Introduction
USA PATRIOT ACT was enacted in 2001 in reaction to the September 11, bomb attack on the US. Reauthorization was passed in 2005 by the Senate and made permanent most of the previous provisions about to expire in 2005. The Act strengthens and gives more authority to the federal agencies over individual privacy and secrecy of information. There is more federal authority on foreigners in the US and on electronic communications limiting the privacy of individuals as previously enjoyed (Abele, 2005). Some of the sections of the law have been contested in court with rulings made in favor of the applicant and some sections being nullified.
Organizational policy
In every organization, all workers are supposed to be treated equal, as the constitution states clearly that all are equal before the law. In America, every person is given an equal opportunity to explore the various avenues of opportunities in a bid to ensure every person can sustain his/herself at the same time contributing to the national building efforts. Discrimination and harassment are unconstitutional and thus as in an organization, all are treated equally with every individual given an equal platform on which one can further and perfect the acquired skills. Individual properties are respected and no organizational activity should be deemed to be undermining individual freedom or privacy. Letters to the various personnel are dispatched without tampering with them in a bid to verify the contents (Scheppler, 2006).
The Act, on privacy
The Act gives the federal agencies authority to intercept individual or corporate electronic communications perceived related to terrorism. Emails of individuals are also put under scrutiny with their contents disclosed by the various agencies. The Act is specifically discriminatory in that aliens are mostly targeted with their bank accounts also scrutinized and under constant check in an effort to ensure they do not fund terrorism. The area of residents especially of aliens also under surveillance with their activities, especially those touted to be terrorists, being closely monitored. Computer communications not spared either with computer trespasser intercepted by the federal authority.
Organizational view on the Act
As an organization, the policies of the Patriot Act are very oppressive and going against the constitutional rights of individuals. Discrimination and harassment have been propagated by the Act, as federal agencies tend to launch the individual surveillance and interception, not mainly on the individuals actions but on race and religion. As an organization, employees are never judged on their social inclinations, religion, or race. All races and tribes are given equal opportunities as policies have been put in place stating individuals are judged by their productivity level, efforts and loyalty rather than race, place of origin or religious beliefs (Smith and Hung, 2010).
The Patriot Act is not desirable for any organizational functioning or policy formulations. The Act gives federal agencies the authority to detain persons perceived to be terrorists at the same time freezing their bank accounts and all of their assets in a bid to preventing the suspects from obtaining any form of support. The Act also provides for disclosure of private and confidential information to the agencies by financial institutions about their clients. This goes against professional business ethics. Furthermore, the information in most cases does not lead to any meaningful terrorism arrests. Most of the suspects are only investors whose main aim is for business purposes rather than terrorism. The Act’s provisions are thus discriminatory and leave many individuals especially aliens vulnerable to harassment and torture.
All organizations are governed on formulated policies that are transparent and apply to all personnel. This ensures that the organization is put before and above individuals and as a result, individuals are deterred from misusing their power thus the levels of discrimination and harassment are also significantly reduced. The Act on the other hand does not respect the set institutions like courts. This is portrayed in the Act’s provision that allows for detention of persons or removal of non-citizens without judicial review. The government has also been given the powers to detain suspected terrorists without trial, on the other hand implementing a policy to monitor foreign students and all of their activities. Such an act is discriminatory, as the majorities of foreign students have nothing to do with terrorism and are as vulnerable to terrorism like any other group.
Such monitoring can be psychologically disturbing to individuals, as they cannot engage in social activities with their American peers freely as they feel someone is watching them even when not being monitored. This creates disorders such as paranoia and depression and such students are even unable to accomplish their studies effectively. In an organization, basing on experience, such measures should be avoided as they lower the productivity capacity of employees. They also go against human rights of individuals that should be maintained and observed at all time. In implementing organizational policies on harassment and discrimination, it becomes valuable to consider the diverse nature of employees, formulating the appropriate policies that are accommodative.
Instead of placing harsh conditions on aliens and foreigners that in most cases are against the constitution and human right of individuals, it would be better for the government to tackle the patent issues like American imperialism. Terrorism is only a result of the main problem facing America of which the main problem is the perception the outside world has about America. International relations should be improved with diplomacy being preferred instead of military confrontations. Countries like China and Japan are global powerhouses but are not faced with the serious danger of terrorism like the US. The system thus needs to think of a better way of tackling terrorism rather than imposing strict rules that are discriminatory. In this era of globalization, immigrants will always flow to the US and thus discriminatory acts against them do not portray the true image of the American nation. This applies to all organizations to also liberalize their policies and ensure that individuals are first treated like human beings first before going to the national and race entities (Ewing and Doyle, 2005).
The Act’s impact
The Acts implementation has not been objective as the process has been mainly associated with abuses. The Act has been one of the reasons cited for the over a hundred percent increase on hate crimes against American Muslims. The Act portrays the Muslim nations as terrorists consequently resulting to religious intolerance in the American society. American Muslim community has been struggling with civil rights especially since 2003. The Act’s measures against terrorist suspects of whom many are Muslims have given the society a reason to continue discriminatory acts against the Muslims. Almost half of the anti-Muslim incidents complaints reported have been committed because of the government’s anti-terrorism policies.
As observed by Scheppler (2006) the government at one time ordered the registration of male non-citizen visitors of whom the majorities were Muslims; over thirteen thousand Muslims were deported as a result. The government’s sweeping powers in probing and monitoring individuals has also been questioned. The Act calls for institutions to seek customer details and probe their authenticity and if falsified they should take action. As a result, there have been many reported cases of bank accounts of Muslims being closed without notice or further explanations; others denied credit cards, bank officials citing the Act’s provisions. This discrimination has been even extended to the US born Muslim citizens.
Harassment cases on Muslims have also increased significantly since the Act came to effect. The constitution has not stated the religion of the US and thus no religion is recognized as the federal religion with all religions being treated as equal. The act has thus resulted in contradicting the constitution in having discriminatory clauses.
Conclusion
For an organization, such treatment and oppressive acts are avoided. The policies of the organization are structured in such a way that all people are equally treated and the requirements for each individual employee are similar. Discrimination and harassment acts are discouraged at all costs. To ensure the policies against harassment and discrimination are implemented efficiently and objectively, all the diverse employees from different cultural and religious inclinations are required to actively ensure no individual is contradicting the policies by engaging in acts that are not allowed. Suggestion boxes and employees’ representatives have been encouraged to improve communication in the organization. Seminars and workshops have also been organized in light to stamping out discrimination and harassment.
As shown, the US Patriot Act seems to do more harm than good. The Act discriminates against non-citizens, and oppresses the Constitutional rights of the individual. In a business setting, equal opportunities for employees are in place, and should employees and/or management violate these rights, there would be serious consequences. The US should be held to the same standard.
For an organization, such treatment and oppressive acts are avoided. The policies of the organization are structured in such a way that all people are treated equally, and the requirements for each individual employee are similar. Discrimination and harassing acts are discouraged at all costs, including termination. To ensure the policies against harassment and discrimination are implemented efficiently and objectively, all the diverse employees from different cultural and religious inclinations are required to actively ensure no individual is contradicting the policies by engaging in acts that are not allowed. Suggestion boxes and employees’ representatives have been encouraged to improve communication in the organization. Seminars and workshops have also been organized in light to prevent harassment and discrimination, and to exhibit the consequences of such actions.
The attacks of September 11 instilled fear within the US government, and the Act is a result of that fear. However, this document has left law enforcement a wide berth to conduct activities that are against the basic civil rights of individuals living in the US. Provisions were in place prior to the Act to attempt to protect the US. Many of them were not enforced; as a country the government did not see that terrorism would ever be a problem on US soil.
One safeguard that should be implemented to avoid abuse of the Act would be to define “domestic terrorism.” As the Act is written now, the term “domestic terrorism” includes anyone, even college groups involved in protesting war. This is in direct violation of the Constitutional right to freedom of speech; one of the rights that the US is known for (Totenberg, 2010). Specifically defining domestic terrorism may assist in mitigating the risk of violating an individual’s civil rights (Iftikhar, 2005).
Additionally, the Act should be modified to reflect the basic rights of the US: “all men are created free.” This does not mean all men within a certain culture, religion, or race. It is meant to reflect all men; all human beings, legal immigrants, men, women and children. If a suspected terrorist is identified, under the Constitution, they are still entitled to due process (Khalil, 2002). The act of incarcerating an individual is barbaric and inhuman, and in direct violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (Walenta, 2010).
Modification of the Act is desperately needed. In order to affect this change, it would be wise for a group to be established that can research and present the solutions to Congress. Although there are many groups like this in existence, a new organization made up of citizens who are well versed in the Act could be implemented to show the government the damage that the Act is doing to their own citizens. The members of the group should include all individuals who are looking to protect their basic civil liberties. In order to keep this group from falling under the Act’s laws, it should be a public group, one that infers peaceful resolution rather than violent protest. If the issues were presented to the government in an organized, well-thought out manner, perhaps they would listen. In any event, the message would be heard, and regardless of the outcome, this group may begin to affect change. There are rallies, marches, and peaceful protests for many groups who want to enforce their Constitutional rights, some of which are violent groups. The Act may want to focus more on the groups that are known offenders, rather than individuals who are looking for their basic civil rights, and by publicizing this group’s agenda in a constructive manner, this could be accomplished.
This pie chart represents the number of US citizens that would like to see ratification of the Act.
This graph is based on numbers provided by the ACLU and the US Census Bureau. The blue shows the fraction of American citizens who admit to abolishing the Act (Longley, n.d.). These are the brave individuals who are willing to risk being a victim of the Act, rather than stand aside and remain silent towards the injustices provided by such a discriminatory piece of legislation. There are many others who fear retaliation, who fear becoming the next victim of the Act.
References
Iftikar, A. (2005). Patriots against the Patriot Act. Web.
Khalil, R. (2002). US Patriot Act: an attack on all our rights. Web.
Longley, R. (n.d.). ACLU warns against new Patriot Act measures. 2011. Web.
Totenberg, N. (2010). Does the Patriot Act violate free speech? Web.
United States Census Bureau (2011). US Popclock projection. Web.
Walenta, C. (2010). Constitutional topic: due process. Web.