A critical dissection and understanding of policy, cyber, and cultural ethics through government documentation.
An Understanding of the USA Patriot Act and its Effect on Muslim Americans
No matter the political opinions, religious beliefs, cultural preferences, or even nationality of the observer in question, the same universal constant can be concluded; that the September 11th terrorist attack left a significant mark on both the world and the societies that exist within it. Because of this understanding, even after the twentieth anniversary of the attack the event is still cited when discussing national security, cybersecurity, and at times, the civil liberties of the citizens residing on the same soil that suffered the tragedy. As a citizen of said country, a level of interest can be taken from the event itself and the subsequent policies that followed as those two linking identical factors have formed the only life someone born in a post 9/11 world will ever know.
Controversial natures nowadays represent conflicting opinions rather than those that are truly what can be defined as “controversial”. In the late ‘60s to early ‘70s during the height of their protests, those who advocated against the Vietnam War were viewed with controversy, they were labeled as those who were not patriotic. Now, after forty years have passed, support for the Vietnam War can be viewed just as controversial as support against the existence of such conflict. The point is that controversy throughout the modern world exists on both sides within any situation, especially political. In 2006, five years after the attack itself, President George W. Bush said following the vote to renew the Patriot Act: “The terrorists have not lost the will or the ability to attack us. The Patriot Act is vital to the war on terror and defending our citizens against a ruthless enemy” (Bush, 2006). Meanwhile, on the opposite aisle, Patrick Garlinger in his paper titled: “Privacy, Free Speech, and the Patriot Act: First and Fourth Amendment Limits on National Security Letters”, spoke out against the Patriot Act’s violation of individual rights by saying: “In short, the Patriot Act allowed field officers to certify, without providing any specific facts, that an individual’s data is “relevant” to an investigation designed to protect against terrorist activities, and it authorized the FBI to issue an NSL on that basis alone.” (Garlinger, 2009). In a modern world of controversial definitions, both statements depending on the opinions of who was asked, could appear as controversial. However, the basis of this analysis is not to debate both sides of controversy but to instead reach a conclusion, in this instance the quote from President Bush posed a few questions: Who are “the terrorists”? Who is “the enemy”? “What are we protecting our citizens from? These questions require a deeper context of the Patriot Act, more specifically what was it trying to accomplish? In short, the broad appeal was to provide a blanket of security around the United States, to defend her citizens from further harm of such a nature, but how is this achieved? How can those in charge decide who “the terrorists” are without defining a portion of the population, without condemning them to become the target of this surveillance. Therefore, the purpose is not to question the legality of the Patriot Act, as the answer is painfully available, but to question the ethical nature of the tactics used and explore who was affected most.
In her 2011 paper titled: “U.S. Patriot Act and Racial Profiling: Are There Consequences of Discrimination?”, Cassidy Pitt drew a comparison between the U.S. definition of terrorism and how after the September 11th attacks, a connection between terrorism and the Islamic faith have been made. She goes on to discuss that although the Patriot Act was made to “Unite and strengthen America by providing appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism.”, the non-disclosed end goal resulted in the restriction of rights protected under the first and fourth amendment (Pitt, 2011). However, the ethical concerns most notably exist within the specific targeting of those within the Muslim community. This level of discrimination often resulting in even further restriction of the most basic rights granted under the Bill of Rights. Pitt concludes that: “Implementation and laws like the Patriot Act has made it possible for such discrimination to occur.” (Pitt, 2011). While the Patriot Act was created to “unify and strengthen” the population, the realistic application of that same level of protected would lead to the segregation and targeting of those who have been falsely labeled a terrorist simply because of their religious beliefs or color of their skin. This evidence is further backed throughout the 2004 report titled: “The USA Patriot Act: Impact on Arab and Muslim American Community”, co-written by Arshad Ahmed and Farid Senzai. They too draw a similar conclusion between the Patriot Act and the restrictions of civil liberties by also noting the impact left on Muslim American communities following the passing of the act, saying: “Civil liberties of ordinary Americans have taken a tremendous beating with this law, and none more so than Muslims, South Asians and Arab Americans.” (Ahmed and Senzai, 2004). Throughout this report, the specific applications of the Patriot Act are explored, most notably Section 102 of the Act which grants simply “Enhanced Surveillance Procedures” to the federal government, a tool that their agencies have used to navigate around the rights protected under amendment four allowing them to further monitor and collect electronic surveillance and communication. This unfortunately was used to further criminalize the Islamic faith through Attorney General John Ashcroft’s decision to “increase surveillance of certain religious and political organization, such as mosques and Islamic centers.”, another attack used to alienate a portion of American citizens (Ahmed and Senzai, 2004).
With the groundworks in place, the basics of this Act cannot accurately be connected to existing cybersecurity or even national security policy. The Patriot Act was hastily passed only four weeks following the attacks on September 11th, something that allowed for many details to go overlooked only to lead to scrutiny later from parties advocating for citizens’ rights. Connections that can be made however exist between the flawed surveillance of the Patriot Act and the groundworks for U.S. cybersecurity operations, specifically in the Department of Homeland Security’s cybersecurity wing that in 2009 launched the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center. The NCCIC while utilizing surveillance tactics formed under the Patriot Act is a vital asset in organizing responses to cyber-attacks experienced on home soil (CISA).
The topic of controversy can once again be referenced to conclude findings of the Patriot Act, because while the hidden details are overwhelmingly negative, the Act is something that paved the way for better homeland and cybersecurity within the United States. While controversy is deeply rooted within the Patriot Act in how it targets the same citizens it swore to protect, it would be equally controversial to declare that the Patriot Act should never have existed. While flawed, it is necessary to the betterment of security within the nation that suffered a horrific tragedy. Directions exist that can be taken to make change, but unfortunately twenty long years have passed since the passing of the Patriot Act, with many changes already existing since then. If put back into the era of highest protest surrounding the act, the government could have benefitted from transparency in their operations opposed to hiding their findings and secretly spying on the citizens that already pledge allegiance. By doing this, a greater level of trust could have existed between the government and the greater population, however, the issues surrounding discrimination exist from deeper wounds carved not just from the September 11th attacks. Solutions to those problems exist on a much greater level than just transparency and communication. The unfortunate truth is that battles fought by Muslim Americans in response to the Patriot Act were mirrored events from the past and have continuously been mirrored since.
References
Ahmed, A. A., & Senzai, F. S. (2004, January). The USA Patriot Act: Impact on the Arab and Muslim American Community. The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. https://www.ispu.org/the-usa-patriot-act-impact-on-the-arab-and-muslim-american-community/
Bush, G. W. B. (2006, March 9). Quotes About the USA Patriot Act. Life and Liberty Archive. Retrieved October 15, 2021, from https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/archive.htm
Garlinger, P. G. (2009). PRIVACY, FREE SPEECH, AND THE PATRIOT ACT: FIRST AND FOURTH AMENDMENT LIMITS ON NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS. New York University Law Review, 84, 1105–1146. https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-84-4-Garlinger.pdf
Pitt, C. P. (2011). U.S. Patriot Act and Racial Profiling: Are There Consequences of Discrimination? Michigan Sociological Review, 25, 53–65. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327043828_US_Patriot_Act_and_Racial_Profiling_Are_There_Consequences_of_Discrimination
Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace | CISA. (n.d.). Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency. Retrieved October 15, 2021, from https://www.cisa.gov/safeguarding-and-securing-cyberspace