USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Create a PowerPoint presentation in which you:
Provide a historical perspective of the policy from the Week 3 assignment, Historical Perspective.
Describe the official and unofficial actors of the policy from the Week 6 assignment, Analyzing Policy.
Week 3
Historical Perspective
Antiterrorism Policy: The USA Patriot Act of 2001
Historical Perspective
The formal name of this legislation is Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001
(US Department of Justice, 6). The US Congress passed the act in the aftermath of the September
2001 terrorist attacks. President George Bush signed it into law on 26th October 2001.
Previously, America’s antiterrorism policy mainly focused on international terrorism. However,
the 9/11 attacks prompted lawmakers to focus on domestic attacks. Thus, Congress passed the
USA Patriot Act of 2001. The new legislation expanded the powers of security agencies to
collect intelligence through wiretapping and surveillance (US Department of Justice, 6). The new
law also contained anti-money laundering provisions to enable the FBI to monitor financial
activities and prevent the flow of illicit funds to terrorist organizations.
Nonetheless, the legislation elicited mixed feelings among the American public. A
section of Americans expressed concerns that the law infringed on civil liberty and placed few
checks and balances on the government’s ability to infringe on individual privacy. Due to these
concerns, Congress fiercely debated making changes to the act during President Barrack
Obama’s tenure. However, the attempts failed to materialize. Instead, Congress passed
reauthorization bills to extend the contentious provisions to 2010, then to 2011 and finally to
2015 through the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 6). On
the back of rising public pressure concerning privacy issues, the Senate approved The USA
Freedom Act of 2015. President Obama signed the bill into law on 2nd June 2015, effectively
replacing the USA Patriot Act with the new legislation.
The Social, Economic, and Political Environments
The US Patriot Act benefited from the most conducive social environment that other
policies rarely enjoy. The 9/11 terrorist attacks caused shock and grief in equal measure.
Following the attacks, Americans united in demanding answers from the governments and
getting justice. President Bush’s government capitalized on this public unity to enact new
sweeping antiterrorism policies. Congress rode on this wave of public outcry and assured the
public that the Patriot Act would seal loopholes in the existing antiterrorism policy and deliver
justice to all victims (Alshrari, 1). Even though civil liberties groups raised concerns regarding
infringement on Constitutional rights, their campaigns did not produce an immediate effect.
Public grief at the time overpowered any constitutionality issues regarding the legislation.
Instead, public pressure on civil liberties emerged months after the law had taken effect.
The 9/11 attacks occurred when the US economy was in recession (Roberts, 5). However,
the bleak economic situation did not hamper the efforts of Congress to design a radical new
antiterrorism policy. The incident produced immediate adverse effects on the economy.
However, the public and the corporate world were concerned that a weak government response
would further encourage terrorist attacks and dampen economic growth. Some analysts also
argue that the country needed to respond to the attacks strongly to build investor confidence and
revive the economy. Indeed, just a few months into 2002, the country’s economy gained
momentum after the Patriot Act had gathered force (Roberts, 5). Lawmakers pointed to the
resilience of America’s businesses and consumers.
When new policy proposals emerge, the US political landscape is synonymous with
sharply contrasting ideological differences and political wars in Congress. Yet, the Patriot Act
experienced few political obstacles. The bill was passed by an overwhelming majority in the
House of Representatives and the Senate. At the same time, the composition of the House
favored President Bush and gave him the impetus to front a more radical antiterrorism policy.
Republicans, the President’s party, controlled the House Judiciary Committee and hugely
influenced the new policy. On the other hand, Democrats expressed concerns about the limited
timeframes proposed for the investigative and surveillance provisions (Alshrari, 1). Nonetheless,
the bill received bipartisan support and passed hastily in the House before the President signed it
into law.
Critique of the Policy
Lever & Poama (4) outlines several attributes a public policy needs to achieve to succeed.
First, an effective policy should generate desirable and measurable outcomes. Second, a good
policy should receive significant support across the political divide. Third, successful legislation
should solve prevailing public problems effectively and efficiently. Most importantly, an
effective law should support existing democratic institutions and safeguard and deliver justice
(Lever & Poama, 4). After considering the above factors, it’s safer to argue that The Patriot Act
of 2001 was partly successful and only effective in the short and medium term. Nevertheless, the
overwhelming public and bipartisan political support the law received points to its desirability
and necessity to address terrorism. At the same time, the sweeping investigative and surveillance
powers the law granted to security agencies undoubtedly improved national security and
prevented further attacks on US soil. Therefore, the policy solved a critical security problem.
Despite the above favourable attributes of the antiterrorism policy, the negative aspects
outweighed the positives. A good public policy should incorporate evidence-based practices.
Yet, Congress enacted the legislation without comprehensively studying the efficiency of the
surveillance powers given to security agencies in combating terrorism (Gibbs, 3). However, the
most significant weakness of this policy is that it failed to protect America’s democratic
processes and institutions. The core of the policy’s provisions infringed on civil liberties and
hampered checks and balances that usually oversight the government. By limiting vital checks
and balances, the legislation reduced the ability of public oversight to hold law enforcement
agencies accountable (Lever & Poama, 4). Some contentious included allowing law enforcers to
spy on US citizens and empowering them to act without requesting court approval for specific
cases. Even more worryingly, the legislation allowed intelligence agencies to conduct
surveillance operations on American citizens with no criminal records (Alshrari, 1). Finally, all
policies should operate within constitutional provisions. However, the Patriot Act openly
infringed on civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, making it a bad
policy.
References
1. Alshrari, A. (2019). Patriot Act, Section 206: Its impact on Muslim populations in the US
(with special reference to roving wiretap policy). Public Policy and Administration, 7(1),
15-21. https://doi.org/10.15640/ppar.v7n1a3
2. Bureau of Justice Assistance. (nd). USA PATRIOT Act: Justice information sharing. US
Department of Justice. https://bja.ojp.gov/program/it/privacy-civilliberties/authorities/statutes/1281
3. Gibbs, W. W. (2018). A Question of triumph: Effectively measuring the success of
intelligence against terrorism. International Social Science Review, 94(1), 4.
https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/issr/vol94/iss1/4
4. Lever, A., & Poama, A. (2019). The Routledge handbook of ethics and public policy (1st
ed.). Routledge. Digital ISBN: 9781138201279
5. Roberts, B. W. (2009). The macroeconomic impacts of the 9/11 attack: Evidence from
real-time forecasting. Office of Immigration Statistics.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Macroeconomic%20impact%209_11
%202009.pdf
6. US Department of Justice. (nd). Highlights of the USA PATRIOT Act. Retrieved from:
https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm
Page |1
Week 8
Position paper
Page |2
Position in Favor of the Policy
The USA Patriot Act is a great approach as it aids in securing the nation against terrorist assaults.
The Act increased the authority of the police and espionage agents to investigate and combat
terrorism (Alshrari, 2019). The Act has been repeatedly renewed despite the criticism, but it
ultimately expired in December 2021. The Act has proven successful in stopping terrorist attacks
and safeguarding American citizens. The Act has made it simpler to arrest and deport suspected
terrorists, allowing for more surveillance of suspects, and broadened the definition of terrorism.
These regulations have aided in both the capture and prevention of terrorists. The Act has also
successfully blocked terrorism financing (Alshrari, 2019). Additionally, it has made it simpler to
apprehend and deport suspected terrorists, allowing for increased surveillance of suspects, and
broadening the definition of terrorism (Bose, 2018). In other words, it gave police departments and
secret services new tools for analysing and preventing terrorism.
The fundamental objective of the USA Patriot Act was to give police forces and security agencies
more tools to investigate and combat terrorism. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act’s
extension was one of the Act’s main recommendations (FISA) (Bose, 2018). FISA enables the
government to carry out surveillance and inquiries for the benefit of foreign intelligence. FISA
only applies to monitoring foreign governments and their agents before the Act. The Act enhanced
FISA to allow the government to monitor anyone it suspects of being involved in terrorism or
espionage. The USA Patriot Act is, in general, an essential and required instrument in the battle
against terrorism (Boyne, 2019). The ability to monitor more people and share information across
Page |3
agencies has made it easier to catch terrorists and stop assaults. The Act’s fundamental goal of
defending the American people from terrorist assaults has been accomplished.
Position against the Policy
The USA Patriot Act is a bad idea because it violates civil liberties. The USA Patriot Act has
generated debate since its introduction (Boyne, 2019). The right to privacy is cited as one of the
civil liberties that the Act allegedly violates. They contend that immigrants and minority
communities have been singled out for attack by the Act (Boyne, 2019). Supporters of the Act
contend that it is essential to defend the nation from terrorist attacks. Additionally, they contend
that the Act has successfully stopped terrorist attacks and that the worries about civil liberties are
exaggerated.
The Act has been used to target immigrant and minority communities. Additionally, it has made it
simpler to apprehend and deport suspected terrorists, allowing for increased surveillance of
suspects, and broadening the definition of terrorism (Boyne, 2019). Muslim and Arab Americans
have been disproportionately affected by these provisions. Immigrants have also been the target of
the Act (Department of Justice, 2019). Additionally, it has made it simpler to apprehend and deport
suspected terrorists, allowing for increased surveillance of suspects, and broadening the definition
of terrorism. Immigrants have suffered due to these provisions, especially Muslims and Arabs.
The Act is criticised for being used to target minority communities and immigrants, as well as for
violating American citizens’ rights. Additionally, they contend that the Act has not successfully
stopped terrorist attacks (Department of Justice, 2019). The USA Patriot Act is a contentious and
Page |4
divisive piece of legislation overall. It has drawn flak for violating civil liberties and failing to stop
terrorist attacks, among other things.
The argument in Favor of the Policy
There are several compelling arguments in favour of the Policy’s adoption. First, the Policy has
been successful in averting the occurrence of terrorist attacks. The Act has been extended for
additional terms on multiple occasions, but the last was in December 2021 (Boyne, 2019). As a
result of the legislation, law enforcement and intelligence agencies now have expanded capabilities
to investigate and prevent acts of terrorism (Bose, 2018). It also made it easier to detain and deport
people who were suspected of being terrorists, allowed for increased surveillance of people who
were suspected of being terrorists, and expanded the definition of terrorism (Department of Justice,
2019). The second benefit of the Policy is that it safeguards the populace’s civil liberties. The Act
has been extended for additional terms on multiple occasions, but the last was in December 2021
(Boyne, 2019). To better investigate and prevent acts of terrorism, law enforcement and
intelligence organisations were granted expanded authority by this Act.
In addition, the USA Patriot Act has been successful in preventing terrorist attacks and protecting
U.S. citizens. The increased surveillance powers provided by the Act have made it possible for
law enforcement and intelligence agencies to monitor terrorist activity and thwart attacks
(Department of Justice, 2019). The provisions of the Act that prohibit money laundering have
made it more difficult for terrorist organisations to fund their activities. The Act has also
successfully targeted American Muslims and Arabs, who have been the victims of a
Page |5
disproportionately high number of terrorist attacks (Boyne, 2019). These provisions have been
helpful in thwarting terrorist attacks and tracking those responsible for them. In addition, the Act
has successfully halted financial support for terrorist activities.
The argument against the Policy
There are several reasons why the Policy is harmful. The USA Patriot Act has generated debate
ever since it was introduced. Supporters of the Act contend that it is essential to defend the nation
against terrorist assaults (Department of Justice, 2019). Additionally, they contend that the Act has
successfully stopped terrorist attacks and that the worries about civil liberties are exaggerated. The
Policy first violates civil liberties (Alshrari, 2019). The Act increased the ability of police and
spying agents to investigate and combat terrorism.
Additionally, it made it simpler to apprehend and deport suspected terrorists, broadened the
definition of terrorism, and allowed for increased surveillance of suspects. In other words, it
provided law enforcement and intelligence organizations with more resources to look into and stop
terrorism (Alshrari, 2019). However, this heightened surveillance may violate people’s privacy.
Second, despite being repeatedly extended, the Act finally ended in December 2021 (Bose, 2018).
As a result, the Act is no longer valid and cannot be used as an excuse to violate civil rights.
The Act has also been used to attack immigrant groups and minorities. Due process, free speech,
and privacy rights are all allegedly violated by the Act. The Act was also unconstitutional because
it unfairly singled out Muslims and Arab Americans (Bose, 2018). It is unreasonable and unfair.
The Act, for instance, has been used to attack American Muslims and Arabs (Bose, 2018).
Immigrants have suffered due to these provisions, especially Muslims and Arabs. That is
unreasonable and unfair. The Act broadens the information exchange between law enforcement
Page |6
organizations. Information sharing between agencies was constrained before the Act (Department
of Justice, 2019). The Act eliminated those barriers, enabling greater information sharing. This
essential clause enables law enforcement organizations to pool their resources and knowledge to
investigate and stop terrorist attacks thoroughly (Bose, 2018). Last, the Act has not successfully
stopped terrorist acts. In fact, since the Act’s passage, there have been several terrorist strikes in
the U.S.
Page |7
References
Alshrari, A. (2019). Patriot Act, Section 206: It’s Impact on Muslim Populations in the U.S.
(With Special Reference to Roving Wiretap Policy). PUBLIC POLICY and
ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.15640/ppar.v7n1a3
Bose, M. (2018). Appraising the Foreign Policy Legacy of the Obama Presidency. Looking Back
on President Barack Obama’s Legacy, 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03001545-9_5
Boyne, S. M. (2019). Data Protection in the United States: U.S. National Report. Ius
Comparatum – Global Studies in Comparative Law, 409–455.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28049-9_17
Department of Justice. (2019). The USA Patriot Act: Preserving life and liberty. Justice.gov.
https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm
Week 6_Analyzing Policy
INFLUENCE, MOTIVES, AND IMPACTS
Summary, Purpose, Context of the Problem, and Recommendations
The USA PATRIOT Act was enacted in 2001 in response to the September 11th terrorist
attacks (US Department of Justice 6). The Act increased the powers of law enforcement and
intelligence agencies to investigate and prevent terrorism. The Act has been controversial, with
some arguing that it infringes on civil liberties and others arguing that it is necessary to prevent
terrorism. Despite the criticism, the Act has been renewed several times, but it finally expired in
December 2021. The enactment increased the powers of law enforcement and intelligence
agencies to investigate and prevent terrorism. It also allowed for increased surveillance of
suspects, expanded the definition of terrorism, and made it easier to detain and deport suspected
terrorists. In other words, its purpose was to give law enforcement and intelligence agencies
greater tools to investigate and prevent terrorism. According to McBride (13), the context of the
9/11 attacks showed gaps in the intelligence community’s ability to track and prevent terrorist
attacks. The USA PATRIOT Act was designed to close those gaps by giving the intelligence
community and law enforcement agencies new tools to track and prevent terrorist attacks.
One of the key recommendations of the Act was the expansion of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA allows the government to conduct surveillance and investigations
for foreign intelligence purposes (Daugirdas & Mortenson, 304). Before the Act, FISA only
applied to the surveillance of foreign powers and their agents. The Act expanded FISA to allow
surveillance of any person if the government believes that person is engaged in terrorism or
espionage. Before its enactment, law enforcement agencies could only conduct secret searches if
they had probable cause to believe that the suspect was involved in criminal activity. Another
key provision of the Act is the expansion of the sharing of information between law enforcement
agencies (Boyne, 294). Before the Act, there were restrictions on sharing information between
agencies. The Act removed those obstacles, allowing for more information sharing.
Stakeholders and Interest Groups
There are several major stakeholders involved in the USA PATRIOT Act. First, the
executive branch, responsible for implementing the USA PATRIOT Act, comprises the
President, the Vice President, and the Cabinet. The President is responsible for signing the
legislation into law, and the Vice President oversees the law’s implementation (Box‐
Steffensmeier et al., 168). The Cabinet is responsible for advising the President on national
security matters. Congress is responsible for enacting the USA PATRIOT Act. It decides
whether to renew or repeal the Act. Secondly, the intelligence community is responsible for
gathering intelligence on terrorist threats and providing information to the executive branch and
Congress. These include the FBI, CIA and the National Security Agency. The private sector is
responsible for providing information to the intelligence community. Additionally, law
enforcement agencies enforce the Act (McBride 18). These include the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and local police forces. Civil liberties groups are responsible for monitoring the
implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act to ensure that civil liberties are not violated (Messere
77). They include groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic
Frontier Foundation. Finally, the general public is responsible for electing officials who will
enact laws that protect their safety and security.
Responsibilities of Stakeholders
The executive branch is responsible for ensuring that the provisions of the USA
PATRIOT Act are carried out in a way that protects the American people from terrorism. Box‐
Steffensmeier et al. (170) add that it used the Act to create several new programs to prevent
terrorist attacks. For example, Homeland Security Advisory Council was created by the USA
PATRIOT Act, and the Department of Justice’s National Security Division was created in
response to the 9/11 attacks (Edwards, 3). These programs coordinate the federal government’s
efforts to prevent terrorist attacks. Secondly, the roles of the intelligence community in the USA
PATRIOT Act are to provide information and analysis to support policymakers in their decisionmaking (Edwards, 15). They are also mandated to carry out intelligence activities to protect the
nation from terrorist threats and to support law enforcement investigations and prosecutions of
terrorist acts. For the private sector, one of the most important roles is played in the area of
information sharing. Businesses and individuals have provided the government with information
about potential terrorist threats. This data has helped the government to prevent attacks and to
apprehend terrorists. For enforcement agencies, the Act authorizes the DHS to provide financial
and other assistance to state and local governments in the event of a terrorist attack.
Civil liberty groups have challenged the Act since its enactment after the 9/11 attacks.
They also speak against other laws and policies that erode civil liberties. They have filed
lawsuits, lobbied Congress, and educated the public about the dangers of these laws (Boyne,
330). They have also worked to defend the rights of Muslim and Arab Americans, who these
laws have disproportionately targeted. One of the most well-known civil liberties groups, the
ACLU, argues that the Act violates the rights to privacy, due process, and free speech. It was
also against the Act for disproportionately targeting Muslim and Arab Americans (Alshrari, 17).
Finally, the general public plays several roles in the USA PATRIOT Act. Firstly, the Act was
passed by Congress due to widespread public support for taking action against terrorism.
Secondly, the Act has been the subject of significant public debate, with many people expressing
concerns about its potential impact on civil liberties. The Act affects the general public in many
ways, including increased surveillance of their communications and activities.
Political Influence
The executive branch greatly impacts the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. The President, as
the head of the executive branch, can veto the Act, which would prevent it from becoming law.
This could be driven by personal interests such as gaining allies or power. The executive branch
can also choose not to enforce the Act or only enforce certain parts (Alshrari, 19). For example,
if the executive branch decides that the provision allowing for warrantless searches is
unconstitutional, it cannot enforce that part of the law. This authority has significantly impacted
Americans’ civil liberties, and the executive branch has used it to further its agenda. In defense,
the executive branch argues that protecting the country from terrorism is necessary.
The other group that can majorly influence the enactment, amendments, and
implementation of the Act is the civil liberty groups. Particularly, the ACLU has influenced the
debate on the USA PATRIOT Act through its advocacy work. It has lobbied Congress to repeal
the Act and litigated cases challenging its constitutionality (Messere 78). The ACLU has also
been critical of the Act in the media. The advocacy role is also not immune to political forces.
For example, the election of a president who supports the USA PATRIOT Act could impact the
ACLU’s work on this issue. The ACLU is also dependent on funding from individuals and
foundations. A decrease in funding could impact the ACLU’s ability to work on the controversies
caused by the Act, leading to decreased oversight.
Conclusion
The USA PATRIOT Act has been controversial since its inception. Critics argue that the
Act violates civil liberties, particularly the right to privacy. They also argue that the Act has been
used to target minority communities and immigrants. Supporters of the Act argue that protecting
the country from terrorist attacks is necessary. They also argue that the Act has effectively
prevented terrorist attacks and that the civil liberties concerns are overblown. After much
deliberation, Congress saw it fit not to reauthorize it and let it expire. The debate over the USA
PATRIOT Act will likely continue into the future because its provisions are still followed and
may remain active for a long time.
References
Alshrari, A. (2019). Patriot Act, Section 206: It’s Impact on Muslim Populations in the US (With
Special Reference to Roving Wiretap Policy). Public Policy and Administration, 7(1), 1521.
Box‐Steffensmeier, J. M., Christenson, D. P., & Craig, A. W. (2019). Cue‐taking in Congress:
interest group signals from dear colleague letters. American Journal of Political
Science, 63(1), 163-180.
Boyne, S. M. (2018). Data protection in the united states. The American Journal of Comparative
Law, 66(suppl_1), 299-343.
Daugirdas, K., & Mortenson, J. D. (Eds.). (2018). Time-Limited Provisions of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act Reauthorized Through 2023. The American Journal of
International Law, 112(2), 303-306.
Edwards, F. (2018). US Individuals’ perceptions of government electronic surveillance after
passage of the USA Patriot Act (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
McBride, S. (2021). How the CIA, FBI, and Presidential Administrations Failed to Prevent
9/11. Prevent, 9(2), 11-35.
Messere, F. (2019). Privacy Issues in Communication. In An Integrated Approach to
Communication Theory and Research (pp. 73-86). Routledge.
US Department of Justice. (n.d). Highlights of the USA PATRIOT Act. Retrieved from:
https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm
You have been given the opportunity to present your case to an influential interest group in your
community. You will use information gathered in each of the previous assignments to create a
compelling presentation with the goal of persuading the interest group that your position on the
policy is worthy of being implemented.
Create a 6–8-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you:
•
•
•
•
•
Provide a historical perspective of the policy from the Week 3 assignment, Historical
Perspective.
Describe the official and unofficial actors of the policy from the Week 6 assignment,
Analyzing Policy.
Present both of the positions of the policy from the Week 8 assignment, Position Paper.
Persuade the audience that the position you have chosen is worthy of the policy being
implemented.
Include at least four peer-reviewed references (no more than five years old) from material
outside the textbook. Note: Appropriate peer-reviewed references include scholarly
articles and governmental websites. Wikipedia, other wikis, and any other websites
ending in anything other than “.gov” do not qualify as peer-reviewed. Use Basic Search:
Strayer University Online Library to identify references.
Your assignment must include:
•
•
•
•
Title slide with the name of the policy, your name, and date.
Reference slide with at least four peer-reviewed references formatted according to the
Strayer Writing Standards.
6–8 slides (the title slide and reference slide are not included in this number).
A typed narration of each of your slides in the Notes section of the PowerPoint
presentation.
