<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>

Freedom and safety are two ideals that American citizens value greatly; however, the balance between privacy and security determines whether or not both can be achieved in a reasonable manner. Security and privacy are not mutually exclusive; however, they tend to exhibit an inverse correlation with regards to maintaining individual liberties. Security and privacy are highly beneficial, but when one is given too much weight, the other most often suffers. When the United States citizens are given too much privacy through regulations, the citizens risk their well-being by not allowing the government the ability to prevent dangerous activities being done by criminals. Citizens are unable to defend themselves against foreign and domestic threats of terrorism that affect large amounts of people such as bombings in public settings; however, the federal government can help to prevent such attacks in public settings through surveillance of public areas and monitoring of internet and intracellular communications. When the United States federal government is given too much discretion in security powers through legislation, citizens are at risk of losing their civil rights granted in the Bill of Rights and in Supreme Court cases. The United States of America has had a dangerous imbalance of power in favor of national security since the adoption of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, and the imbalance has continued to the present even after the passage of the USA FREEDOM Act in 2015. This thesis will be a comparative analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 to the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015. This thesis will show what specific powers are granted through provisions of the acts, whether or not the provisions are unconstitutional, how the privacy and security of American citizens will change due to the provisions in the USA FREEDOM Act, and suggestions for how the United States federal government can continue to tilt the balance between security and liberty to ensure more protection for civil liberties and a decrease in national security powers. The suggestions will include three options for gaining the protection of civil liberties and the elimination of certain national security powers and the options are through Supreme Court cases on national security laws pertaining to individual cases or states, Congress passing concurring minor bills with the proposed plan to fully repeal granted national security powers without disturbing congressional alliances on other measures, and Congress passing a single act called the State Surveillance Repeal Act in order to fully repeal the USA PATRIOT Act provisions that would still be in effect after the passage of the USA FREEDOM Act.

No description available.

This study investigates about the meaning of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. The purpose of this study is to illustrate the meaning of the USA PATRIOT Act from an archaeological perspective (in the Foucauldian sense). Rather than accepting the Act and its formulations this study excavates the discursive elements that give meaning to the Act within the current socio-political sphere. In this sense this is a Foucauldian archaeology of patriotism in the United States of America illustrated and explicated through the current discourse created by the USA PATRIOT Act. Moreover, this research intends to illustrate how the patriotic discourse affects our current spatial practices. By analyzing the contemporary patriotic discourse through the lens of spatial theory what is sought is to briefly sketch the conceptual landscapes that are created through this discourse. This study applies the concepts and theories of Michel Foucault, Edward Soja, and Homi Bhabha as well as other postcolonial theorists to analyze the USA PATRIOT Act as a discourse that is linked and shaped by history and a discourse that is active in the design and content of our spaces.

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. 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.