The USA Patriot Act Abridges Essential Freedom

According to my opponent, detaining someone abridges civil liberties - therefore jails as well as the USA Patriot Act 'abridge' essential freedom. I'm going to disagree with my opponents definitions and provide several definitions taken from Black's Law dictionary, a trusted debate sources, as well as premier legal dictionary. -Patriot Act – (Proper Noun) – Also known as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 is A statute enacted in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, giving law enforcement broader authority to collect information, with a warrant on suspected terrorists, to share that information among domestic and foreign intelligence agencies, to make the country's border more secure, to detain suspects on new types of criminal charges using new criminal procedures, and to give the treasury department more authority to investigate and regulate financial institutions that participate in foreign money – laundering (Black's Law Dictionary) -Abridge – (verb) – To reduce or diminish (Black's Law Dictionary) -Essential – (adjective) – Absolutely necessary – indispensable (Webster's New World Dictionary) -Freedom – (noun) – A Political right (Black's Law Dictionary) So for all referential purposes we can assume that an essential freedom is an absolutely necessary, indispensable political right. My core value for this round will be national sovereignty or the ability of the government to uphold itself. My value premise is the common good defined as a term that can refer to several different concepts. In the popular meaning, the common good describes a specific "good" that is shared and beneficial for all (or most) members of a given community. This is also how the common good is broadly defined in philosophy, ethics, and political science. . My philosophical basis will be Utilitarianism which is the act, of a thing or policy which does the most good for the most amounts of people. My first contention is that a stringent focus on rights creates political disarray. The book Civic Repentance outlines the fact that to lead too far towards excessive rights leads to anarchy, and to lean too far towards order leads to authoritarianism. After examining this, it is clear that a focus on individual autonomy cannot be tolerated, because doing so will lead to a destabilization of the equilibrium between rights and sovereignty. In addition to this, if a nation is to sacrifice its autonomy or national sovereignty it is opening itself up to further abuses. By having the P.A., the U.S. is able to maintain its national sovereignty and promote rights at the same time. By allowing the government to scrutinize and acquire circumspect files from terror suspects the nation is a safer place allowing more individuals to have more freedoms than if the nation was under terror attacks. For an example, look no further than the week after 9/11 – while the government hemmed and hawed over strategies it was a vexation to board a bus. Now with the P.A., we are able to take the indispensable precautions to prevent terror without relinquishing rights. To preserve the national sovereignty individual rights are not to supersede governmental authority in importance. My second contention is that the P.A. is much more beneficial than it is harmful. This is a simple fact and can be illustrated in a multitude of ways. First, the P.A. furthers global networking. For example, Susan Heald ( political columnist) noted that after 9/11, the countries involved in NAFTA threatened to back out of the agreement until the U.S. secured their borders and interior. Though the cost may have been minimal, negligent at best, the repercussions would have been global and economically catastrophic. The U.S. would have lost trade securities from several European and Asian nations. As a result of the P.A., countries with fears of being attacked simple because they were aligned with the U.S. had their fears expunged and allowed NAFTA to still be operation. Currently, the trade borders are more expansive and allow the U.S. to regain some economic stability. In the same vein, the Patriot Act has helped to foil terror attack attempts. First, the P.A. helped stopped failed shoe bomber Richard Reid. After seeing suspicious web history appear on his company sponsored computer, officials were able to track Reid all the way to the supplies he bought to make the bomb, on his credit card. As a result, he was plucked from American Airlines Flight 63 and the lives of everyone on board, including the pilot and several flight attendants were saved. As a result of the file tracking and supply purchasing the P.A. was able to foil a terror attempt. In our global tech society, it is necessary that there are monitors on the web to prevent e – terror as well as the propagation of terror in Jihadi and Al- Qaeda sponsored chats. The P.A., works to monitor these chats that could potentially prove harmful and in due course shut them down prior to the terror acts actually occurring. My third and final contention is that the Patriot Act does not actually infringe on civil liberties or privacy rights. Therefore, any argument of such brought up by my opponent can be defeated with the following support. The USA Patriot Act permits tracking Web sites and e –mails if the law enforcement agency certifies that it relates to an ongoing investigation; searching a business or residence with a warrant and a variety of other measures. Furthermore, ACLU is all up in arms saying that section 215 of the P.A., infringes on first amendment rights. These charges are bogus. Critics of section 215 deliberately ignore the fact that any request for items under the section require not only a warrant but judicial approval. The bureau must first convince the court that oversees anti – terror investigations (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA) that the documents are relevant to protecting "against international terrorism on clandestine intelligence activities." Furthermore, to even investigate a U.S. citizen, rather an illegal alien under FISA, the FBI must show that he is knowingly engaged in terrorism or espionage. Ignoring the Patriot Act's strict judicial review requirements is the most common strategy of the act's critics. Apologies for the text block Sources : Initial definitions - Black's Law Dictionary Core Value and Value Premise Definitions - http://en.wikipedia.org... and http://en.wikipedia.org... General Argument - Taking Sides : Clashing Views On Controversial Political Issues