The
USA PATRIOT Act, commonly known as the
"Patriot Act", is a
statute enacted by
the United States Government that President
George W. Bush
signed into law on October 26, 2001. The
contrived acronym
stands for
Uniting and
S
trengthening A
merica by
P
roviding A
ppropriate
T
ools R
equired to
I
ntercept and O
bstruct
T
errorism Act
of 2001 (Public Law ).
The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search
telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other
records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering
within the United States; expands the
Secretary of the
Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions,
particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and
enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration
authorities in detaining and deporting
immigrants suspected of
terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of
terrorism to include
domestic
terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the
USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be
applied.
The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of
Congress and was supported by members
of both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Opponents of the law
have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants;
searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or
business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or
knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which
allows the FBI
to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records
without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement
agencies to business records, including library and financial
records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have
been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a
number of provisions are unconstitutional.
Many of the act's provisions were to
sunset beginning December 31, 2005,
approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding
the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its
sunsetting provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise
various sections to enhance civil liberty protections. In July
2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with
substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House
reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language. The
two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee that was
criticized by Senators from both the Republican and Democratic
parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns.The bill, which removed
most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on
March 2, 2006, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush
on March 9 and 10, 2006.
Background
The USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush
on October 26, 2001 and followed the unprecedented terrorist
attacks on New York and Washington DC, a matter of weeks before.
This law made it legal for the United States Government to monitor
its citizens for the purpose of countering terrorism.
Titles
Titles I and X: Miscellaneous provisions
Title I authorizes measures to enhance the ability of domestic
security services to prevent terrorism. The title established a
fund for counter-terrorist activities and increased funding for the
FBI's Technical Support Center. The military was authorized to
provide assistance in some situations that involve weapons of mass
destruction when so requested by the
Attorney General. The
National Electronic Crime Task Force was expanded, along with the
President's authority
and abilities in cases of terrorism. The title also condemned the
discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans that happened soon
after the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The impetus for many
of the provisions came from earlier bills, for instance the
condemnation of discrimination was originally proposed by Senator
Tom Harkin (D-IA
) in an
amendment to the Combatting Terrorism Act of 2001, though
in a different form. It originally included "the prayer of
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop of
Washington in a Mass on September
12, 2001 for our Nation and the victims in the immediate aftermath
of the terrorist hijackings and attacks in New York City, Washington,
D.C.
, and Pennsylvania
reminds all Americans that 'We must seek the guilty
and not strike out against the innocent or we become like them who
are without moral guidance or proper direction.' Further
condemnation of racial vilification and violence is also spelled
out in Title X, where there was condemnation of such activities
against
Sikh Americans, who were mistaken for
Muslims after the September 11th terrorist attack.
Title X created or altered a number of miscellaneous laws that
didn't really fit into the any other section of the USA PATRIOT
Act.
Hazmat licenses were limited to
drivers who pass background checks and who can demonstrate they can
handle the materials.The
Inspector General of the Department of Justice was directed to
appoint an official to monitor, review and report back to Congress
all allegations of civil rights abuses against the DoJ.It amended
the definition of "electronic surveillance" to exclude the
interception of communications done through or from a protected
computer where the owner allows the interception, or is lawfully
involved in an investigation.Money laundering cases may now be
brought in the district the money laundering was committed or where
a money laundering transfer started from.Aliens who committed money
laundering were also prohibited from entering the U.S.Grants were
provided to
first responders to
assist them with responding to and preventing terrorism.
US$5,000,000 was authorized to be provided to the
Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) to train police in
South and
East Asia.The
Attorney General was directed to commission a study on the
feasibility of using
biometric
identifiers to identify people as they attempt to enter the United
States, and which would be connected to the FBI's database to flag
suspected criminals.Another study was also commissioned to
determine the feasibility of providing
airlines names of suspected terrorists before they
boarded flights.The Department of Defense was given temporary
authority to use their funding for private contracts for security
purposes.The last title also created a new Act called the
Crimes Against Charitable Americans Actwhich amended the
Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act
to require
telemarketers who call on
behalf of
charities to
disclose the purpose and other information, including the name and
mailing address of the charity the telemarketer is
representing.
It also increased the penalties from one year
imprisonment to five years imprisonment for those committing fraud
by impersonating a Red Cross
member.
Title II: Surveillance procedures
Title II is titled "Enhanced Surveillance Procedures", and covers
all aspects of the surveillance of suspected terrorists, those
suspected of engaging in computer fraud or abuse, and agents of a
foreign power who are engaged in clandestine activities. It
primarily made amendments to FISA, and the ECPA, and many of the
most controversial aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act reside in this
title. In particular, the title allows government agencies to
gather "foreign intelligence information" from both U.S. and
non-U.S. citizens, and changed FISA to make gaining foreign
intelligence information the significant purpose of FISA-based
surveillance, where previously it had been the primary purpose.The
change in definition was meant to remove a legal "wall" between
criminal investigations and surveillance for the purposes of
gathering foreign intelligence, which hampered investigations when
criminal and foreign surveillance overlapped.However, that this
wall even existed was found by the Federal Surveillance Court of
Review to have actually been a long-held misinterpretation by
government agencies. Also removed was the statutory requirement
that the government prove a surveillance target under FISA is a
non-U.S. citizen and agent of a foreign power, though it did
require that any investigations must not be undertaken on citizens
who are carrying out activities protected by the First
Amendment.The title also expanded the duration of FISA physical
search and surveillance orders,and gave authorities the ability to
share information gathered before a federal grand jury with other
agencies.
The scope and availability of wiretapping and surveillance orders
were expanded under Title II. Wiretaps were expanded to include
addressing and routing information to allow surveillance of
packet switched networks—
the
Electronic
Privacy Information Center (EPIC) objected to this, arguing
that it does not take into account email or web addresses, which
often contain content in the address information.
Analysis of Specific USA PATRIOT Act Provisions: Pen
Registers, the Internet and Carnivore,
Electronic Privacy
Information Center. Accessed December 4, 2005.The Act allowed
any district court judge in the United States to issue such
surveillance ordersand search warrants for terrorism
investigations.Search warrants were also expanded, with the Act
amending Title III of the
Stored Communications Access Act
to allow the FBI to gain access to stored voicemail through a
search warrant, rather than through the more stringent wiretap
laws.
Various provisions allowed for the disclosure of electronic
communications to law enforcement agencies. Those who operate or
own a "protected computer" can give permission for authorities to
intercept communications carried out on the machine, thus bypassing
the requirements of the Wiretap statute.The definition of a
"protected computer" is defined in and broadly encompasses those
computers used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication,
including ones located outside the United States. The law governing
obligatory and voluntary disclosure of customer communications by
cable companies was altered to
allow agencies to demand such communications under U.S.C. Title 18
provisions relating to the disclosure of electronic communications
(chapter 119),
pen registers and
trap and trace devices (chapter 206)
and stored communications (121), though it excluded the disclosure
of cable subscriber viewing habits.
Subpoenas issued to
Internet Service Providers were
expanded to include not only "the name, address, local and long
distance telephone toll billing records, telephone number or other
subscriber number or identity, and length of service of a
subscriber" but also session times and durations, types of services
used, communication device address information (e.g.
IP addresses), payment method and bank account
and credit card numbers.Communication providers are also allowed to
disclose customer records or communications if they suspect there
is a danger to "life and limb".
Title II established three very controversial provisions:
"sneak and peek" warrants,
roving wiretaps and the ability of the FBI to
gain access to documents that reveal the patterns of U.S. citizens.
The so-called "sneak and peek" law allowed for delayed notification
of the execution of search warrants. The period before which the
FBI must notify the recipients of the order was unspecified in the
Act — the FBI field manual says that it is a "flexible standard"—
and it may be extended at the court's discretion.
These sneak and peek
provisions were struck down by judge Ann
Aiken on September 26, 2007 after a Portland
attorney,
Brandon Mayfield was wrongly jailed
because of the searches. The court found the searches to
violate the provision that prohibits unreasonable searches in the
Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Roving wiretaps are wiretap orders that do not need to specify all
common carriers and third parties in a surveillance court order.
These are seen as important by the Department of Justice because
they believe that terrorists can exploit wiretap orders by rapidly
changing locations and communication devices such as cell phones,
while opponents see it as violating the particularity clause of the
Fourth
Amendment. Another highly controversial provision is one that
allows the FBI to make an order "requiring the production of any
tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and
other items) for an investigation to protect against international
terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that
such investigation of a United States person is not conducted
solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first
amendment to the Constitution."Though it was not targeted directly
at libraries, the
American
Library Association (ALA), in particular, opposed this
provision. In a resolution passed on June 29, 2005 they stated that
"Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act allows the government to
secretly request and obtain library records for large numbers of
individuals without any reason to believe they are involved in
illegal activity."However, the ALA's stance did not go without
criticism.
One prominent critic of the ALA's stance was
the Manhattan
Institute
's Heather Mac
Donald, who argued in an article for the New York City Journal that
"[t]he furor over section 215 is a case study in Patriot Act
fear-mongering."
The title
also covers a number of other miscellaneous provisions, including
the expansion of the number of FISC judges from seven to eleven
(three of which must reside within of the District of
Columbia
), trade sanctions against North Korea
and Taliban-controlled
Afghanistan
and the employment of translators by the FBI.
At the insistence of Republican Representative
Richard Armey, the Act had a number of
sunset provisions built in, which were
originally set to expire on December 31, 2005. The sunset provision
of the Act also took into account any ongoing foreign intelligence
investigations and allowed them to continue once the sections had
expired.The provisions that were to expire are below.
Title II sections that were to originally expire on
December 31, 2005
Section |
Section title |
201 |
Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic
communications relating to terrorism |
202 |
Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic
communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses |
203(b) |
Authority to share electronic, wire and oral interception
information |
204 |
Clarification of intelligence exceptions from limitations on
interception and disclosure of wire, oral, and electronic
communications |
206 |
Roving surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978. |
207 |
Duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who
are agents of a foreign power |
209 |
Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants |
212 |
Emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect
life and limb |
214 |
Pen register and trap and trace authority under FISA |
215 |
Access to records and other items under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act. |
217 |
Interception of computer trespasser communications |
218 |
Foreign intelligence information |
220 |
Nationwide service of search warrants for electronic
evidence |
223 |
Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures |
225 |
Immunity for compliance with FISA wiretap |
Title III: Anti-money-laundering to prevent terrorism
Title III of the Act, titled "International Money Laundering
Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001," is intended to
facilitate the prevention, detection and prosecution of
international
money laundering and
the financing of
terrorism. It primarily
amends portions of the
Money Laundering Control
Act of 1986 (MLCA) and the
Bank Secrecy Act of 1970
(BSA). It was divided into three subtitles, with the third dealing
primarily with strengthening banking rules specifically against
money laundering, especially on the international stage. The second
attempts to improve communication between law enforcement agencies
and financial institutions. This subtitle also increases record
keeping and reporting requirements. The third subtitle deals with
currency smuggling and counterfeiting, including quadrupling the
maximum penalty for counterfeiting foreign currency, such as the
Hans Vierck case of 2001.
The first subtitle tightened the record keeping requirements for
financial institutions, making them record the aggregate amounts of
transactions processed from areas of the world where money
laundering is a concern to the U.S. government. It also made
institutions put into place reasonable steps to identify
beneficial owners of bank accounts and
those who are authorized to use or route funds through
payable-through accounts.The U.S.
Treasury was charged with formulating regulations intended to
foster information sharing between financial institutions to
prevent money-laundering.Along with expanding record keeping
requirements it put new regulations into place to make it easier
for authorities to identify money laundering activities and to make
it harder for money launderers to mask their identities.If money
laundering was uncovered, the subtitle legislated for the
forfeiture of assets of those suspected of
doing the money laundering.In an effort to encourage institutions
to do their bit to reduce money laundering, the Treasury was given
authority to block mergers of
bank
holding companies and
banks with other
banks and bank holding companies that had a bad history of
preventing money laundering. Similarly, mergers between insured
depository institutions and non-insured depository institutions
that have a bad track record in combating money-laundering could be
blocked.
Restrictions were placed on accounts and foreign banks. Foreign
shell banks that are not an affiliate of
a bank that has a physical presence in the U.S. or that are not
subject to supervision by a banking authority in a non-U.S. country
were prohibited. The subtitle has several sections that prohibit or
restrict the use of certain accounts held at financial
institutions.Financial institutions must now undertake steps to
identify the owners of any privately owned bank outside the U.S.
who have a
correspondent
account with them, along with the interests of each of the
owners in the bank. It is expected that additional scrutiny will be
applied by the U.S. institution to such banks to make sure they are
not engaging in money laundering. Bank must identify all the
nominal and beneficial owners of any private bank account opened
and maintained in the U.S. by non-U.S. citizens. There is also an
expectation that they must undertake enhanced scrutiny of the
account if it is owned by, or is being maintained on behalf of, any
senior
political figure where there is
reasonable suspicion of
corruption.Any deposits made from
within the U.S. into foreign banks are now deemed to have been
deposited into any
interbank
account the foreign bank may have in the U.S. Thus any
restraining order, seizure warrant or
arrest warrant may be made against the funds
in the interbank account held at a U.S. financial institution, up
to the amount deposited in the account at the foreign
bank.Restrictions were placed on the use of internal bank
concentration accounts because such
accounts do not provide an effective
audit
trail for transactions, and this may be used to facilitate
money laundering. Financial institutions are prohibited from
allowing clients to specifically direct them to move funds into,
out of, or through a concentration account, and they are also
prohibited from informing their clients about the existence of such
accounts. Financial institutions are not allowed to provide any
information to clients that may identify such internal
accounts.Financial institutions are required to document and follow
methods of identifying where the funds are for each customer in a
concentration account that co-mingles funds belonging to one or
more customers.
The definition of money laundering was expanded to include making a
financial transaction in the U.S. in order to commit a violent
crime. Amendment made to — for some reason an extra parenthesis was
inserted into , according to
Cornell University, this was probably
mistakenly added by law makers the bribery of public officials and
fraudulent dealing with public funds; the smuggling or illegal
export of controlled munitionIllegal export of controlled munitions
is defined in the United States Munitions List, which is part of
the
Arms Export Control
Act ( ) and the importation or bringing in of any firearm
or ammunition not authorized by the U.S. Attorney GeneralSee and
and the smuggling of any item controlled under the Export
Administration Regulations.It also includes any offense where the
U.S. would be obligated under a
mutual
treaty with a foreign nation to
extradite a person, or where the U.S. would need
to submit a case against a person for prosecution because of the
treaty; the import of falsely classified goods; Defined in
computer crime; Defined in and any
felony violation of the
Foreign Agents Registration Act
of 1938.It also allows the forfeiture of any property
within the jurisdiction of the United States that was gained as the
result of an offense against a foreign nation that involves the
manufacture, importation, sale, or distribution of a controlled
substance.Foreign nations may now seek to have a forfeiture or
judgment notification enforced by a district court of the United
States.This is done through new legislation that specifies how the
U.S. government may apply for a restraining order to preserve the
availability of property which is subject to a foreign forfeiture
or confiscation judgement.In taking into consideration such an
application, emphasis is placed on the ability of a foreign court
to follow
due process. The Act also
requires the Secretary of Treasury to take all reasonable steps to
encourage foreign governments make it a requirement to include the
name of the originator in
wire
transfer instructions sent to the United States and other
countries, with the information to remain with the transfer from
its origination until the point of disbursement.The Secretary was
also ordered to encourage international cooperation in
investigations of money laundering, financial crimes, and the
finances of terrorist groups.
The Act also introduced criminal penalties for corrupt officialdom.
An official or employee of the government who acts corruptly — as
well as the person who induces the corrupt act — in the carrying
out of their official duties will be fined by an amount that is not
more than three times the monetary equivalent of the bribe in
question. Alternatively they may be imprisoned for not more than 15
years, or they may be fined and imprisoned. Penalties apply to
financial institutions who do not comply with an order to terminate
any corresponding accounts within 10 days of being so ordered by
the Attorney General or the Secretary of Treasury. The financial
institution can be fined
$US10,000 for each day the account
remains open after the 10 day limit has expired.
The second annotation made a number of modifications to the BSA in
an attempt to make it harder for money launderers to operate and
easier for law enforcement and regulatory agencies to police money
laundering operations. One amendment made to the BSA was to allow
the designated officer or agency who receives
suspicious activity reports to
notify U.S. intelligence agencies.A number of amendments were made
to address issues related to record keeping and financial
reporting. One measure was a new requirement that anyone who does
business file a report for any coin and foreign currency receipts
that are over US$10,000 and made it illegal to structure
transactions in a manner that evades the BSA's reporting
requirements.To make it easier for authorities to regulate and
investigate anti-money laundering operations Money Services
Businesses (MSBs) — those who operate
informal value transfer
systems outside of the mainstream financial system — were
included in the definition of a financial institution.The BSA was
amended to make it mandatory to report suspicious transactions and
an attempt was made to make such reporting easier for financial
institutions.
FinCEN was made a
bureau of the United States
Department of Treasury
and the creation of a secure network to be used by financial
institutions to report suspicious transactions and to provide
alerts of relevant suspicious activities was ordered. Along
with these reporting requirements, a considerable number of
provisions relate to the prevention and prosecution of
money-laundering. Financial institutions were ordered to establish
anti-money laundering programs and the BSA was amended to better
define anti-money laundering strategy. Also increased were civil
and criminal penalties for money laundering and the introduction of
penalties for violations of
geographic targeting orders and
certain record-keeping requirements. A number of other amendments
to the BSA were made through subtitle B, including granting the
Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System power to authorize
personnel to act as law enforcement officers to protect the
premises, grounds, property and personnel of any U.S. National
reserve bank and allowing the Board to delegate this authority to
U.S. Federal reserve bank. Another measure instructed United States
Executive Directors of international financial institutions to use
their voice and vote to support any country that has taken action
to support the U.S.'s War on Terrorism. Executive Directors are now
required to provide ongoing auditing of disbursements made from
their institutions to ensure that no funds are paid to persons who
commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism.
The third subtitle deals with currency crimes. Largely because of
the effectiveness of the BSA, money launders had been avoiding
traditional financial institutions to launder money and were using
cash-based businesses to avoid them. A new effort was made to stop
the laundering of money through bulk currency movements, mainly
focusing on the confiscation of criminal proceeds and the increase
in penalties for money laundering. Congress found that a criminal
offense of merely evading the reporting of money transfers was
insufficient and decided that it would be better if the smuggling
of the bulk currency itself was the offense. Therefore, the BSA was
amended to make it a criminal offense to evade currency reporting
by concealing more than US$10,000 on any person or through any
luggage, merchandise or other container that moves into or out of
the U.S. The penalty for such an offense is up to 5 years
imprisonment and the forfeiture of any property up to the amount
that was being smuggled. It also made the civil and criminal
penalty violations of currency reporting cases be the forfeiture of
all a defendant's property that was involved in the offense, and
any property traceable to the defendant. The Act prohibits and
penalizes those who run unlicensed money transmitting businesses.
In 2005, this provision of the USA PATRIOT Act was used to
prosecute Yehuda Abraham for helping to arrange money transfers for
British arms dealer Hermant Lakhani, who was arrested in August
2003 after being caught in a government sting.
Lakhani had tried to
sell a missile to an FBI agent posing as a Somali
militant. The definition of counterfeiting was expanded to
encompass analog, digital or electronic image reproductions, and it
was made an offense to own such a reproduction device. Penalties
were increased to 20 years imprisonment. Money laundering "unlawful
activities" was expanded to include the provision of material
support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.
The Act specifies that anyone who commits or conspires to undertake
a fraudulent activity
outside the jurisdiction of
the United States, and which would be an offense in the U.S., will
be prosecuted under , which deals with fraud and related activity
in connection with access devices.
Title IV: Border security
Title IV amends the
Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1952 to give more law enforcement and
investigative power to the United States Attorney General and to
the
Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS). The Attorney General was
authorized to waive any cap on the number of full time
employees (FTEs) assigned to the INS on the
Northern border
of the United States. Enough funds were set aside to triple the
maximum number of
Border
Patrol personnel, Customs Service personnel and INS inspectors
along with an additional US$50,000,000 funding for the INS and the
U.S. Customs Service to improve
technology for monitoring the Northern Border and acquiring
additional equipment at the Canadian northern border. The INS was
also given the authority to authorize overtime payments of up to an
extra US$30,000 a year to INS employees.
Access was given to
the Department
of State
and the INS to criminal background information
contained in the
National Crime Information Center's Interstate Identification
Index (NCIC-III), Wanted Persons File and any other files maintained by
the National Crime
Information Center to determine whether visa applicants and applicants could be
admitted to the U.S. The Department
of State
was required to form final regulations governing
the procedures for taking fingerprints and the conditions with
which the department was allowed to use this information.
Additionally, the
National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was ordered to
develop a technology standard to verify the identity of persons
applying for a United States visa. The reason was to make the
standard the technology basis for a cross-agency, cross-platform
electronic system used for conducting
background checks, confirming identities
and ensuring that people have not received visas under different
names. This report was released on November 13, 2002, however,
according to NIST, this was later "determined that the fingerprint
system used was not as accurate as current state-of-the-art
fingerprint systems and is approximately equivalent to commercial
fingerprint systems available in 1998." This report was later
superseded by section 303(a) of the
Enhanced
Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002.
Under subtitle C, various definitions relating to terrorism were
altered and expanded. The INA was
retroactively amended to disallow
aliens who are part of or representatives of a foreign organization
or any group who endorses acts of terrorism from entering the U.S.
This restriction also included the family of such aliens. The
definition of "terrorist activity" was strengthened to include
actions involving the use of any dangerous device (and not just
explosives and firearms). To "engage in terrorist activity" is
defined as committing, inciting to commit or planning and preparing
to undertake an act of terrorism. Included in this definition is
the gathering of intelligence information on potential terrorist
targets, the solicitation of funds for a terrorist organization or
the solicitation of others to undertake acts of terrorism. Those
who provide knowing assistance to a person who is planning to
perform such activities are defined as undertaking terrorist
activities. Such assistance includes affording material support,
including a
safe house, transportation,
communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material
financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons
(including
chemical,
biological, or
radiological weapons), explosives, or
training to perform the terrorist act. The INA criteria for making
a decision to designate an organization as a terrorist organization
was amended to include the definition of a terrorist act. Though
the amendments to these definitions are retroactive, it does not
mean that it can be applied to members who joined an organization,
but since left, before it was designated to be a terrorist
organization under by the Secretary of State.
The Act amended the INA to add new provisions enforcing mandatory
detention laws. These apply to any alien who is engaged in
terrorism, or who is engaged in an activity that endangers U.S.
national security. It also applies to those who are inadmissible or
who must be deported because it is certified they are attempting to
enter to undertake illegal
espionage; are
exporting goods, technology, or sensitive information illegally; or
are attempting to control or overthrow the government; or have, or
will have, engaged in terrorist activities. The Attorney General or
the Attorney General's deputy may maintain custody of such aliens
until they are removed from the U.S., unless it is no longer deemed
they should be removed, in which case they are released. The alien
can be detained for up to 90 days but can be held up to six months
after it is deemed that they are a national security threat.
However, the alien must be charged with a crime or removal
proceedings start no longer than seven days after the alien's
detention, otherwise the alien will be released. However, such
detentions must be reviewed every six months by the Attorney
General, who can then decide to revoke it, unless prevented from
doing so by law. Every six months the alien may apply, in writing,
for the certification to be reconsidered.
Judicial review of any action or decision
relating to this section, including judicial review of the merits
of a certification, can be held under
habeas corpus proceedings.
Such proceedings can
be initiated by an application filed with the United
States Supreme Court
, by any justice of the Supreme Court, by any
circuit judge of the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
, or by any district court otherwise having
jurisdiction to entertain the application. The final order
is subject to
appeal to the
United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Provisions were
also made for a report to be required every six months of such
decisions from the U.S. Attorney General to the
Committee
on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on
the Judiciary of the Senate.
A sense of Congress was given that the U.S. Secretary of State
should expedite the full implementation of the integrated entry and
exit data system for airports, seaports, and land border ports of
entry specified in the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996 (IIRIRA). They also found that the U.S. Attorney
General should immediately start the Integrated Entry and Exit Data
System Task Force specified in section 3 of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement
Act of 2000. Congress wanted the primary focus of
development of the entry-exit data system was to be on the
utilization of biometric technology and the development of
tamper-resistant documents readable at ports of entry. They also
wanted the system to be able to interface with existing law
enforcement databases. The Attorney General was ordered to
implement and expand the foreign student monitoring program that
was established under section 641(a) of the IIRIRA. which records
the date and port of entry of each foreign student. The program was
expanded to include other approved educational institutions,
including air flight schools, language training schools or
vocational schools that are approved by the Attorney General, in
consultation with the
Secretary of Education
and the Secretary of State.
US$36,800,000 was appropriated for the
Department of Justice
to spend on implementing the program.
The Secretary of State was ordered to audit and report back to
Congress on the Visa waiver program specified under for each fiscal
year until September 30, 2007. The Secretary was also ordered to
check for the implementation of precautionary measures to prevent
the counterfeiting and theft of passports as well as ascertain that
countries designated under the visa waiver program have established
a program to develop tamper-resistant passports. The Secretary was
also ordered to report back to Congress on whether
consulate shopping was a problem.
The last subtitle, which was introduced by Senators John Conyers
and Patrick Leahy, allows for the preservation of immigration
benefits for victims of terrorism, and the families of victims of
terrorism. They recognized that some families, through no fault of
their own, would either be ineligible for permanent residence in
the United States because of being unable to make important
deadlines because of the September 11 terrorist attacks, or had
become ineligible to apply for special immigration status because
their loved one died in the attacks.
It allows the U.S. Attorney General to pay rewards pursuant of
advertisements for assistance to the Department of Justice to
combat terrorism and prevent terrorist acts, though amounts over
$US250,000 may not be made or offered without the personal approval
of the Attorney General or President, and once the award is
approved the Attorney General must give written notice to the
Chairman and ranking minority members of the Committee on
Appropriations and the Judiciary of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives. The
State Department
Basic Authorities Act of 1956 was amended to allow the
Department of State to offer rewards, in consultation with the
Attorney General, for the full or significant dismantling of any
terrorist organizationand to identify any key leaders of terrorist
organizations. The Secretary of State was given authority to pay
greater than $US5 million if he so determines it would prevent
terrorist actions against the United States and Canada. The
DNA Analysis
Backlog Elimination Act was amended to include terrorism
or crimes of violence in the list of qualifying Federal offenses.
Another perceived obstacle was to allow Federal agencies to share
information with Federal law enforcement agencies. Thus, the act
now allows Federal officers who acquire information through
electronic surveillance or physical searches to consult with
Federal law enforcement officers to coordinate efforts to
investigate or protect against potential or actual attacks,
sabotage or international terrorism or clandestine intelligence
activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign
power.
Secret Service
jurisdiction was extended to investigate computer fraud, access
device frauds, false identification documents or devices, or any
fraudulent activities against U.S. financial institutions. The
General Education
Provisions Act was amended to allow the U.S. Attorney
General or Assistant Attorney General to collect and retain
educational records relevant to an authorized investigation or
prosecution of an offense that is defined as a Federal crime of
terrorism and which an educational agency or institution possesses.
The Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General must "certify
that there are specific and articulable facts giving reason to
believe that the education records are likely to contain
information [that a Federal crime of terrorism may be being
committed]." An education institution that produces education
records in response to such a request is given legal immunity from
any liability that rises from such a production of records.
One of the most controversial aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act is in
title V, and relates to
National Security Letters (NSLs).
An NSL is
a form of administrative subpoena used by
the FBI, and reportedly by other U.S. government agencies including
the CIA and the Department of Defense
(DoD). It is a demand letter issued to a
particular entity or organization to turn over various records and
data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or
judicial oversight and also contain a gag order, preventing the
recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever
issued. Title V allowed the use of NSLs to be made by a Special
Agent in charge of a Bureau field office, where previously only the
Director or the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI were able to
certify such requests.This provision of the Act was challenged by
the ACLU on behalf of an unknown party against the U.S. government
on the grounds that NSLs violate the First and Fourth Amendments of
the U.S. Constitution because there is no way to legally oppose an
NSL subpoena in court, and that it was unconstitutional to not
allow a client to inform their Attorney as to the order because of
the gag provision of the letters. The court's judgement found in
favour of the ACLU's case, and they declared the law
unconstitutional.Later, the USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized and
amendments were made to specify a process of judicial review of
NSLs and to allow the recipient of an NSL to disclose receipt of
the letter to an attorney or others necessary to comply with or
challenge the order.However, in 2007 the U.S. District Court struck
down even the reauthorized NSLs because the gag power was
unconstitutional as courts could still not engage in meaningful
judicial review of these gags.
Title VI: Victims and families of victims of terrorism
Title VI made amendments to the
Victims of Crime Act of
1984 (VOCA) in order to make changes to how the U.S. Victims
of Crime Fund was managed and funded. Changes were made to VOCA to
improve the speedy provision of aid to families of public safety
officers by expedited payments to officers or the families of
officers. Under the changes, payments must be made no later than 30
days after the officer is injured or killed in the line of duty.
The Assistant Attorney General was given expanded authority under
section 614 of the USA PATRIOT Act to make grants to any
organization that administers any
Office of Justice Programs, which
includes the Public Safety Officers Benefits Program. Further
changes to the Victims of Crime Fund increased the amount of money
in the Fund, and changed the way that funds were distributed. The
amount available for grants made through the Crime Victim Fund to
eligible crime victim compensation programs were increased from 40
percent to 60 percent of the total in the Fund. A program can
provide compensation to U.S. citizens who were adversely affected
overseas.
Means testing was also waived
for those who apply for compensation. Under VOCA, the Director may
make an annual grant from the Crime Victims Fund to support crime
victim assistance programs.
An amendment was made to VOCA to include
offers of assistance to crime victims in the District of
Columbia
, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the United States Virgin Islands
, and any other U.S. territory. VOCA also
provides for compensation and assistance to victims of terrorism or
mass violence. This was amended to allow the Director to make
supplemental grants to States for eligible crime victim
compensation and assistance programs, and to victim service
organizations, public agencies (including Federal, State, or local
governments) and non-governmental organizations that provide
assistance to victims of crime. The funds could be used to provide
emergency relief, including crisis response efforts, assistance,
compensation, training and technical assistance for investigations
and prosecutions of terrorism.
Title VIII: Terrorism criminal law
Title VIII alters the definitions of terrorism, and establishes or
re-defines rules with which to deal with it. It redefined the term
"domestic terrorism" to broadly include mass destruction as well as
assassination or kidnapping as a terrorist activity. The definition
also encompasses activities that are "dangerous to human life that
are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any
State" and are intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian
population," "influence the policy of a government by intimidation
or coercion," or are undertaken "to affect the conduct of a
government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping" while
in the jurisdiction of the United States.Terrorism is also included
in the definition of
racketeering.Terms relating to
cyber-terrorism are also redefined,
including the term "protected computer," "damage," "conviction,"
"person," and "loss."
New penalties were created to convict those who attack
mass transportation system. If the offender
committed such an attack while no passenger was on board, they are
fined and imprisoned for a maximum of 20 years. However, if the
activity was undertaken while the mass transportation vehicle or
ferry was carrying a passenger at the time of the offense, or the
offense resulted in the death of any person, then the punishment is
a fine and life imprisonment.The title amends the biological
weapons statute to define the use of a biological agent, toxin, or
delivery system as a weapon, other than when it is used for
"
prophylactic, protective,
bona fide research, or other peaceful purposes."
Penalties for anyone who cannot prove reasonably that they are
using a biological agent, toxin or delivery system for these
purposes are 10 years imprisonment, a fine or both.
A number of measures were introduced in an attempt to prevent and
penalize activities that are deemed to support terrorism. It was
made a crime to harbor or conceal terrorists, and those who do are
subject to a fine or imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both.U.S.
forfeiture law was also amended to
allow authorities to seize all foreign and domestic assets from any
group or individual that is caught planning to commit acts of
terrorism against the U.S. or U.S. citizens. Assets may also be
seized if they have been acquired or maintained by an individual or
organization for the purposes of further terrorist activities.One
section of the Act (section 805) prohibited "material support" for
terrorists, and in particular included "expert advice or
assistance."This was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S.
Federal Court after the
Humanitarian Law Project filed a
civil action against the U.S. government. The court found that it
violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and the provision was so vague it would cause a person
of average intelligence to have to guess whether they were breaking
the law, thus leading to a potential situation where a person was
charged for an offense that they had no way of knowing was illegal.
The court found that this could potentially have the effect of
allowing arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law, as
well as possible
chilling effects on
First Amendment rights.Congress later improved the law by defining
the definitions of the "material support or resources," "training,"
and "expert advise or resources."
Cyberterrorism was dealt with in various ways. Penalties apply to
those who either damage or gain unauthorized access to a protected
computer and then commit a number of offenses. These offenses
include causing a person to lose an aggregate amount greater than
US$5,000, as well as adversely affecting someone's medical
examination, diagnosis or treatment. It also encompasses actions
that cause a person to be injured, a threat to public health or
safety, or damage to a governmental computer that is used as a tool
to administer justice, national defense or national security. Also
prohibited was extortion undertaken via a protected computer. The
penalty for attempting to damage protected computers through the
use of viruses or other software mechanism was set to imprisonment
for up to 10 years, while the penalty for unauthorized access and
subsequent damage to a protected computer was increased to more
than five years imprisonment. However, should the offense occur a
second time, the penalty increases up to 20 years imprisonment.The
act also specified the development and support of cybersecurity
forensic capabilities. It directs the Attorney General to establish
regional computer forensic laboratories that have the capability of
performing forensic examinations of intercepted computer evidence
relating to criminal activity and cyberterrorism, and that have the
capability of training and educating Federal, State, and local law
enforcement personnel and prosecutors in computer crime, and to
"facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law enforcement
expertise and information about the investigation, analysis, and
prosecution of computer-related crime with State and local law
enforcement personnel and prosecutors, including the use of
multijurisdictional task forces." The sum of $50,000,000 was
authorized for establishing such labs.
Title IX: Improved Intelligence
Title IX amends the
National Security Act of
1947 to require the
Director of Central
Intelligence (DCI) to establish requirements and priorities for
foreign intelligence collected under FISA and to provide assistance
to the United States Attorney General to ensure that information
derived from electronic surveillance or physical searches is
disseminated for efficient and effective foreign intelligence
purposes. With the exception of information that might jeopardize
an ongoing law enforcement investigation, it was made a requirement
that the Attorney General, or the head of any other department or
agency of the Federal Government with law enforcement
responsibilities, disclose to the Director any foreign intelligence
acquired by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Attorney General
and Director of Central Intelligence were directed to develop
procedures for the Attorney General to follow in order to inform
the Director, in a timely manner, of any intention of investigating
criminal activity of a foreign intelligence source or potential
foreign intelligence source based on the intelligence tip-off of a
member of the intelligence community. The Attorney General was also
directed to develop procedures on how to best administer these
matters. International terrorist activities were made to fall
within the scope of foreign intelligence under the
National
Security Act.
A number of reports were commissioned relating to various
intelligence-related government centers. One was commissioned into
the best way of setting up the
National Virtual Translation
Center, with the goal of developing automated translation
facilities to assist with the timely and accurate translation of
foreign intelligence information for elements of the U.S.
intelligence community. The USA PATRIOT Act required this to be
provided on February 1, 2002, however the report, entitled
"Director of Central Intelligence Report on the National Virtual
Translation Center: A Concept Plan to Enhance the Intelligence
Community's Foreign Language Capabilities, April 29, 2002" was
received more than two months late, which the
Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence reported was "a delay which,
in addition to contravening the explicit words of the statute,
deprived the Committee of timely and valuable input into its
efforts to craft this legislation." Another report was commissioned
on the feasibility and desirability of reconfiguring the
Foreign Terrorist Asset
Tracking Center and the
Office of Foreign Assets
Control of the
Department
of the Treasury. It was due by February 1, 2002 however, it was
never written. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later
complained that "[t]he Director of Central Intelligence and the
Secretary of the Treasury failed to provide a report, this time in
direct contravention of a section of the USA PATRIOT Act" and they
further directed "that the statutorily-directed report be completed
immediately, and that it should include a section describing the
circumstances which led to the Director's failure to comply with
lawful reporting requirements."
Other measures allowed certain reports on intelligence and
intelligence-related matters to be deferred until either February
1, 2002 or a date after February 1, 2002 if the official involved
certified that preparation and submission on February 1, 2002,
would impede the work of officers or employees engaged in
counterterrorism activities. Any such deferral required
congressional notification before it was authorized. The Attorney
General was charged with training officials in identifying and
utilizing foreign intelligence information properly in the course
of their duties. The government officials include those in the
Federal Government who do not normally encounter or disseminate
foreign intelligence in the performance of their duties, and State
and local government officials who encounter, or potentially may
encounter in the course of a terrorist event, foreign intelligence
in the performance of their duties. A sense of Congress was
expressed that officers and employees of the intelligence community
should be encouraged to make every effort to establish and maintain
intelligence relationships with any person, entity, or group while
they conduct lawful intelligence activities.
Reauthorizations
The USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized by two bills. The first, the
USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005, was passed by both houses of Congress in July 2005. This
bill reauthorized provisions of the
USA PATRIOT Act and
the
Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It created
new provisions relating to the
death
penalty for terrorists, enhancing security at
seaports, new measures to combat the financing of
terrorism, new powers for the
Secret Service, anti-
Methamphetamine initiatives and a number of
other miscellaneous provisions. The second reauthorization act, the
USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of
2006, amended the first and was passed in February 2006.
The first act reauthorized all but two of the provisions of Title
II that would have expired. Two sections were changed to sunset on
December 31, 2009: section 206 — the roving wiretap provision — and
section 215, which allowed access to business records under FISA.
Section 215 was amended further regardless so as to give greater
judicial oversight and review. Such orders were also restricted to
be authorized by only the FBI Director, the FBI Deputy Director, or
the Executive Assistant Director for National Security, and
minimization procedures were specified to limit the dissemination
and collection of such information. Section 215 also had a "gag"
provision, which was changed to allow the defendant to contact
their Attorney. However, the change also meant that the defendant
was also made to tell the FBI who they were disclosing the order to
— this requirement was removed by the
USA PATRIOT Act
Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act.
As NSL provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act had been struck by the
courts the reauthorization Act amended the law in an attempt to
make them lawful. It provided for judicial review and the legal
right of a recipient to challenge the validity of the letter. The
reauthorization act still allowed NSLs to be closed and all
evidence to be presented
in camera and
ex parte.
Gag provisions were maintained, but were not automatic. They only
occurred when the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI or a Special
Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office certified that disclosure
would result in "a danger to the national security of the United
States, interference with a criminal, counterterrorism, or
counterintelligence investigation, interference with diplomatic
relations, or danger to the life or physical safety of any person".
However, should there be no non-disclosure order, the defendant can
disclose the fact of the NSL to anyone who can render them
assistance in carrying out the letter, or to an attorney for legal
advise. Again, however, the recipient was ordered to inform the FBI
of such a disclosure. Because of the concern over the chilling
effects of such a requirement, the
Additional Reauthorization
Amendments Act removed the requirement to inform the FBI that
the recipient spoke about the NSL to their Attorney. Later, the
Additional Reauthorization Amendments Act excluded
libraries from receiving NSLs, except where they provide electronic
communications services. The reauthorization Act also ordered the
Attorney General submit a report semi-annually to the House and
Senate Judiciary Committees, the House and Senate Intelligence
Committees and the
House Committee on
Financial Services and the
Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on all NSL
request made under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Changes were made to the roving wiretap provisions of the USA
PATRIOT Act. Applications and orders for such wiretaps must
describe the specific target of the electronic surveillance if the
identity of the target is not known. If the nature and location of
each of the facilities or places targeted for surveillance is not
known, then after 10 days the agency must provide notice to the
court. The notice must include the nature and location of each new
facility or place at which the electronic surveillance was
directed. It must also describe the facts and circumstances relied
upon by the applicant to justify the applicant's belief that each
new surveillance place or facility under surveillance is or was
being used by the target of the surveillance. The applicant must
also provide a statement detailing any proposed minimization
procedures that differ from those contained in the original
application or order, that may be necessitated by a change in the
facility or place at which the electronic surveillance is directed.
Applicants must detail the total number of electronic surveillances
that have been or are being conducted under the authority of the
order.
Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act was modified. Previously it
stated that delayed notifications would be made to recipients of
"sneak and peek" searches in a "reasonable period". This was seen
as unreasonable, as it was undefined and could potentially be used
indefinitely. Thus, the reauthorization act changed this to a
period not exceeding 30 days after the date of the execution of the
search warrant. Courts were given the opportunity to extend this
period if they were provided good cause to do so. Section 213
states that delayed notifications could be issued if there is
"reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification
of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result". This
was criticized, particularly by the ACLU, for allowing potential
abuse by law enforcement agencies and was later amended to prevent
a delayed notification "if the adverse results consist only of
unduly delaying a trial."
The reauthorization act also legislates increased congressional
oversight for emergency disclosures by communication providers
undertaken under section 212 of the USA PATRIOT Act. The duration
of FISA surveillance and physical search orders were increased.
Surveillance performed against "lone wolf terrorists" under section
207 of the USA PATRIOT Act were increased to 120 days for an
initial order, while pen registers and trap and trace device
extensions under FISA were increased from 90 days to a year. The
reauthorization act also increased congressional oversight,
requiring a semi-annual report into physical searches and the use
of pen registers and trap and trace devices under FISA. The "lone
wolf terrorist" provision (Section 207) was a sunset provision that
also was to have expired, however this was enhanced by the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
The reauthorization act extended the expiration date to December
31, 2009. The amendment to material support law done in the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act was also
made permanent. The definition of terrorism was further expanded to
include receiving military-type training from a foreign terrorist
organization and
narcoterrorism.
Other provisions of the reauthorization act was to merge the law
outlawing train wrecking ( ) and the law outlawing attacks on mass
transportation systems ( ) into a new section of Title 18 of the
U.S. Code ( ) and also to criminalize the act of planning a
terrorist attack against a mass transport system.
Forfeiture law was further changed and now
assets within U.S. jurisdiction will be seized for illegally
trafficking in nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological
weapons technology or material, if such offense is punishable under
foreign law by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
Alternatively, this applies if similar punishment would be so
punishable if committed within the U.S. A sense of Congress was
further expressed that victims of terrorism should be entitled to
the forfeited assets of terrorists.
Controversy
The USA PATRIOT Act has generated a great deal of controversy since
its enactment.Opponents of the Act have been quite vocal in
asserting that it was passed opportunistically after the
September 11 terrorist
attacks, believing there to have been little debate. They view
the Act as one that was hurried through the Senate with little
change before it was passed. (Senators
Patrick Leahy and
Russell Feingold proposed amendments to
modify the final revision.)The sheer magnitude of the Act itself
was noted by progressive activist
Michael
Moore in his controversial film
Fahrenheit 9/11. In one of the scenes
of the movie, he records Congressman
Jim
McDermott alleging that no Senator read the billand John
Conyers, Jr. as saying "We don't really read most of the bills. Do
you know what that would entail if we read every bill that we
passed?" Congressman Conyers then answers his own rhetorical
question, asserting that if they did it would "slow down the
legislative process". As a dramatic device, Moore then hired an
ice-cream van and drove around
Washington, D.C. with a loud speaker, reading out the Act to
puzzled passers-by, which included a few Senators.However, Moore
was not the only commentator to notice that not many people had
read the Act. Dahlia Lithwick and Julia Turne for
Slate asked "How bad is Patriot,
anyway?". They decided that it was "Hard to tell", and that "The
ACLU, in a new fact
sheet challenging the DOJ Web site, wants you to believe that the
act threatens our most basic civil liberties. Ashcroft and his
roadies call the changes in law "modest and incremental." Since
almost nobody has read the legislation, much of what we think we
know about it comes third-hand and spun. Both advocates and
opponents are guilty of fear-mongering and distortion in some
instances."Some television shows as
NCIS,
Law & Order: Special
Victims Unit and
Las
Vegas have been keen to use the USA PATRIOT Act as a plot
device, often for purposes it was not intended.
EPIC has criticized the law as unconstitutional, especially when
"the private communications of law-abiding American citizens might
be intercepted incidentally",while the EFF hold that the lower
standard applied to wiretaps "gives the FBI a 'blank check' to
violate the communications privacy of countless innocent
Americans".Others do not find the roving wiretap legislation to be
as concerning. Professor
David D.
Cole of the Georgetown
University Law Center
, a critic of many of the provisions of the Act,
found that though they come at a cost to privacy are a sensible
measurewhile Paul Rosenzweig, a Senior Legal Research Fellow
in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the
Heritage Foundation, argues that roving
wiretaps are just a response to rapidly changing communication
technology that is not necessarily fixed to a specific location or
device.
The Act also allows access to voicemail through a search warrant
rather than through a title III wiretap order.James Dempsey, of the
CDT, believes that it unnecessarily overlooks the importance of
notice under the Fourth Amendment and under a Title III wiretap,
James X. Dempsey,
"Why Sections 209, 212, and 220 Should be
Modified" (undated). Retrieved October 15, 2007.and the EFF
criticizes the provision's lack of notice. However, the EFF's
criticism is more extensive — they believe that the amendment "is
in possible violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution" because previously if the FBI listened to voicemail
illegally, it couldn't use the messages in evidence against the
defendant.Others disagree with these assessments.
Professor Orin Kerr, of the George
Washington University
school of law, believes that the ECPA "adopted a
rather strange rule to regulate voicemail stored with service
providers" because "under ECPA, if the government knew that there
was one copy of an unopened private message in a person's bedroom
and another copy on their remotely stored voicemail, it was illegal
for the FBI to simply obtain the voicemail; the law actually
compelled the police to invade the home and rifle through peoples'
bedrooms so as not to disturb the more private voicemail."
In Professor Kerr's opinion, this made little sense and the
amendment that was made by the USA PATRIOT Act was reasonable and
sensible.
Orin Kerr,
"Why Sections 209, 212, and 220 Should be
Modified" (undated). Retrieved October 12, 2007.
The USA PATRIOT Act's expansion of court jurisdiction to allow the
nationwide service of search warrants proved controversial for the
EFF.They believe that agencies will be able to "'shop' for judges
that have demonstrated a strong bias toward law enforcement with
regard to search warrants, using only those judges least likely to
say no—even if the warrant doesn't satisfy the strict requirements
of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution",and that it reduces
the likelihood that smaller ISPs or phone companies will try to
protect the privacy of their clients by challenging the warrant in
court — their reasoning is that "a small San Francisco ISP served
with such a warrant is unlikely to have the resources to appear
before the New York court that issued it."They believe that this is
bad because only the communications provider will be able to
challenge the warrant as only they will know about it—many warrants
are issued
ex parte, which means that the target of the
order is not present when the order is issued.
For a time, the USA PATRIOT Act allowed for agents to undertake
"sneak and peek" searches.Critics such as EPIC and the ACLU
strongly criticized the law for violating the Fourth Amendment,
Analysis of Specific USA PATRIOT Act Provisions: Authority
to Conduct Secret Searches ("Sneak and Peek"),
Electronic Privacy
Information Center. Accessed December 5, 2005. with the ACLU
going so far as to release an advertisement condemning it and
calling for it to be repealed.
However supporters of the amendment, such as
Heather Mac Donald, a fellow at
the Manhattan
Institute
and contributing editor to the New York City Journal,
expressed the belief that it was necessary because the temporary
delay in notification of a search order stops terrorists from
tipping off counterparts who are being investigated.In 2004,
FBI agents used this provision to search and secretly examine the
home of
Brandon Mayfield, who was
wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the
Madrid train bombings. While
the U.S. Government did publicly apologize to Mayfield and his
family,Mayfield took it further through the courts. On September
26, 2007, judge Ann Aiken found the law was, in fact,
unconstitutional as the search was an unreasonable imposition on
Mayfield and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.
Laws governing the material support of terrorism proved
contentious. It was criticized by the EFF for infringement of
freedom of association. The
EFF argues that had this law been enacted during
Apartheid, U.S. citizens would not have been able
to support the
African
National Congress (ANC) as the EFF believe the ANC would have
been classed as a terrorist organization. They also used the
example of a humanitarian social worker being unable to train
Hamas members how to care for civilian
children orphaned in the conflict between Israelis and
Palestinians, a lawyer being unable to teach
IRA members about
international law, and peace workers being
unable to offer training in effective peace negotiations or how to
petition the
United Nations regarding
human rights abuses.
EFF,
"Let
the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 201: 'Authority to Intercept Wire,
Oral, and Electronic Communications Relating to Terrorism,' and
Section 805, 'Material Support for Terrorism'". Retrieved
2007-10-12.Another group, the
Humanitarian Law Project, also
objected to the provision prohibiting "expert advise and
assistance" to terrorists and filed a suit against the U.S.
government to have it declared unconstitutional. They succeeded,
and a Federal Court found that the law was vague enough to cause a
reasonable person to guess whether they were breaking the law or
not. Thus they found it violated the First Amendment rights of U.S.
citizens, and struck it down.
Perhaps one of the biggest controversies involved the use of NSLs
by the FBI. Because they allow the FBI to search telephone, email,
and financial records without a court order they were criticized by
many parties.In November 2005,
BusinessWeek reported that the FBI had
issued tens of thousands of NSLs and had obtained one million
financial, credit, employment, and in some cases, health records
from the customers of targeted
Las Vegas businesses. Selected
businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental
agencies. An anonymous Justice official claimed that such requests
were permitted under section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act and despite
the volume of requests insisted "We are not inclined to ask courts
to endorse fishing expeditions". Before this was revealed, however,
the ACLU challenged the constitutionality of NSLs in court. In
April 2004, they filed suit against the government on behalf of an
unknown
Internet Service
Provider who had been issued an NSL, for reasons unknown. In
ACLU
v. DoJ,
the ACLU argued that the NSL violated the First and Fourth
Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because the USA PATRIOT Act
failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone or
Internet company could try to oppose an NSL subpoena in court. The
court agreed, and found that because the recipient of the subpoena
could not challenge it in court it was unconstitutional. Congress
later tried to remedy this in a reauthorization Act, but because
they did not remove the non-disclosure provision a Federal court
again found NSLs to be unconstitutional because they prevented
courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review.
Another provision of the USA PATRIOT Act brought a great deal of
consternation amongst librarians. Section 215 allows the FBI to
apply for an order to produce materials that assist in an
investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism
or clandestine intelligence activities. Amongst the "tangible
things" that could be targeted, it includes "books, records,
papers, documents, and other items".Supporters of the provision
point out that these records are held by third-parties, and
therefore are exempt from a citizen's reasonable expectations of
privacy and also maintain that the FBI has not abused the
provision.As proof, then Attorney General John Ashcroft released
information in 2003 that showed that section 215 orders had never
been used.However, despite protestations to the contrary, the
American Library
Association strongly objected to the provision, believing that
library records are fundamentally different to ordinary business
records, and that the provision would have a chilling effect on
free speech. The association became so concerned that they formed a
resolution condemning the USA PATRIOT Act, and which urged members
to defend free speech and protect patrons' privacy.They urged
librarians to seek legal advice before complying with a search
order and advised their members to only keeping records for as long
as was legally needed.Consequently, reports started filtering in
that librarians were shredding records to avoid having to comply
with such orders.
Another controversial aspect of the USA PATRIOT Act is the
immigration provisions that allow for the indefinite detention of
any alien whom the Attorney General believes may cause a terrorist
act.
Before the USA PATRIOT Act was passed,
Anita Ramasastry, an associate
professor of law and a director of the Shidler Center for Law,
Commerce, & Technology at the University of Washington
School of Law in Seattle, Washington
, accused the Act of depriving basic rights for
immigrants to America, including legal permanent residents.
She warned that "Indefinite detention upon secret evidence — which
the USA PATRIOT Act allows — sounds more like Taliban justice than
ours. Our claim that we are attempting to build an international
coalition against terrorism will be severely undermined if we pass
legislation allowing even citizens of our allies to be incarcerated
without basic U.S. guarantees of fairness and justice."Many other
parties have also been strongly critical of the provision. Russell
Feingold, in a Senate floor statement, claimed that the provision
"falls short of meeting even basic constitutional standards of due
process and fairness [as it] continues to allow the Attorney
General to detain persons based on mere suspicion".The
University of California passed a
resolution condemning (amongst other things) the indefinite
detention provisions of the Act,while the ACLU has accused the Act
of giving the Attorney General "unprecedented new power to
determine the fate of immigrants... Worse, if the foreigner does
not have a country that will accept them, they can be detained
indefinitely without trial."
Another controversial aspect of the USA PATRIOT Act is its effect
on the privacy of British Columbian citizens.
British Columbia’s privacy
commissioner raises concerns that the USA PATRIOT Act will
allow the United States government to access Canadians' private
information, such as personal medical records, that are outsourced
to American companies. Although the government of British Columbia
has taken measures to prevent United States authorities from
obtaining information, the widespread powers of the USA PATRIOT Act
could overcome legislation that is passed in Canada. B.C. Privacy
Commissioner David Loukidelis stated in a report on the
consequences of the USA PATRIOT Act, “once information is sent
across borders, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to
control”.
In an
effort to maintain their privacy, British Columbia
placed amendments on the Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA), which was enacted as
law on October 21, 2004. These amendments aim to place more
firm limitations on “storing, accessing, and disclosing of B.C.
public sector data by service providers.” These laws only pertain
to public sector data and do not cover trans-border or private
sector data in Canada. The public sector establishments include an
estimated 2,000 “government ministries, hospitals, boards of
health, universities and colleges, school boards, municipal
governments and certain Crown corporations and agencies.”
Legal
action has been taken in Nova Scotia
to protect the province from the USA PATRIOT Act’s
data collecting methods. On November 15, 2007 the government
of Nova Scotia passed a legislation aimed to protect Nova Scotians’
personal information from being brought forward by the USA PATRIOT
Act. The act was entitled “The new
Personal Information
International Disclosure Protection Act”. The goal of the act
is to establish requirements to protect personal information from
being revealed, as well as punishments for failing to do so.
Justice Minister Murray Scott stated, "This legislation will help
ensure that Nova Scotians' personal information will be protected.
The act outlines the responsibilities of public bodies,
municipalities and service providers and the consequences if these
responsibilities are not fulfilled."
See also
References
- " Safe Act Co-Sponsors say PATRIOT Act Conference
Report Unacceptable", Washington Times, 5 November 2005.
- Full Text of Enrolled Bill H.R. 3162,
GovTrack.us
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title X, Sec. 1002.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title X, Sec. 1012.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title X, Sec. 1001.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title X, Sec. 1003.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title X, Sec. 1004.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title X, Sec. 1006.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title X, Sec. 1005.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title X, Sec. 1007.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title X, Sec. 1008.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title X, Sec. 1009.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title X, Sec. 1010.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title X, Sec. 1011 (a).
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title X, Sec. 1011 (b).
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title X, Sec. 1011 (c).
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title II, Sec. 218.
- Andrew C. McCarthy, "Why
Section 218 Should be Retained". Retrieved January 23, 2006.
The Patriot Debates.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title II, Sec. 214.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title II, Sec. 207.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title II, Sec. 203.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title II, Sec. 216.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title II, Sec. 219.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title II, Sec. 204 & 209.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title II, Sec. 217.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title II, Sec. 211.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title II, Sec. 210.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title II, Sec. 212.
- Field Guidance on New Authorities (Redacted),
Federal Bureau of
Investigation (hosted by the Electronic Privacy
Information Center). Retrieved September 24, 2007.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title II, Sec. 213.
- United States Department of
Justice, The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty, pg.
2. Retrieved September 24, 2007.
- James
Dempsey, "Why Section 206 Should be Modified" (undated),
accessed January 7, 2006.
- EFF, "Let
the Sunset on PATRIOT - Section 206: 'Roving Surveillance Authority
Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978'".
Retrieved December 28, 2005.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title II, Sec. 215.
- American Library
Association, Resolution on the USA PATRIOT Act and
Libraries, enacted June 29, 2005
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title II, Sec. 208.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title II, Sec. 221.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title II, Sec. 205.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title II, Sec. 224.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 311.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 314.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 317.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 312, 313, 319 & 325.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 327.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 313.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 312.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 319.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 325.
- Defined in 15 CFR 730-774
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 315.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 320. Amended
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 323. Amended
- Pursuant to
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 328.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 330.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 319. Amended
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 356.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 365.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 359.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 352, 354 & 365.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 361.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 362.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 352.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 354.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 353.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 364.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 360.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 371.
- So defined in , and
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 372. Amended
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 371. Amended
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 374. Amended
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 376. Amended
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 377.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 401.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 402.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 404. Amended the
Department
of Justice Appropriations Act, 2001.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 403. Amends
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title IV, Sec. 403. Final regulations are specified
in
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 405.
- National
Institute of Standards and Technology, November 14, 2002.
"Use of Technology Standards and Interoperable
Databases With Machine-Readable, Tamper-Resistant Travel
Documents" (Appendix A)
- NIST Image Group's Fingerprint Research, see
the section "NIST Patriot Act Work" (accessed June 28, 2006)
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 411.
- As specified in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989; see
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 412. A new section was created
by the Act —
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 414.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 416.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 417.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 418.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title IV, Subtitle C.
- Office of Patrick Leahy, USA PATRIOT Act Section-by-section analysis
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title V, Sec 501.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title V, Sec 502. Amended
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title V, Sec 502. Amended
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title V, Sec 502. Amended
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title V, Sec 503. Amended
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title V, Sec 503. Amended
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title V, Sec 506.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title V, Sec 507.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title V, Sec 505. Amended ; Section 1114(a)(5)(A) of the
Right to Financial
Privacy Act of 1978 ( ) and Section 624 of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (
).
- Doe v. Ashcroft, 334 F.Supp.2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
source
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199,
Public Law
109-177) Title I, Sec. 115 & 116
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title VI, Subtitle A, Sec. 611.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title VI, Subtitle A, Sec. 614.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 621
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 622.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 623. Amended
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 624.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 802.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 813. Amended
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 814. Amended
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 801.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 817.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 803. Created
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 806. Amends
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title VIII, Section 805(a)(2)(B).
- Humanitarian Law Project et al. v. John
Ashcroft, Findlaw
- Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (U.S.
S. 2845, Public Law 108-458), Title VI, Subtitle F,
Sec. 6603.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 814.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 816.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title IX, Sec. 901.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title IX, Sec. 905.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title IX, Sec. 906.
- Senate Report 107-149 - "To authorize
appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003 for Intelligence and
Intelligence-related activities of the United States Government,
the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence
Agency Retirement Disability System, and for other purposes.", see
the section "National Virtual Translation Center"
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title IX, Sec. 907.
- Senate Report 107-149 - "To authorize
appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003 for Intelligence and
Intelligence-related activities of the United States Government,
the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence
Agency Retirement Disability System, and for other purposes.", see
the section "Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center"
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title IX, Sec. 904.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title IX, Sec. 908.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title IX, Sec. 903.
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199,
Public Law
109-177), Title II ("Terrorist Death Penalty Enhancement")
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199,
Public Law
109-177), Title III ("Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's
Seaports")
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199,
Public Law
109-177), Title IV ("Combating Terrorism Financing")
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199,
Public Law
109-177) Title VI ("Secret Service")
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199,
Public Law
109-177), Title VII ("Combating Methamphetamine Epedemic Act of
2005")
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199,
Public Law
109-177), Title I, Sec. 106
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. S. 2271, Public Law 109-178), Sec. 3.
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199,
Public Law
109-177), Title I, Sec. 115
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199,
Public Law
109-177), Title I, Sec. 116
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. S. 2271, Public Law 109-178), Sec. 4.
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. S. 2271, Public Law 109-178), Sec. 5.
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199,
Public Law
109-177), Title I, Sec. 118
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199,
Public Law
109-177), Title I, Sec. 108
- American Civil Liberties
Union, ACLU Letter to Congress Urging A "No" Vote On the
USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act Conference
Report (December 12, 2005), accessed on October 6, 2007.
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199,
Public Law
109-177), Title I, Sec. 114
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199,
Public Law
109-177), Title I, Sec. 107
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199,
Public Law
109-177), Title I, Sec. 109
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199,
Public Law
109-177), Title I, Sec. 105
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199,
Public Law
109-177), Title I, Sec. 104
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199,
Public Law
109-177), Title I, Sec. 112
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199,
Public Law
109-177), Title I, Sec. 110
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199,
Public Law
109-177), Title I, Sec. 111.
- USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199,
Public Law
109-177), Title I, Sec. 127.
- Michael
Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 (documentary).
Timestamp: 01:01:39–01:01:47.
- Michael
Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 (documentary).
Timestamp: 01:02:02–01:02:15.
- Michael
Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 (documentary).
Timestamp: 01:02:35–01:02:43.
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title II, Sec. 209.
- EFF, "Let
the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 209: 'Seizure of VoiceMail
Messages Pursuant to Warrants'". Retrieved December 29,
2005
- USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162,
Public Law
107-56), Title II, Sec. 220.
- EFF, "Let
the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 220: 'Nationwide Service of Search
Warrants for Electronic Evidence'". Retrieved October 12,
2007.
- Heather Mac Donald (undated), "Sneak-and-Peek in the Full Light of Day".
American Bar Association. Retrieved
October 12, 2007.
- Although FBI officials have a series of internal "checks and
balances" that must be met before the issue of an NSL, many
government officials still cried foul.
Further reading
Law review articles
- Chesney, Robert M. "The Sleeper Scenario: Terrorism Support Laws and
the Demands of Prevention". Harvard Journal on
Legislation (2005).
- Gouvin, Eric J. "Bringing Out the Big Guns: The USA PATRIOT Act,
Money Laundering and the War on Terrorism". Baylor Law Review 55 (2003):
955.
- Kerr, Orin. "Digital Evidence and the New Criminal Procedure".
Columbia Law Review
(2005).
- Mojuyé, Benjamin, "What Banks Need to Know About the PATRIOT
Act", 124 Banking L.J. 258, 258 (2007).
- Slovove, Daniel J. "Fourth Amendment Codification and Professor Kerr's
Misguided Call for Judicial Deference". Fordham Law Review 74 (2005).
- Van Bergen, Jennifer. "In the Absence of Democracy: The
Designation and Material Support Provisions of the Anti-Terrorism
Laws". Cardozo Pub. [?] Law Policy & Ethics
Journal 2 (2003): 107.
- Wong, Kam C. "Implementing the USA PATRIOT Act: A Case Study of
the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS)".
Brigham Young
University Education and Law Journal 2 (2006).
- Wong, Kam C. "The making of the USA PATRIOT Act I: Legislative
Process and Dynamics". International
Journal of the Sociology of Law 34.3 (2006): 179–219.
- Wong, Kam C. "The making of the USA PATRIOT ACT II: Public
Sentiments, Legislative Climate, Political Gamesmanship, Media
Patriotism". International
Journal of the Sociology of Law 34.2 (2006): 105–140.
- Wong, Kam C. "USA PATRIOT Act and a Policy of Alienation".
Michigan Journal
of Minority Rights 1 (2006): 1–44.
- Wong, Kam C. "USA PATRIOT Act: Some Unanswered Questions".
International
Journal of the Sociology of Law 43.1 (2006): 1–41.
Books
- Brasch, Walter. America's Unpatriotic Acts: The Federal
Government's Violation of Constitutional and Civil Rights.
Peter Lang Publishing , 2005. ISBN 0820476080 (A long list of civil
rights abuse claims by the Bush Administration inside the United
States and other countries.)
- Cole, Dave, and James X. Dempsey. Terrorism and the
Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National
Security. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2002. ISBN
1-56584-782-2. (Full discussion of prior legislative history of the
Act, going back more than ten years.)
- Harvey, Robert and Hélène Volat. De l'exception à la
règle. USA PATRIOT Act "DE L’EXCEPTION À LA RÈGLE : USA PATRIOT ACT" :
Robert Harvey et Hélène Volat. Paris: Lignes, 2006. 215
p.
- Mailman, Stanley, Jeralyn
Merritt, Theresa M. B. Van Vliet, and Stephen Yale-Loehr.
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot
Act) Act of 2001: An Analysis. Newark, NJ and San Francisco,
CA: Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. (a member of the LexisNexis Group), 2002. (Rel.1-3/02 Pub. 1271)
("An expert analysis of the significant changes in the new USA
Patriot Act of 2001 [which]...track[s] the legislation by section,
explaining both the changes and their potential impact with respect
to: enhanced surveillance procedures;money laundering and financial
crimes; protecting the border; investigation of terrorism;
information sharing among federal and state authorities; enhanced
criminal laws and penalties for terrorism offenses, and
more.")
- Michaels, C. William. No Greater Threat: America Since
September 11 and the Rise of the National Security State.
Algora Publishing, Completely Updated for 2005. ISBN 0-87586-155-5.
(Covers all ten titles of the USA PATRIOT Act; Includes review and
analysis of: Homeland Security Act, "PATRIOT Act II," Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, Supreme Court decisions,
"National Strategy" documents, 9-11 Commission recommendations, and
various ongoing developments nationally and internationally in the
"war on terrorism.")
- Phelan, James Clancy;
PATRIOT ACT, Hachette, ISBN 978-073-362283-0; 2007.
- Van Bergen, Jennifer. The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush
Plan for America. Common Courage Press, 2004. ISBN
1-56751-292-5. (A constitutional analysis for the general public of
the USA PATRIOT Act and other administrative measures, with the
first half of the book spent on principles of democracy and
constitutional law.)
- Wong, Kam C. "The Impact of USA Patriot Act on American
Society: An Evidence Based Assessment" (N.Y.: Nova Press, 2007) (In
print)
- Wong, Kam C. "The Making of USA Patriot Act: Legislation,
Implementation, Impact" (Beijing: China Law Press, 2007) (In
print)
External links
Government sources
- 2005 renewal
- Supportive views
- The Patriot Act and Related Provisions: The
Heritage Foundation's Research
- Patriot Hysteria — The Zacarias Moussaoui
Protection Act, article by Rich Lowry, National Review
- The
Patriot Act under Fire by law professors John Yoo and Eric
Posner, December 23, 2003
- The Patriot Act, Reauthorized, JURIST
- The FBI's "GUARDIAN"
database
- The international "ECHELON" network
- "CZTS," or Combat Zones That
See: a nation-wide DARPA video surveillance/ computerized
recognition demographic program
- The IAO, an evolution
of DARPA's "Total Information Awareness" program, spawned in 2002,
"defunded" in '03, and continuing to this day
Critical views
- PATRIOT Games: Terrorism Law and Executive
Power, JURIST
- The Loyal
Nine, youth based civil liberties organization against the USA
PATRIOT Act
- American Library Association's Resolution on the
PATRIOT Act
- "War on Terror" Human Rights Issues Amnesty
International USA
- A six-part series analyzing the Act.
- Beware of the "Domestic Security Enhancement
Act" by activist group ReclaimDemocracy.org
- Bill of Rights
Defense Committee: community-level initiatives opposing the
Act
- Electronic Frontier Foundation's detailed analysis
of the Act, October 27, 2003
- Statement Of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On The Anti-Terrorism
Bill, October 25, 2001
- Thousands dead, millions deprived of civil
liberties?, by Richard
Stallman, September 17, 2001
- Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., Sneak and Peek Search Warrants & Sneak and Peek Search Warrants and the USA Patriot
Act (2002).
- Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act: PEN American Center
- League of Women Voters' Resources on the USA
PATRIOT Act and Individual Liberties
- "The Chains of the Constitution and Legal Process
in the Library: a Post-Patriot Reauthorization" by Susan
Nevelow Mart, Hastings College of the Law

Other