.
It appears that there are two clear sides to this issue. First, is that as an American citizen we have the right to understand that it is the government's duty to protect the people they represent and look out for their best interests. Perhaps this is just the line where the controversy ends; that the government and this legislation are doing just that. In the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, security has been vastly stepped up in addition to safety precautions. (A large scale "dirty bomb" attack and response simulation took place last week and involved people from Seattle to Chicago.) America feels the need to protect itself from any other possible attack against our homeland. The content of the Patriot Act and its legislative changes may be just another step in ensuring the safety of the American people. By allowing our government and law enforcement agencies more freedoms and tools to prevent terror, Americans have a sense of security. Acting Assistant Attorney General Jamie Brown stated in a report that anti- terrorism measures enacted after Sept. 11, including the USA Patriot Act and new prosecution guidelines from Attorney General John Ashcroft, have played an extremely important role in disrupting terror plots. He stated, "In our judgment, the government's success in preventing another catastrophic attack on the American homeland in the 20 months since Sept. 11, 2001, would have been much more difficult, if not impossibly so, without the USA Patriot Act." If this is true, then the Patriot Act is doing the job that it was put into law to do. If it is our government's duty to protect its citizens, they are doing just that. We would expect that the law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies will use the new powers obtained from the Patriot Act carefully and limit their use to investigations of acts of terror. But much more is included in this act, and it is not limited to acts of terror.
