnesses told me they saw Sultan Mohammad shoot an unarmed old man, Hajji Badr, whose sons had served in the Taliban. Sultan Mohammad told me he had no involvement in murder or torture, but several other people said they witnessed him personally execute prisoners. “All the people from the area knew,” said Hasti Mohammad, a republican district governor in Panjwai. “It wasn’t something secret.”

I was also shown several videos of police abuse, including one in which a group of men, identified by locals as ALP members in Panjwai, tortured a captive bound hand and foot. They strike him with sticks, twist his testicles with their hands, pour water over his mouth and sodomize him with a stick, all while demanding he confess. “I don’t have anything,” he blubbers, growing incoherent.

This brutality was no impediment to American and republican success. Under Sultan Mohammad, the ALP program was established throughout the district. I.E.D. attacks plummeted, while the proportion of bombs that went off without being discovered dropped by half, which one study attributed to increased cooperation from locals.

The U.S. military was aware of the abuses by police officers and militia members in Panjwai. On multiple occasions, American surveillance captured them committing war crimes. One video showing executions by the police was shown to senior U.S. officials in 2012; Colonel Webb said he asked Raziq to arrest the perpetrators, but police investigators told me that some ordinary militiamen were punished instead. Sultan Mohammad was eventually promoted to brigadier general and oversaw several districts in the west of the province. When I spoke with him, he showed me a collection of certificates of appreciation from more than a dozen U.S. military units. “The Special Forces helped us a lot,” he said.

Fazli Ahmad, a Taliban fighter, was arrested by the police, who filmed a video of themselves dragging him behind a pickup truck. He said Sultan Mohammad ordered him to be executed, but he was released after his father paid a bribe.

Sultan Mohammad, a former police chief in Panjwai District and one of Raziq’s key lieutenants. He worked closely with the U.S. military to establish a militia program in Panjwai. “The Special Forces helped us a lot,” he said.

Thanks to his success in Kandahar, Raziq became famous. Not since the late northern commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, whom he greatly admired, had any one figure united anti-Taliban sentiment across the country. He was interviewed on national television, and his picture was pasted on street billboards. Songs were dedicated to him:

He’s the servant of security, the servant of our government.

He’s truly the servant of Afghans.

There were many reasons for his popularity. He was young and dynamic, a village boy who never lost the common touch. He was free with his largess, sometimes handing out cash on the street. He spoke fearlessly against Pakistan’s support for the insurgency. For Afghans disenchanted by the corruption and duplicity of their politicians, Raziq seemed authentic.

“There were other politicians who would talk against the Taliban and Pakistan,” said Nader Nadery, a senior fellow at the Wilson Center who as head of the country’s human rights commission had criticized Raziq’s abuses. “With Raziq, people saw it was not just words.” Even Nadery had come to see the trade-off that Raziq represented, as a bulwark against the looming collapse of the republic. “It’s a difficult judgment to make,” he said. “We can lose everything, or we can keep some parts of it.”

Although Raziq publicly denied accusations of human rights abuses, when an Afghan journalist asked him about them in 2017, he offered something close to a justification. “Showing mercy to such people is a betrayal to our nation,” he replied. “When our soldiers are martyred, isn’t that a violation of human rights? When our schools are burned, isn’t that a violation?”

The truth was that many Afghans saw Raziq’s brutality as a positive quality. They wanted a champion who could protect them from the Taliban’s violence. When Raziq went out on the streets, he was mobbed by crowds of well-wishers. “It was like being an adviser to Elvis Presley,” Webb recalled.

As Raziq grew in stature, he was rehabilitated. Western generals and diplomats sought him out on trips to Kandahar. Over the years, Raziq was a constant there, a fixed point around which contradictory policies and goals swirled: counterterrorism, nation-building, COIN and, finally, negotiations with the Taliban. “We needed him more than he needed us,” said John W. Lathrop, who as a brigadier general commanded American forces in Kandahar in 2017. “Keeping Raziq happy was pretty important.”

For the Taliban, Raziq was one of their top targets. By his own count, Raziq had survived at least 25 suicide attacks. Yet he remained committed to the fight. In one of his last interviews, Raziq criticized republican elites who already had one foot out the door with visas and houses overseas. “We shouldn’t hope or plan to seek asylum in America or move to London,” he said. “We were born here, and we’ll die here.”

On Oct. 18, 2018, General Miller, the top U.S. commander, called a meeting at the governor’s compound in Kandahar to discuss the upcoming parliamentary elections. That day, Raziq put on Western-style clothes: a dress shirt and slacks. The young soldier from the borderlands had become a statesman, a role that came less easily to him. He had seemed worn down to people who had met him lately; he was preoccupied with political dramas in Kabul. He had also been sick for days with a bad stomach bug, but he wanted to see Miller, whom he had known since the early days of the war. During the meeting, Raziq appeared flushed and uneasy, but afterward he insisted on walking to the helicopter pad to see off Miller and the other Americans.

A group of police officers arrived, carrying crates of pomegranates, gifts for the Americans. Among them was a bodyguard for the governor, a young man the Taliban had code-named Abu Dujana. He dropped his crate and fired his assault rifle, killing Raziq and the provincial intelligence chief and wounding several others, including an American general, before he was shot dead.

As one part of the country celebrated, the other mourned. The republic had lost its hero.

What does Raziq’s story tell us about why the United States failed in Afghanistan? Although the immediate cause of the republic’s collapse might have been the precipitous U.S. withdrawal in 2021, the real question is why the Afghan government could not stand on its own despite the hundreds of billions of dollars invested over 20 years by America and its allies. How did hundreds of thousands of soldiers and police officers, armed with modern equipment, lose to insurgents who rode their motorcycles in sandals?

Many corrupt and unpopular governments survive insurgencies. And it’s clear that the Taliban’s violence against civilians did not prevent their ultimate success. More than hearts and minds lost to brutality, internal rot and infighting — fed by the West’s profligate spending and inconsistent strategy — explain the republic’s collapse. Criminal behavior by republican officials escalated to the point that it threatened the system itself, bringing about repeated crises like the near collapse of the banking sector. Wage and supply theft were catastrophic to the morale of soldiers and police officers, while nonexistent “ghost soldiers” inflated their ranks. As the Americans pulled back from rural areas, the ALP militias became increasingly predatory, shaking down locals for bribes; their selective violence became indiscriminate, to use Kalyvas’s terms. “That’s how it started,” a senior Panjwai officer explained. “The district chief stole their salaries and said, ‘Go get your meals from the people.’”

When it came to corruption, Raziq played an ambiguous role: What he stole from the system with one hand he gave back with the other. With their control of the border, he and his cronies siphoned huge amounts of government revenue : The shortfall added up to around $55 million per year, according to satellite imagery and customs data analyzed by the researcher David Mansfield.

But Raziq also spent much of what he earned on his network of sources, on bonuses for his men, on bribes to protect himself from rapacious politicians in Kabul. In a corrupt system, money was synonymous with power, and Raziq needed it to fight. Yet while he tried to curb overly predatory commanders, there was a limit to how far he could go to keep order. He was a prisoner of his own methods. Enforced disappearances, torture and executions, the tools that Raziq believed were necessary to defeat the Taliban, had to be kept hidden, often through intimidation and bribery. Impunity for human rights abuses could lead to general lawlessness; in this way, repressive counterinsurgencies had mutated into mafia states in countries like Guatemala. The men that Raziq handpicked to carry out these acts were of necessity criminals. The darkness they worked within allowed corruption to flourish. By contrast, instead of democracy or human rights, the Taliban professed a fundamentalist vision of Islamic law. Their scholars justified killing captives and civilians as necessary and legitimate in the jihad against foreign occupation. Where the republic’s hypocrisy fed its fatal weakness, corruption, the Taliban’s unabashed brutality was consonant with the movement’s strength, its unity.

Today we live in an age of irregular warfare, of asymmetric clashes with militant groups and battles to control populations. A vast majority of conflicts over the past century have been within states, not between them. The comforting myth that brutality is always counterproductive — that war can therefore be humane — obscures how violence functions in such conflicts; it hides how and to whom men like Raziq are useful. In retrospect, this myth, sold to the public as COIN, is part of a larger pattern of dishonesty that runs through America’s longest war, 20 years of wishful thinking and willful ignorance that culminated in tragedy on Aug. 15, 2021, when Raziq’s mortal enemies entered Kabul in triumph.

Read by Peter Ganim

Narration produced by Anna Diamond and Krish Seenivasan

Engineered by Steven Szczesniak

Victor J. Blue is a photographer who has been working in Afghanistan since 2009, when President Barack Obama escalated the war effort. He was there during the fall of Kabul, when the Taliban came back into power in 2021, and has returned three times since then.

Matthieu Aikins is a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine and a fellow at Type Media Center who, since 2008, has been covering conflicts in Afghanistan and the Middle East, the U.S. military's operations overseas, forced migration and human rights.  More about Matthieu Aikins

Advertisement

"The American Dream is dying": Democrats' main selling point "is not a winning message"

"if you want your message to resonate, you can’t be dull, and the democrats have become more than a little boring", by chauncey devega.

President Biden and the Democrats are in a battle for the soul and future of American democracy. The stakes of the 2024 election are that high. Donald Trump is an existential threat to the country.

The 2024 election is existential for President Biden and the Democratic Party in more basic and fundamental ways as well: Trump continues to threaten President Biden and other leaders in the Democratic Party with death and imprisonment if he takes back the White House. The most recent example of such tyrannical behavior occurred last Saturday when Donald Trump told the NRA convention that President Biden should be executed for being a “Manchurian candidate”: “If that were a Republican, he would have been given the electric chair, they would have brought back the death penalty."

Biden is a patriot who loves America. Trump is a corrupt coup plotter and public admirer of Hitler , Vladimir Putin and other enemies of democracy.

Yet Biden has responded to Trump's escalating threats against democracy with a desperate desire to present an image and leadership style that is “reasonable” and “responsible” and emphasizes public policy successes. As I explained in a recent essay, being boring, nice, and passive will not help President Biden and the Democrats defeat Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. Political scientist M. Steven Fish agrees.

Fish is a professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley. He has appeared on BBC, CNN, and other major networks, and has published in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The American Interest, The Daily Beast, Slate, and Foreign Policy. His new book is “ Comeback: Routing Trumpism, Reclaiming the Nation, and Restoring Democracy's Edge .”

In this conversation, Fish argues that the Democrats have neglected the importance of emotions in winning over the mass public to their cause. He also warns that the Democrats (and by implication many liberals and progressives) fundamentally misunderstand the (white) working class and their continued support for Donald Trump and Republicans. Toward the end of this conversation, Fish offers advice for President Biden and the Democrats on how to recalibrate their messaging and leadership style to defeat Trump and the Republicans in the 2024 election and beyond.

Read part one of our conversation here . 

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length : 

Politics is fundamentally a struggle over emotions and ideas. Democrats on the national level are horrible storytellers. They believe that facts and policy win political battles. They do not. Democrats win the facts and lose the argument.

All the research I did for my book bears out what you say here. First, on emotions: The Republicans—and for that matter, their authoritarian equivalents around the world—never forget that politics is about appeals to values and feelings more than material interests. The Democrats have lost track of that fact and think that the advantage goes to the party that offers more attractive policies and the most goodies.

A crucial part of appealing to emotions is having a great story. The political psychologist Drew Westen spells this out in his work, and he rightly faults the Democrats for both their belief that elections are primarily debates over policy issues and their lack of a compelling narrative.

"I think blaming the media for anything almost always misses the point."

What I’ve found is that the most inspiring narratives, the ones that really connect with people and win them over to your side, are national narratives. All the great liberal leaders such as Dr. King, JFK, and FDR armed themselves with enthralling national stories that centered on showing the world what we Americans were made of by reducing poverty, overcoming racism, leading the world in education and scientific innovation, and making the blessings of citizenship a reality for all Americans. And by aggressively claiming the flag and constantly wrapping their progressive programs in a grand national vision, they never allowed ethnonational creepy crawlers like George Wallace to claim patriotic superiority.

Today’s Democrats are so squeamish about nationalism and seemingly incapable of appreciating the power of narrative that they have no national story at all. So, in the absence of a powerful, liberal national- democratic  story, Trump’s cramped, nativist,  ethnonational  fable, which treats native-born white Christians as the true Americans, is pretty much all we ever hear, even though most Americans don’t actually find it compelling.

And without a strong national narrative, your policies will be seen as sops to special interests and particular groups rather than as vital to the whole nation’s welfare. In the absence of such a story, no one will care about your policies unless they stand to benefit from them directly themselves. That would include, for example, the vast majority of workers who don’t have reason to think a given infrastructure spending bill will get them a job, and the overwhelming majority of Americans who work for employers who provide health insurance.

I am a proud member of the Black working class. My father was a janitor and my mother a home healthcare worker. I grew up with the so-called “white working class” that the mainstream media and political class fetishizes—and mocks and fails to understand. In many ways I feel more at home with those folks than I do with the white upper class and other elites who I often travel among personally and professionally. This background and life experience has given me a great insight into the Age of Trump, one that most of my fellow travelers, especially if they are white and from more privileged backgrounds, sorely lack.

You just put your finger on why voters of color are going over to the Republicans in droves. Almost half of Hispanics and fully a quarter of Black men now say they plan to vote for Trump. Many highly educated white liberals just can’t believe their eyes, and their reaction is often the same as it is when they see working-class whites throw in with the Republicans: How can these people vote against their own interests ? And how can we Democrats strive ever more fervently to let them know how much we love them and how the Republicans don’t care ?

Whites now make up no more than about a quarter of my students at Berkeley, and I can’t tell you how many kids of color tell me that their parents are all in for Trump. Many are first and second-generation Americans from Latin America, Asia, and Africa. What I’m hearing from my students, and also seeing in the research, is that a lot of people of color, including many recent immigrants, are tired of well-heeled white liberals treating them as casualties rather than as authors of the American story. Progressives’ white savior complex, however well-intentioned, can become so patronizing that it feels like plain old racism to them.

We need your help to stay independent

In my book, I focus a lot of attention on white working-class voters, since that’s the group that seems to be going over to Trump in the largest numbers.

One of the things these people find most alienating about many affluent white progressives is how bigoted we think they are. Of course, there are plenty of hardcore bigots out there. But a raft of data suggests that they’re a small and diminishing portion of the population, and they’re not even a majority among Republican voters.

Overeducated coastal white elites who rarely mix it up with working-class Republicans—and this includes a lot of academics, journalists, and most of the people who control the Democratic Party’s messaging—tend to grossly overestimate how bigoted working-class whites are.

"Democrats are doing what they always do, which is running on 'the issues' rather on the story that’s much bigger than 'the issues' and that ties them all together."

What the Democrats offer today are pathos-soaked appeals to “struggling working families.” The vibe they put out to working-class people is basically:  The American Dream is dying—especially for people like you. The only way you can revive it is by accepting government aid. And if you’re not smart enough to realize how desperately you need it, just wait until you get old and sick, and the Republicans won’t cover your preexisting conditions !

In America, this is not a winning message.

What role has the mainstream news media played in the democracy crisis?

Let’s start with an important fact noted by the historian Timothy Snyder: Reporters are the heroes of our age. They are the guarantors of democracy, all the more in times like ours when democracy is in grave danger. And for the most part, the ethic of objectivity and truth-telling is alive and well.

I’d like to add that I think blaming the media for anything almost always misses the point. I often hear my fellow liberals say that “the media” are to blame for Trump’s rise. But the media are just the messenger, and outlets of every type and stripe stay in business by giving us the information we want and putting it in terms that engage our attention. The reason Trump dominates the airwaves, even out of office, is that he’s more interesting and entertaining and less constrained by the Marquess of Queensberry boxing rules than his opponents, so stories about him get more clicks.

The fact is, we live in an age of click-bait communication, infotainment, and public addiction to spectacle. If freedom’s enemies project more chutzpah and garner more attention than its defenders do, democracy will remain in jeopardy—if it survives at all. And if the truth-tellers tell their truths less provocatively, consistently, and doggedly than the disinformers tell their lies, any shared notion of reality will shrivel. We can already see that happening.

If you want your message to resonate, you can’t be dull, and the Democrats have become more than a little boring. Their low-dominance risk-aversion, fear of offending, distaste for “othering” anyone, and skittishness about using provocative, transgressive language, are a big part of why so many voters, especially young ones, experience the Democrats’ policy appeals as bloodless, boring bromides.

Just have a look at Project 2025 and Agenda 47. Trump and MAGA describe themselves as “conservatives." In reality, they are neofascists (or even more specifically fake right-wing authoritarian populists). We need to use accurate and specific language to defeat this threat to American and global democracy. 

This needs to be integrated into the Democrats’ narrative. The Trumpified Republicans are in no way conservatives, at least not in the American sense. Nor are they patriots. Democracy is our country’s most sacred tradition, and nobody who seeks to undermine democracy in America has the right to call themselves either a conservative or a patriot.

Look, I grew up in a Republican family in the Midwest and the South: small government, small business, personal responsibility, patriotism, and all the rest. Mom told me we were Republicans in part because some Democrats used the N-word. Mind you, this was in Kentucky back in the 1970s, and she was right. Obviously, the Trumpified Republicans are no longer my parents’ party.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter , Crash Course.

Whatever you and I might think of their policies, Ronald Reagan, John McCain, and Mitt Romney were both conservatives and patriots. None of them would have thought of trying to undermine the legitimacy of democracy by claiming that any election they lost was rigged or by inciting an insurrection. None of these figures were my political heroes, but still, they were real conservatives and real Americans. Trump and his MAGAmen are radical yahoos and traitors. And, as you say, neofascists. It’s long past time the Democrats got over their squeamishness about adducing these facts and using these terms.

You mention Project 2025 and Agenda 47, and you’re right: These documents provide a roadmap for demolishing democracy. As you know, the Republicans’ plans include eviscerating what they call the “deep state,” which actually means the agencies of justice, administration, and law enforcement. These are the part of the government that ensure the rule of law—that is, a system in which the rulers, as well as everyone else, must obey the rules. Gutting them will enable the Republicans to rig political competition, stay in office even when they lose, suppress opposition, weaponize law enforcement, and leverage their offices for private gain.

As usual, Trump and the Trumpized Republicans are telling us exactly what they plan to do, so we have no excuse for acting shocked at their behavior. The question is how democracy’s defenders can use the Republicans’ remarkably candid statements of their intentions against them.

How can the Democrats leverage the Republicans’ betrayal of democracy to beat them in November and beyond?

It’s true that Biden and other top Democrats sometimes sound the alarm on the Republican threat to democracy. But is that what they are  running on ? Is that what they  never quit  talking about? Not really. Instead, they run on promises to control prescription drug prices. They run on the Republicans’ abortion bans. They run on taxing the rich at a higher rate. In other words, the Democrats are doing what they always do, which is running on “the issues” rather on the story that’s much bigger than “the issues” and that ties them all together.

That story is about American democracy, and it’s what the Democrats should be running on, day in and day out. Everything we hold dear—a dynamic economy, our preeminence in the world of science and innovation, civil rights, civil peace, a woman’s right to choose, public health, basic human decency—rests on the preservation of democracy.

We defend it; the Republicans are seeking to turn us into a tinpot dictatorship. Their hero and role model is Viktor Orbán, the two-bit Hungarian despot who wrecked his country’s democracy, allied his country with Putin, and drove every company out of business that refused to bankroll his party and bribe his sorry butt. Do you want to live in Orbán’s America?

Trump does. After meeting with Orbán at the White House, he said of him: “It’s like we’re twins!”

Trump’s ultimate hero and mentor, of course, is Vladimir Putin, America’s greatest sworn enemy. Democrats also support our democratic allies to the hilt, including Ukraine. Those relationships multiply our power and keep our nation secure. Trump wants to withdraw from NATO.  Withdraw from NATO!  Why? Because destroying NATO is Putin’s dream, and Trump sides with Putin. Always, every time. Do you know what Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan would call that? Treason! Because that’s what it is.

Now why the hell don’t the Democrats say it?

If you had a private meeting with President Biden and his advisors what advice would you give them?

Fire your pollsters, or at least ignore them. They can’t get their twitchy noses out of last week’s focus-group data on gasoline prices, and they don’t see the big picture or grasp what you’re up against. Nor do they fully see what you’re really capable of. The constant adjustment of your message to polling data makes you look like a people-pleasing panderer rather than the principled, passionate progressive hard-ass you really are. You’ve been at this for over half a century and run in nine elections. You understand Americans better than anyone else does.

Be provocative. Be interesting. Use transgressive language. Ridicule Trump; don’t even act like you take him seriously. But don’t just keep shining the spotlight on him and hoping against hope that if voters finally see how awful he is, they’ll choose you by default. That’s classic low-dominance politics, and it’s part of why Trump is always the news, even though you’re the president and he’s just a private citizen trying to stay out of jail. Keep the spotlight on yourself. You’re the man; Trump is not.

Switch to a high-dominance messaging style that projects your superior strength and commitment to democracy and the American way. We saw glimpses of your appreciation for the need to do that in your Republican-owning SOTU speech, your decision to leak that you refer to Trump as a “sick fuck” in private, and your “make my day, pal” response to Trump’s invitation to debate. But those were just flashes of dominance; you’ve got to do it every day.

Trump’s a traitor who sides with our enemies. You’re a bold commander who has produced a crackling economy, united our democratic allies against Putin’s horrific invasion of Ukraine, and stood up to Xi Jinping. That’s why Putin and Xi and every other enemy of democracy in the world is pulling for Trump. You kicked Trump’s ass once, and you’re going to do it again. Show it and tell it.

This final bit of advice is not for Biden, it’s for the rest of us, everybody who wants democracy to prevail: It’s time to rally behind Biden with abandon. Let’s leave the prattle about Biden’s age to the Republicans; it’s a disgrace for liberals to keep tearing ourselves apart about it when he’s our candidate and the main thing standing between us and a slide into autocratic hell. So what if he moves more slowly than he used to? Biden’s mind is sharp, his heart’s enormous, and he works 12-hour days. He’s got what it takes and then some. He’s our guy. Let’s back him to the hilt and take it to Trump.

about this topic

• When Trump gets dark, Biden goes light
• Trump's testing out a new campaign strategy: horror politics
• Sociopaths and psychopaths are not necessarily monsters. Experts urge using these terms properly

Chauncey DeVega is a senior politics writer for Salon. His essays can also be found at  Chaunceydevega.com . He also hosts a weekly podcast,  The Chauncey DeVega Show . Chauncey can be followed on  Twitter  and  Facebook .

Related Topics ------------------------------------------

Related articles.