Opposition:
One of the underlying reasons why people believe that their rights are being violated by the Patriot Act is that they see it from such a paranoid perspective, thinking of the government only as an abusive, secretive power. Given the nature of its duties, the Department of Homeland Security, responsible for protecting American soil from terrorists, is especially targeted, and that is at least partially due to poor record keeping in the past. “USA Patriot Act” reports that in 2007, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was brought into question for issuing too many national security letters (NSLs), special letters that can allow certain types of inquiries without court approval. These claims hold that NSLs were used far more than necessary and being used to pry into Americans' lives. Also, 22 percent more NSLs were uncovered than the FBI had recorded; the FBI says this was due to slow processing. Additionally, in 2005, 24,937 NSLs were issued on American citizens and 27,262 on foreign nationals in the US (“USA Patriot Act” par. 12). This “slow processing” is sketchy at best, especially when it concerns the lives of thousands of people on American soil. Were there truly any bad intentions? Regardless, a revelation of this magnitude is damaging to the fight for a good standing opinion in the public’s eye.
Support:
In spite of this unfounded paranoia, the truth is that no matter how scary or powerful the government may seem, it has been designed to keep citizens safe and combat abuse within its own ranks. Joel responds in 2015 to an event, much like the national security letter issue above, where government documents were illegally leaked to the public: “Mistakes happen, and when they do, they are taken seriously. To date, we have found errors caused by inadvertence or technical problems, but have not found an intentional violation” (par. 12). The point is that clerical mistakes happen in any business or organization, and the government is not exempt. Joel then continues on to share his opinion on intelligence/security workers in the United States by stating, “In my experience, intelligence professionals—and those overseeing them—are profoundly committed to the oath they take to support and defend the Constitution” (par. 14). Basically, Joel is saying that these officials, though in position to wield great power, are not, abusing it. Their fight is for security and safety from terrorists, not invading private lives.
In addition to the statements made by Joel, action has been taken to show the public that the government is willing to cooperate and divulge some of its secrets. Research from James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence for the United States, and Francoise Gilbert, author of “Demystifying the United States’ Patriot Act” reveals that although some information is too sensitive to current inquiries or sources to reveal completely, some files regarding various contested aspects of the Patriot have been declassified (Clapper par. 21; Gilbert 5, 11). In addition, Clapper reports that the files are being released to give the government more transparency and accountability to its citizenry (par. 22). This effort made by the government shows that it is willing to try to reassure Americans of intelligence organizations’ integrity without compromising national security.
In addition to the statements made by Joel, action has been taken to show the public that the government is willing to cooperate and divulge some of its secrets. Research from James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence for the United States, and Francoise Gilbert, author of “Demystifying the United States’ Patriot Act” reveals that although some information is too sensitive to current inquiries or sources to reveal completely, some files regarding various contested aspects of the Patriot have been declassified (Clapper par. 21; Gilbert 5, 11). In addition, Clapper reports that the files are being released to give the government more transparency and accountability to its citizenry (par. 22). This effort made by the government shows that it is willing to try to reassure Americans of intelligence organizations’ integrity without compromising national security.