Currently, Title II of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT Act) Act of 2001 appears to be stalled as a result of controversy over the intent and meaning of the law. Proponents of the title advocate the necessity of the act to combat modern terrorism, whereas opponents warn of circumventions of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Using punctuated equilibrium as the theoretical foundation, the purpose of this case study was to explore the dialogue and legal exchanges between the American Civil Liberties Union and the Department of Justice related to the National Security Agency's metadata collection program. In specific, the study sought to explore the nature of resistance to changes needed to mollify the controversies associated with Title II. Data for this study were acquired through publicly available documents and artifacts including transcripts of Congressional hearings, legal documents, and briefing statements from the US Department of Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union. These data were deductively coded according to the elements of PET and then subjected to thematic analysis. Findings indicate that supporters and opponents of the law are locked in a consistent ideological polarization, with supporters of the law touting the necessity of the authorizations in combatting terrorism and opponents arguing the law violates civil liberties. Neither side of the debate displayed a willingness to compromise or acknowledge the legitimacy of the other viewpoint. Legislators who accept the legitimacy of both researched viewpoints could create positive social change by refining the law to meet national security needs while preserving constitutional protections.

<p><p>This thesis takes a closer look at the USA Patriot Act and the literary debate that has followed the passing of that Act. The aim of the thesis is to define what freedom is for the two opposing sides using McCallum's freedom model.</p><p>The literary analysis shows that the most common argument from authors who are pro Act is that in desperate times like these one must relinquish a part of the individual's freedom to ensure the safety of the collective. Amongst those authors who are against the Act concerns are raised for the possibilities of abuse as a result of increased government power such as the ability to detain immigrants for long periods of time, surveillance and increased exchange of information between federal agencies.</p></p>

<p>In the debate generated by the authorization and reauthorization of the Patriot act we can find a wide range of opinions and ideas concerning the balance of freedom and security, and how that might affect the society. The government (the creators of the law) advocates the necessity of the Patriot act and its structural changes to secure the freedoms of USA. While opposing views suggest that these changes affect the balance of freedom and security in such a way that it might affect the way of life and be a threat to the civil liberties of the citizens. The aim of this thesis is to investigate how the debate reflects how the Patriot act may have affected the balance between the various practices of freedoms and national security in USA.</p><p>This thesis investigates three aspects of the debate that concerns the Patriot act. The rhetoric’s used in the debate by both sides show some difference in the rationales of the debating sides. Some controversial aspects of the law undermine the safeguards that are suppose to protect the civil liberties and freedoms when their definitions are opened up for a wide arrange of interpretations. The third part of the thesis investigates the big brother mentality that is being fostered and culture of preparedness of all the nation’s dimensions and systems that is asked for in order to adapt to these systematic changes of their society that the law provides.</p><p>The investigation of the debate conclude that state apparatus takes on a role of coordinative micromanaging, which together with the culture of preparedness fosters the nation to always be on its toes. As a result of these changes the practices of freedom and the democratic values they nourish are being destabilized and undermined in the climate of fear that is being established.</p>

abstract: This thesis, Impressive Mastermind, examines notions of privacy and the law, particularly with regard to the USA Patriot Act implemented following the events of 9/11. The author/artist believes that numerous freedoms related to personal privacy, especially those rights protected by the Fourth Amendment, were diminished in order to ostensibly seek out potential terrorists. Through the vehicle of a theatrical dance performance, Impressive Mastermind investigates these privacy issues on a public and personal level and also asks the audience to question their own views on government policies regarding personal privacy, including illegal search and seizure. Drawing on the previous work of other intervention artists, this thesis explores the realm of public intervention. Moving away from the usual spectacle of traditional theater, this multi-dimensional piece explores an experiential examination of how the public relates to what is real and what is considered performative. / Dissertation/Thesis / M.F.A. Dance 2011

In the debate generated by the authorization and reauthorization of the Patriot act we can find a wide range of opinions and ideas concerning the balance of freedom and security, and how that might affect the society. The government (the creators of the law) advocates the necessity of the Patriot act and its structural changes to secure the freedoms of USA. While opposing views suggest that these changes affect the balance of freedom and security in such a way that it might affect the way of life and be a threat to the civil liberties of the citizens. The aim of this thesis is to investigate how the debate reflects how the Patriot act may have affected the balance between the various practices of freedoms and national security in USA. This thesis investigates three aspects of the debate that concerns the Patriot act. The rhetoric’s used in the debate by both sides show some difference in the rationales of the debating sides. Some controversial aspects of the law undermine the safeguards that are suppose to protect the civil liberties and freedoms when their definitions are opened up for a wide arrange of interpretations. The third part of the thesis investigates the big brother mentality that is being fostered and culture of preparedness of all the nation’s dimensions and systems that is asked for in order to adapt to these systematic changes of their society that the law provides. The investigation of the debate conclude that state apparatus takes on a role of coordinative micromanaging, which together with the culture of preparedness fosters the nation to always be on its toes. As a result of these changes the practices of freedom and the democratic values they nourish are being destabilized and undermined in the climate of fear that is being established.

Biopolitics is a concept that, much like the apparatus it refers to, has kept evolving ever since Foucault coined its modern meaning in 1976. Its usage and interpretation have especially changed with the recent publication of The Birth of Biopolitics and Society, Territory, Population, books that helped expand its perceived field of application, specifically vis-à-vis the modern governmental rationales of neo-liberalism and, by association, neo-conservatism. In a separate development, the Western dispositif (apparatus) of biopolitics has undergone a dramatic transformation as a result of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, attacks after which, to quote Donald Rumsfeld, ‘everything changed’. My thesis takes both of these developments into account and provides a critical exploration of contemporary biopolitical US counter-terrorist measures. Emphasis is placed on a contextual juridico-political analysis that sheds more light on the complex interrelations between the relatively novel biopolitical dispositif and the classical legal dispositif of sovereignty. This is accomplished by a two-part empirical genealogical study that traces some of the pivotal judicial changes that have resulted from the counter-terrorist measures introduced in the wake of 9/11. It proposes that the PATRIOT Act, one of the primary legislative tools introduced after 9/11, is a distinctively ‘bio-legal’ document that allows for the integration of the biopolitical discourses of pre-emption, exception and contingency within the existing legal framework. I argue that this is a genuinely novel development that significantly alters the intersection of biopolitics, geopolitics and law. The second part of the empirical analysis presents a detailed interrogation of the legal disputes that involve the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and, over the course of three key legal cases, shows that, even though the logic of biopolitics has now established a foothold within the US juridical system, the classical apparatus of Sovereignty still plays a decisive role in US governance. My key arguments are preceded and supported by an extensive overview of the notion of biopolitics, both as it was first introduced and developed by Foucault over the course of five publications, and as it is currently being used by key contemporary social theorists, especially insofar as this usage relates to the changes in Western politics after 9/11. Overall, the thesis provides a profound interrogation of the epistemic status of biopolitics, and it supplements this purely theoretical analysis with a detailed overview of how biopolitics and sovereignty interact in practice through the mechanism of the law, in the context of US counter-terrorist policies after 9/11.

No description available.

No description available.

It has been more than seven years since the events of the September 11 terrorist attacks have changed the way in which American citizens live on a daily basis. Some of us have become anxious while traveling, some more guarded in what we choose to discuss in public and with whom we associate, some more suspicious of other races and religions, some more suspicious of our own government. All American citizens-whether or not they were victims of racial profiling post September I I-have had to change the way in which they obtain information and understand their rights to privacy and knowledge. In my thesis, I explore how the enactment of the Patriot Act and the affiliated surveillance of American citizens (as well as foreign nationals) have not only violated our constitutional rights to free expression, but have also violated our intellectual and privacy rights. Specifically, I am concerned with the negative impact of the Patriot Act on the ability and willingness of American citizens to obtain information and to express their opinions about politically sensitive topics. This fear of being labeled a threat to national security or a potential terrorist has created a nation in which many citizens are increasingly complacent about violations of their intellectual rights, negligent about upholding their epistemic responsibilities, and increasingly ignorant about their own nation's policies, as well as global events In order to eradicate the negative influence of the Patriot Act on the epistemic rights and responsibilities of American citizens, I propose that the American public cultivate the epistemological virtues necessary to educate themselves on domestic as well as global matters. I suggest that this would enhance our national security, in addition to preserving our civil liberties and enlarging our intellectual understanding of global events and relationships.

No description available.