When looking at the ethical implications associated with preventive detention and interrogation tactics, the law must be reviewed and applied appropriately. For guidance on arrest, detention, and search and seizure we look at the Fourth Amendment. This is part of the Constitution and offers guidance on how the government must act when dealing with someone’s reasonable expectation of privacy (Baradaran, 2013). The Fourth Amendment outlines property, possessions, and physical arrest of a person. By using this guidance and applying it based on Supreme Court rulings, a police officer and department domestically will be covered and not be violating rights (Renan, 2016). This is specific to United States soil and does not hold weight in other parts of the world. While fighting the war on terror, the military found a different law to support their detention and interrogations of suspected terrorists.
The Patriot Act signed into law by President Bush allowed the military and police in the United States to gather information of suspected terrorists. When this act was new, U.S. citizens suspected of being a part of a terror group could be spied on without the search warrant clause being applied (Boykoff, 2016). Basically, this act was applied as part of the exigent circumstances carved out in the Fourth Amendment that allowed the police to search items without a warrant if one of the exigent circumstances are met. This became an issue as the people on U.S. soil have that reasonable expectation of privacy to their electronic devices. The court ruled multiple times that the government needs a search warrant based on probable cause in order to extract data from a person’s email or phone. The Patriot Act has transformed since its inception in order to maintain freedoms set forth in the Constitution. Using technology to exploit possible terrorist outside the United States is a different story entirely.
When navigating the waters surrounding surreptitious data collection overseas, the government must be operating in a manner outlined by Congress in an approved location, such as a war zone. Flying over countries that we are not a war with and collecting electronic data from their citizens can spark an international incident that could fracture trust and relationships. Pertaining to detentions, the Patriot Act allows for detention of terrorists for exploitation. Early in the War on Terror, the military used questionable tactics to gather information. One of these tactics was water boarding in which a person is strapped down and water is poured onto their face. This gives the person a drowning feeling and can flood the lungs with water. From a point ethical behavior, I believe that this tactic could be properly warranted under certain circumstances. Dealing with terrorists is different than dealing with a criminal that is a United States citizen. When dealing with these terrorists, the information they know could save the lives of our citizens both at home and abroad (Whitaker, 2007). That information could offer names, target locations of attacks, and operational plans from the terror group. I trust that the military uses due regard when implementing interrogation techniques and act within the parameters of the law, Patriot Act, and Geneva Convention guidelines.
Drew
Baradaran, S. (2013). Rebalancing the Fourth Amendment. The Georgetown Law Journal, 102(1), 1–58.
Boykoff, J. (2006). How Patriotic is the Patriot Act?: Freedom Versus Security in the Age of Terrorism How Patriotic is the Patriot Act?: Freedom Versus Security in the Age of Terrorism. By Amitai Etzioni. (Routledge, 2004.). The Journal of Politics, 68, 470–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00420_6.x
Renan, D. (2016). The Fourth Amendment as Administrative Governance. Stanford Law Review, 68(5), 1039–1129.
Whitaker, B. E. (2007). Exporting the Patriot Act? democracy and the “war on terror” in the Third World. Third World Quarterly, 28(5), 1017–1032. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590701371751
