Legal changes post-Sept. 11

September 11, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
With today being the anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, I couldn’t help but think about how our country has changed in seven years. I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I realize now that we aren’t as isolated from the rest of the world as we once thought, that terrorism can happen in America, and that the U.S. we knew before the attacks will never be the same.

One major change came about through Congress as the Patriot Act. President George W. Bush signed it into law in October 2001, and many of the laws introduced then have been made permanent.

The argument and rush to pass the act was it would make America safer. Giving the government more policing powers, the ability to search private records without having to show a judge that a crime may have been committed, easier access to monitor phone and e-mail communications, and gather information about people, among other powers, were necessary to protect the U.S. from future attacks and find terrorists before they can strike.

My question is one I’m sure many people have had regarding the Patriot Act – is it worth impeding on people’s freedoms and constitutional rights to try to protect our country? Is it OK for the government to obtain personal information without the approval of a judge as long as it’s in the best interest of our country’s safety?

It may be a question that’s hard to answer. Can I say for sure that the Patriot Act has prevented any more attacks? No. But I also can’t say it may not have contributed to keeping Americans safe.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT