Talk:Patriot Act/Draft
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; Committee on Armed Services |
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (
Passed 43 days after the
Although the Act passed by wide margins in both houses of
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 parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns.[1] 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 Bush on March 9, 2006.
Background
The Patriot Act made a number of changes to
The ECPA was an amendment to title III of the
When Title III was established telecommunications was in its infancy and since that time many advances in communications technology have been made. This made it necessary to update the law to take into account these new developments. Thus the ECPA was passed, and extended title III to also protect wire, oral and electronic communications while in transit, as well as protecting stored electronic communications. The ECPA also extended the prohibition of the use of pen register and/or trap and trace devices to record dialling information used in the process of transmitting wire or electronic communications without a search warrant.
Along with changes to surveillance measures, the Patriot Act also made substantial changes to laws relating to money laundering. The main law changed was the
Immigration law was also tightened under the Patriot Act. The
History
September 11 terrorist attack
The catalyst for the USA PATRIOT Act occured on
According to
First bills introduced
Within a few weeks of the September 11 attacks, a number of bills attempting to make changes to anti-terrorism laws were introduced into Congress. The first bill proposed was the Combatting Terrorism Act of 2001, which was introduced by Republican Senators
The Public Safety & Cyber Security Enhancement Act was introduced on September 20th to the House by Republican Senator
The Intelligence to Prevent Terrorism Act was introduced to the Senate on 28th September by Senators
Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act
Meanwhile, Republican Senators Orin Hatch and
Also introduced into the House was the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act. This bill, which was later incorporated into the final USA PATRIOT Act, was introduced in the middle of October by Republican Senator
Birth of the USA PATRIOT Act
The first version of the Patriot Act was introduced into the House on the October 2nd, 2001 as the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001, and was later passed by the House as the Uniting and Strengthening America (USA) Act (H.R. 2975) on October 12th.
The USA PATRIOT Act was introduced into the House on the 23rd October. It incorporated H.R. 2975 and S. 1510 and many of the provisions of H.R. 3004 (the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act). However, the Act took into account any ongoing foreign intelligence investigations and allowed them to continue once the sections had expired.
Opposition grows
After the USA PATRIOT Act was passed it remained controversial, and began to be questioned by some members of Congress. On June 13, 2002 the
Meanwhile, on July 31, the Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act was introduced into the Senate by Senators
Further controversy soon came to a head when, in late January 2003, the founder of the
By now public opinion of the Act appeared to be waning, with a
Security and Freedom Ensured Act
The
In response to the bill, Attorney General Ashcroft wrote a four page letter to Congress urging them not to make wholesale changes to the Patriot Act, and warned that President Bush would
Judicial and legislative challenges
A number of sections were struck by the courts. Section 805 of the Patriot Act allowed the U.S. government to prohibit citizens from providing material support for specially designated terrorist organisations, including "expert advise and assistance". Two organisations so designated were the
Legislative action was also undertaken by
Not all proposed legislation was against the Patriot Act, however. In July 2004, Senator Jon Kyl introduced the Tools to Fight Terrorism Act into the Senate. In a statement given on September 13 to the Senate Committe on the Judiciary, Senator Kyl stated his concern that "Congress has enacted no major antiterror legislation since the passage of the USA Patriot Act almost three years ago."
Lead up to reauthorization
By now the sunsets in the Patriot Act were getting closer to expiring. The Bush administration had been campaigning for the reauthorization of the Act for some time, with the President speaking about the Act in his 2004 State of the Union Address, where he said that,
| “ | Inside the United States, where the [War on Terror] began, we must continue to give our homeland security and law enforcement personnel every tool they need to defend us. And one of those essential tools is the Patriot Act, which allows federal law enforcement to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells, and to seize their assets. For years, we have used similar provisions to catch embezzlers and drug traffickers. If these methods are good for hunting criminals, they are even more important for hunting terrorists.
Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year. The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens. You need to renew the Patriot Act. |
” |
| — 2004 United States State of the Union Address, United States President George W. Bush. | ||
President Bush also strongly urged for the Patriot Act to be reauthorized immediately when he swore in the successor to Attorney General John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales. In a speech swearing-in Gonzales, he stated that "[m]any key elements of the Patriot Act are now set to expire at the end of this year. We must not allow the passage of time or the illusion of safety to weaken our resolve in this new war. To protect the American people, Congress must promptly renew all provisions of the Patriot Act this year."[89]
In April 2005 a Senate Judicial Hearing on the Patriot Act was undertaken. The newly appointed Attorney General admitted that he was "open to discussion" about the Act, but argued that not only was the Patriot Act working well and needed few changes, but that all 16 of the expiring sections of the Act should be reauthorized. He in particular commented on section 215, the section allowing national security authorities to produce court orders under FISA to gain access to personal records, and section 206, the roving wiretap authority provision. He emphasised "the department has not sought a Section 215 order to obtain library or bookstore records, medical records or gun sale records. Rather, the provision to date has been used only to obtain driver's license records, public accommodation records, apartment leasing records, credit card records and subscriber information, such as names and addresses for telephone numbers captured through court- authorized pen register devices. Section 217, the "sneak and peek" search provisions, were also raised as a concern and were defended by the Department of Justice.[90][91][92]
President Bush continued to campaign for the reauthorization of the Act. In a speech given in June 2005 to the
A tense period followed as proponents and critics of the Act continued arguing their respective positions. Tensions came to ahead on June 10th, when a hearing into the Patriot Act by the
Reauthorization
In June the Select Committee on Intelligence met behind closed doors to consider a draft proposal by
The committee's proposed legislation was introduced into the House on July 21st as the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005. It repealed the sunset date for surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act — in other words, it would have made those sections permanent. A number of amendments were also proposed and passed. Several of the amendments were to surveillance provisions and included an amendment that added to the list of terrorist crimes that could be used for obtaining electronic surveillance,
The House responded on September 11 that they unanimously disagreed with the Senate amendment, and agreed to a conference. They then attempted to make a number of changes to the bill however it was not enough for Republican Senators Larry Craig, John Sununu and Lisa Murkowski, and Democratic Senators Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold and Ken Salazar, who wrote a letter threatening to block the bill if further changes were not made.
Judges strike key provisions
Though in the 2004 Doe v. Gonzalez case it was ruled that the NSL provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 2709 violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the US Constitution, the Department of Justice had appealed against this decision. The reauthorization Act, however, modified the law and made judicial review a requirement of NSLs but never removed the permanent gag provision. Therefore, on September 6th, 2007, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled that the use of NSLs to gain access to e-mail and telephone data from private companies for counter-terrorism investigations was "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values". The court struck down NSLs because the gag power was unconstitutional and courts could still not engage in meaningful judicial review of these gags.[127][128][129]
Another provision struck down was the so-called "sneak and peek" provisions of the Patriot Act. These were struck down after the FBI wrongfully used the provision to arrest
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
Title X created or altered a number of miscellaneous laws that didn't really fit into the any other section of the Patriot Act.
Title II: Surveillance procedures
Title II is titled "Enhanced Surveillance Procedures" and covers all aspects of the surveillance of suspected
The scope and availablility of wiretap and surveillance orders were expanded under title II. Wiretaps were expanded to include addressing and routing information to allow surveillance of
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.
Title II established three very controversial provisions: "sneak and peak" searches, 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 peak" 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"[162] — and it may be extended at the court's discretion.[163] 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.[132][133]
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,
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 20 miles of the
At the insistence of Republican Senator
| 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
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
Restrictions were placed on accounts and foreign banks. Foreign
The definition of money laundering was expanded to include making a financial transaction in the U.S. in order to commit a crime of violence;
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
The second subtitle 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
The third subtitle deals with currency crimes. Largely due to the effectiveness of the BSA, money launders had been avoiding traditional financial institutions to launder money and were using cash-based businesses to avoid traditional financial institutions. 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 offence 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 offence. Therefore, the BSA was amended to make it a criminal offence 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 offence is up to 5 years imprisonment and the forfeiture of any property up to the amount that was being smuggled.[207] It also made the civil and criminal penalty violations of currency reporting cases[208] be the forfeiture of all a defendant's property that was involved in the offense, and any property traceable to the defendant.[209] The Act prohibits and penalizes those who run unlicensed money transmitting businesses.[210] In 2005 this provision of 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.[211] The definition of counterfeiting was expanded to encompass analog, digital, or electronic image reproductions, and if was made an offence to own such a reproduction device. Penalties were increased to 20 years imprisonment.[212] Money laundering "unlawful activities" was expanded to include the provision of material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.[213] 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 18 U.S.C. § 1029, which deals with fraud and related activity in connection with access devices.[214]
Title IV: Border security
Title IV amends the
Under subtitle B, various definitions relating to terrorism were altered and expanded. The INA was
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 in order to undertake illegal
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.[226] The Attorney General was ordered to implement and expand the foreign student monitoring program that was established under section 641(a) of the IIRIRA.[227] 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.[228]
The Secretary of State was ordered to audit and report back to Congress on the Visa waiver program specified under 8 U.S.C. § 1187 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.[229] The Secretary was also ordered to report back to Congress on whether consulate shopping was a problem.[230]
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.[231] They recognised that some families, through no fault of their own, would either be ineligible for permanent residence in the United States due to 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.[232]
Title V: Terrorism investigation
Title V was written in an attempt to remove obstacles to investigating terrorism. 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.
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.[239] 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 offence 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 liablity that rises from such a production of records.[240]
One of the most controversial aspects of the Patriot Act is in title V, and relates to
Title VI: Victims and families of victims of terrorism
Title VI made amendments to the
Title VII: Information sharing for infrastructure protection
Title VII amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act to enhance the ability of U.S. law enforcement to counter terrorist activity that crosses
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.[253] Terrorism is also included in the definition of racketeering.[254] Terms relating to cyberterrorism are also redefined, including the term "protected computer", "damage", "conviction", "person" and "loss".[255]
New penalties were created to convict those who attack
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 ten years, or both.
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 the 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 5 years imprisonment. However, should the offense occur a second time, the penalty increases up to 20 years imprisonment.[262] 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". US$50,000,000 was authorized for establishing such labs.[263]
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.[264] 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.[265] International terrorist activities were made to fall within the scope of foreign intelligence under the National Security Act.[266]
A number of reports were commissioned relating to various intelligence-related government centers. One was commissioned into the best way of setting up the
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.[271] 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.[272] 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.[266]
Reauthorization
The 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
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.[278] 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.[279]
As NSL provisions of the Patriot Act had been struck by the courts
Changes were made to the roving wiretap provisions of the 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.[285]
Section 213 of the 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 criticised, particularly by the ACLU, for allowing potential abuse by law enforcement agencies[286] and was later amended to prevent a delayed notification "if the adverse results consist only of unduly delaying a trial."[287]
The reauthorization act also legislates increased congressional oversight for emergency disclosures by communication providers undertaken under section 212 of the Patriot Act.[288] The duration of FISA surveillance and physical search orders were increased. Surveillance performed against "lone wolf terrorists" under section 207 of the 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.[289] 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.[290] The amendment to material support law done in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act[261] was also made permanent.[291] The definition of terrorism was further expanded to include receiving military-type training from a foreign terrorist organization and narcoterrorism.[292] Other provisions of the reauthorization act was to merge the law outlawing train wrecking (18 U.S.C. § 992) and the law outlawing attacks on mass transportation systems (18 U.S.C. § 1993) into a new section of Title 18 of the U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. § 1992) and also to criminalize the act of planning a terrorist attack against a mass transport system.[293][294] 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.[295] A sense of Congress was further expressed that victims of terrorism should be entitled to the forfeited assets of terrorists.[296]
Controversy
The Patriot Act has generated a great deal of controversy over the years. However, not all parts of the Act are seen in this light, with many parts being seen as benign by both detractors and supporters of the Act.
Much of the controversy over the Act stems from changes to foreign intelligence surveillance law, National Security Letters, material support prohibitions and mandatory detention laws. Roving wiretaps, defined in section 206,
The Act also allows access to voicemail through a search warrant rather than through the a title III wiretap order.[314] James Dempsey, of the CDT, believes that it unnecessarily overlooks the importance of notice under the Fourth Amendment and under a Title III wiretap[315], while the EFF also criticise the provision's lack of notice, but also go further and say that "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.[316] Others disagree with this assessment. 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 Patriot Act was reasonable and sensible.[317]
The Patriot Act's expansion of court jurisdiction to allow the nationwide service of search warrants proved controversial for the EFF.[318] 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",[319] 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."[319] 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 party it is made out against will not need to be present when the order is issued.[319]
For a time, the Patriot Act allowed for agents to undertake "sneak and peek" searches.
Laws governing the material support of terrorism proved contentious. It was criticised by the EFF for infringing 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 organisation. 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 would not be able to teach IRA members about international law, or peace workers would not be able to offer training in effective peace negotiations or how to petition the United Nations regarding human rights abuses.[324] 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.[75][76]
Perhaps one of the most controversial parts of the legislation were the
Another provision of the 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 targetted, it includes "books, records, papers, documents, and other items".[167] 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.[330] As proof, then Attorney General John Aschroft released information ini 2003 that showed that section 215 orders had never been used.[331] 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 condeming the Patriot Act, and which urged members to defend free speech and protect patron's privacy.[332] They urged librarians to seek legal advise before complying with a search order and advised their members to only keeping records for as long as was legally needed.[333] Consequently, reports started filtering in that librarians were shredding records to avoid having to comply with such orders.[334][335][336] This stance was criticised by Heather Mac Donald, who opined that "[t]he furore over section 215 is a case study in Patriot Act fear-mongering."[337]
Another controversial aspect of the 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.
References
- ^ "SAFE Act Co-Sponsors say PATRIOT Act Conference Report Unacceptable."
- ^ Swires, Peter P. (2004). "The System of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Law". George Washington Law Review. 72: 23–30. Retrieved 2007-10-07.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - ^ Oregon Law Review. 81 (4): 1051–1132.)
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help - ^ a b c d e O'Harrow Jr., Robert (October 27th, 2002). "Six Weeks in Autumn". The Washington Post. pp. W06.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Centre for Democracy and Technology. United States Congress, Senate Amendment 1562, September 13, 2001.
- ^ H.R. 2915, THOMAS
- ^ Public Safety & Cyber Security Enhancement Act. Source: Center for Democracy and Technology. Accessed 26th June, 2007.
- ^ S. 1448, THOMAS
- ^ Memorably referred to as "Napster for spies" by Steven Cash during a Senate Hearing before the Select Committee on Intelligence.
- ^ THOMAS. "Intelligence to Prevent Terrorism Act of 2001".
- ^ Congressional Research Service. CRS summary of Intelligence to Prevent Terrorism Act of 2001
- ^ Electronic Privacy Information Center. "Analysis of Provisions of the Proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001" (PDF)
- ^ Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001. Source: Electronic Privacy Information Center. Accessed 2nd July, 2007.
- ^ H.R. 3004, THOMAS
- ^ Congressional Research Service, CRS Summary of H.R. 3004: "Title I: Strengthening Law Enforcement". October 17, 2001.
- ^ Congressional Research Service, CRS Summary of H.R. 3004: "Title II: Public-Private Cooperation". October 17, 2001.
- ^ Congressional Research Service, CRS Summary of H.R. 3004: "Title III: Combatting International Money Laundering". October 17, 2001.
- ^ H.R. 2975, THOMAS
- ^ S. 1510, THOMAS.
- ^ Senate Amendment 1899
- ^ Senate Amendment 1900
- ^ Senate Amendment 1901
- ^ 2001 Congressional Record, Vol. 147, Page S11247 (2001)
- ^ H.R. 3162, THOMAS
- ^ 2001 Congressional Record, Vol. 147, Page S10990 (October 25, 2001)
- ^ Passed 357 - 66; Roll number 398 (23rd October, 2001)
- ^ a b 2001 Congressional Record, Vol. 147, Page S10991 (October 25, 2001)
- ^ Record vote number 313 for H.R. 3192. Passed 98 - 1.
- ^ 2001 Congressional Record, Vol. 147, Page S11020 (October 25th, 2001)
- ^ 2001 Congressional Record, Vol. 147, Page S11021 (October 25th, 2001)
- ^ 2001 Congressional Record, Vol. 147, Page S11022 (October 25th, 2001)
- ^ 2001 Congressional Record, Vol. 147, Page S11022 (October 25th, 2001)
- John Conyers Jr. (June 13, 2002). Letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft
- ^ Daniel J. Bryant (July 26, 2002). Response to 50 questions. United States Department of Justice
- ^ Electronic Privacy Information Center (October 25, 2002) FOI complaint.
- ^ ACLU and EPIC v. Department of Justice, Civil Action No. 02-2077. March 21, 2003.
- ^ ACLU and EPIC v. Department of Justice, Civil Action No. 03-2522. (D.D.C. ESH), PATRIOT Act FOIA. EPIC website, retrieved 29th August, 2007.
- ^ THOMAS, S.1552.
- Electronic Frontiers Foundation, Analysis of the Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act, retrieved September 4th, 2007.
- ^ Congressional Research Service (June 31st, 2003), CRS Summary of S.1552.
- ^ H.R. 3171, THOMAS
- ^ "ACLU Welcomes Bi-partisan "True PATRIOT Act," Measure Seeks to Restore Freedoms Lost Post 9/11" (Press release). American Civil Liberties Union. September 24th, 2003. Retrieved 2007-09-05.
The American Civil Liberties Union today joined with members of Congress and civil rights groups in welcoming bi-partisan legislation aimed to correct some of the most contentious provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and other controversial measures adopted post 9/11. At a news conference today, Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Ron Paul (R-TX) unveiled their "Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act."
{{cite press release}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Electronic Frontiers Foundation. September 28, 2003. Retrieved 2007-09-05.
- ^ PBS (February 7th, 2007), Now with Bill Moyers, transcript.
- ^ EFF Analysis of "Patriot II," Provisions of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 30th August, 2007.
- ^ Control Sheet of the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003", retrieved August 30th, 2007.
- ^ )
- Electronic Frontiers Foundation. Retrieved August 30th, 2007.
- ^ United States Department of Justice (February 7th, 2007), Statement of Barbara Comstock, Director of Public Affairs
- CNS News. Retrieved 2007-08-30.
- ^ Patrick Leahy (February 10, 2003), Comments Of Senator Patrick Leahy Ranking Democratic Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, On The Justice Department’s Secrecy In Drafting A Sequel To The USA PATRIOT Act. Office of Patrick Leahy, Senator for Vermont (2003).
- ^ "USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll results". USA Today. May 20th, 2005.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - )
- ^ )
- ^ a b "Ashcroft touts Patriot Act's virtues". Las Vegas Review-Journal. 27th August, 2003.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ John Ashcroft (August 19th, 2003). Prepared Remarks of Attorney General Johnn Ashcroft Preserving Life and Liberty, speech to American Enterprise Institute.
- ^ "FBI charges Florida professor with terrorist activities". CNN. February 20th, 2003.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Findlaw
- )
- ^ "Town criminalizes compliance with Patriot Act". CNN. May 18th, 2003.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Washington Post. p. A01.
- ^ S.1709, THOMAS
- ^ THOMAS, Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2003, S.1709 Section 2
- ^ THOMAS, Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2003, S.1709 Section 3
- ^ THOMAS, Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2003, S.1709 Section 4
- ^ THOMAS, Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2003, S.1709 Section 5
- ^ THOMAS, Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2003, S.1709 Section 6
- Electronic Frontiers Foundationwebsite. Retrieved September 1st, 2007
- ^ 2003 Congressional Record, Vol. 149, Page S12377 (October 2nd, 2003)
- ^ 2003 Congressional Record, Vol. 149, Page S12386 (October 2nd, 2004)
- ^ a b "Ashcroft: Bush would veto bill scaling back Patriot Act". Washington/Politics. USA Today. 29th January, 2004.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - CNET News.com. Retrieved 2007-07-24.
- ^ "Ashcroft warns of Bush veto on scaled-back Patriot bill". CNN. January 29, 2004. Retrieved 2007-07-24.
- ^ "SAFE Act Co-Sponsors Say Patriot Act Conference Report Unacceptable" (Press release). John E. Sununu. November 16th, 2005.
{{cite press release}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ a b c Humanitarian Law Project et al. v. John Ashcroft, Findlaw Cite error: The named reference "FullRulingSection805" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ a b c "Key Patriot Act provision ruled unconstitutional under the First Amendment" (Press release). Humanitarian Law Project. January 26, 2004. Retrieved 2007-07-24.
January 26, 2004: The Center for Constitutional Rights announced today that a federal court in Los Angeles has declared unconstitutional a provision of the USA PATRIOT Act, enacted six weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This is the first judicial ruling in the country declaring part of the Patriot Act unconstitutional. In a decision issued late Friday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins ruled that a ban on providing "expert advice and assistance" to terrorist groups violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution because it is so vague that it "could be construed to include unequivocally pure speech and advocacy protected by the First Amendment."
Cite error: The named reference "HLPPressRelease" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). - ^ Citing Mark Corallo, spokesman for the United States Department of Justice. Cited in: Frieden, Terry (January 27, 2004). "Federal judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional". Law Center. CNN. Retrieved 2007-07-24.
- ^ a b c d e Doe v. Ashcroft, 334 F.Supp.2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) source Cite error: The named reference "ACLUvDoJ" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ "Part of Patriot Act Struck Down". Politics : Law. Wired. September 29th, 2004.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - News.com.
- ^ Locy, Toni (September 29, 2004). "Court strikes down Patriot Act provision". Washington/Politics. USA Today.
- ^ H.R. 4754, THOMAS. See also H.AMDT.652, THOMAS.
- ^ Roll number 339, July 8th, 2004
- )
- ^ H.R. 2862, THOMAS; see also H.AMDT 280
- ^ Roll number 258, June 15th, 2005
- ^ A Review of the Tools to Fight Terrorism Act (Senate Hearing). Statement of Chairman Kyl (September 13th, 2004). United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security.
- ^ Kyl, Jon (September 20, 2004). "Giving Law Enforcement Some Overdue Tools In the Fight Against Terrorism". TruthNews.
- ^ "President Thanks Attorney General Gonzales at Swearing-In Ceremony" (Press release). United States Department of Justice. February 14th, 2004.
{{cite press release}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ April 5th, 2005. Transcript of the Senate Judicial Hearing on the Patriot Act, source: The Washington Post.
- ^ Eggen, Dan (April 6th, 2005). "Congress Urged to Renew Patriot Act". The Washington Post. p. A17.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Zajac, Andrew (April 6th, 2005). "Debate on USA Patriot Act". Chicago Tribune.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ VandeHei, Jim (June 10, 2005). "Bush Campaigns to Extend Patriot Act". Politics, Bush Administration. The Washington Post. p. A06.
- ^ "Bush to Congress: Renew Patriot Act". Politics. CNN. June 9, 2005.
- )
- ^ Ramasastry, Anita (April 20, 2004). "Reform the Patriot Act to ensure civil liberties". Law Center. CNN.
- ^ Allen, Mike (June 11th, 2005). "Panel Chairman Leaves Hearing". Politics. The Washington Post. p. A04.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Ehrlich, Dorothy M. (July 4, 2005). "Patriotism vs. the USA Patriot Act". Open forum. San Francisco Herald.
- ^ "Panel to weigh beefed-up Patriot Act". Nation, Washington. The Boston Globe. June 5, 2005.
- Daniel E. Lungren
- ^ H. AMDT 489 (21st June, 2005). Proposed by Jeff Flake
- Darrell E. Issa
- ^ H. AMDT 495 (21st June, 2005). Proposed by Jeff Flake
- ^ H. AMDT 492 (21st June, 2005). Proposed by Jeff Flake
- ^ H. AMDT 493 (21st June, 2005). Proposed by Maxine Waters
- ^ H. AMDT 491 (21st June, 2005). Proposed by Shelley Moore Capito
- William D. Delahunt
- Howard L. Berman
- ^ Roll call 414 for H.R. 3199. July 21st, 2005.
- ^ Holland, Jesse J. (November 17th, 2005). "Bipartisan group of senators threatens to hold up Patriot Act reauthorization". The America's Intelligence Wire.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Senate Roll Call 358 for H.R. 3199. December 16th, 2005.
- ^ S. 2167, THOMAS
- James Sensenbrenner.
- ^ 2005 Congressional Record, Vol. 151, Page S14424 (December 22nd, 2005)
- ^ "U.S. House Approves Patriot Act Extension; Senate to Vote Soon". Top Worldwide. Bloomberg. February 1st, 2006.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Kellman, Laurie (February 2nd, 2006). "Congress Closer to Extending Patriot Act". San Francisco Herald.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ "Congress to Give Patriot Act Another Month". CBS News. February 1st, 2006.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ "House Passes Temporary Extension of Patriot Act". Fox News. February 1st, 2006.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Diamond, John. "Senate passes Patriot Act changes". Washington/Politics. USA Today.
{{cite news}}: Text "March 1st, 2006" ignored (help) - ^ "House approves Patriot Act renewal". Politics. CNN. March 7th, 2006.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Jeff Bliss (March 8th, 2006). "Bush Logs Victory as USA Patriot Act Passes Congress". Bloomberg.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Bush Speaks After Signing Patriot Act (March 9, 2006). The Washington Post. Transcript.
- The White House. March 9th, 2006.)
{{cite press release}}: Check date values in:|date=(help - ^ "Bush declares immunity from Patriot Act oversight". Wikinews. March 24th, 2006.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ "Leahy: President Strikes Again In PATRIOT Act Bill Signing Statement; Suggests He'll Pick And Choose Which Parts Of Law To Follow" (Press release). Office of Patrick Leahy, Senator for Vermont. March 15, 2006.
- ^ "Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement". The Boston Globe. March 24, 2006. p. 2.
- ^ a b "Federal Court Strikes Down National Security Letter Provision of Patriot Act" (Press release). American Civil Liberties Union. September 6th, 2007.
NEW YORK - A federal court today struck down the amended Patriot Act's National Security Letter (NSL) provision. The law has permitted the FBI to issue NSLs demanding private information about people within the United States without court approval, and to gag those who receive NSLs from discussing them. The court found that the gag power was unconstitutional and that because the statute prevented courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review of gags, it violated the First Amendment and the principle of separation of powers.
{{cite press release}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) Cite error: The named reference "ACLU-NSLs" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). - ^ a b Eggen, Dan (September 7, 2007). "Judge Invalidates Patriot Act Provisions". The Washington Post. p. A01. Cite error: The named reference "WashingtonPost-NSLs2007" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ a b Neumeister, Larry (September 7, 2007). "Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act". The Guardian. Cite error: The named reference "Guardian-NSLs2007" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ Special Report: A Review of the FBI's Handling of the Brandon Mavfield Case (PDF), United States Department of Justice, March 2006, p. 29
- ^ a b "Apology Note from the [[United States Government]]". The Washington Post. November 29, 2006.
{{cite news}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help) - ^ a b c Singel, Ryan (September 26, 2007). "Court Strikes Down 2 Key Patriot Act Provisions". Surveillance, The Courts.
{{cite news}}: Text "publisherWired" ignored (help) - ^ a b c Keller, Susan Jo (September 27, 2007). "Judge Rules Provisions in Patriot Act to Be Illegal". The New York Times.
- ^ 2001 Congressional Record, Vol. 147, Page S9368 (September 13, 2001)
- Public Law107-56), Title X, Sec. 1002.
- Public Law107-56), Title X, Sec. 1012.
- Public Law107-56), Title X, Sec. 1001.
- Public Law107-56), Title X, Sec. 1003.
- Public Law107-56), Title X, Sec. 1004.
- Public Law107-56), Title X, Sec. 1006.
- Public Law107-56), Title X, Sec. 1005.
- Public Law107-56), Title X, Sec. 1007.
- Public Law107-56), Title X, Sec. 1008.
- Public Law107-56), Title X, Sec. 1009.
- Public Law107-56), Title X, Sec. 1010.
- Public Law107-56), Title X, Sec. 1011 (a).
- Public Law107-56), Title X, Sec. 1011 (b).
- Public Law107-56), Title X, Sec. 1011 (c).
- Public Law107-56), Title II, Sec. 218.
- ^ Andrew C. McCarthy, "Why Section 218 Should be Retained", accessed January 23, 2006. The Patriot Debates.
- Public Law107-56), Title II, Sec. 214.
- Public Law107-56), Title II, Sec. 207.
- Public Law107-56), Title II, Sec. 203.
- ^ Public Law107-56), Title II, Sec. 216.
- ^ Analysis of Specific USA PATRIOT Act Provisions: Pen Registers, the Internet and Carnivore, Electronic Privacy Information Center. Accessed December 4, 2005.
- Public Law107-56), Title II, Sec. 219.
- Public Law107-56), Title II, Sec. 204 & 209.
- Public Law107-56), Title II, Sec. 217.
- Public Law107-56), Title II, Sec. 211.
- Public Law107-56), Title II, Sec. 210.
- Public Law107-56), Title II, Sec. 212.
- ^ Field Guidance on New Authorities (Redacted), Federal Bureau of Investigation (hosted by the Electronic Privacy Information Center). Accessed 2007-09-24.
- ^ Public Law107-56), Title II, Sec. 213.
- ^ United States Department of Justice, The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty, pg. 2. Accessed 2007-09024.
- ^ James Dempsey, "Why Section 206 Should be Modified" (undated), accessed January 7, 2006.
- ^ EFF, "Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 206: 'Roving Surveillance Authority Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978'", accessed December 28, 2005
- ^ Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 215. Cite error: The named reference "Section215" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ American Library Association, Resolution on the USA PATRIOT Act and Libraries, enacted June 29, 2005
- City Journal.
- Public Law107-56), Title II, Sec. 208.
- Public Law107-56), Title II, Sec. 221.
- Public Law107-56), Title II, Sec. 205.
- Public Law107-56), Title II, Sec. 224.
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 311.
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 314.
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 317.
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 312, 313, 319 & 325.
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 327.
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 313.
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 312.
- ^ Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 319. Cite error: The named reference "Section319" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 325.
- ^ Amendment made to — for some reason an extra parenthesis was inserted into , according to Cornell University, this was probably mistakenly added by law makers
- ^ Illegal export of controlled munitions is defined in the United States Munitions List, which is part of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. § 2778)
- ^ Defined in 15 CFR 730-774
- ^ Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 315.
- ^ Defined in 18 U.S.C. § 541
- ^ Defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030
- Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 320. Amended.
- ^
- ^ Pursuant to
- ^
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 328.
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 330.
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 356.
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 365.
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 359.
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 352, 354 & 365.
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 361.
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 362.
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 352.
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 354.
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 353.
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 364.
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 360.
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 371.
- ^ So defined in 31 U.S.C. § 5313, 31 U.S.C. § 5316 and 31 U.S.C. § 5324
- Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 372. Amended
- .
- National Public Radio. July 20, 2005.
- .
- Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 376. Amended
- Public Law107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 377.
- Public Law107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 401.
- Public Law107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 402.
- Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 404. Amended the Department of Justice Appropriations Act, 2001.
- .
- .
- Public Law107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 405.
- ^ National Institute of Standards and Technology, November 13, 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)
- ^ Public Law107-56), 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
- ^
- Public Law107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 414.
- ^
- Public Law107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 416.
- Public Law107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 417.
- Public Law107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 418.
- Public Law107-56), Title IV, Subtitle C.
- ^ Office of Patrick Leahy, USA PATRIOT Act Section-by-section analysis
- Public Law107-56), Title V, Sec 501.
- Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 502. Amended
- Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 502. Amended
- Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 502. Amended
- Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 503. Amended
- .
- Public Law107-56), Title V, Sec 506.
- Public Law107-56), Title V, Sec 507.
- Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 () and Section 624 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681u).
- Public Law109-177) Title I, Sec. 115 & 116
- Public Law107-56), Title VI, Subtitle A, Sec. 611.
- Public Law107-56), Title VI, Subtitle A, Sec. 614.
- Public Law107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 621
- Public Law107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 622.
- Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 623. Amended.
- ^ See 42 U.S.C. § 10603b
- Public Law107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 624.
- ^ 42 U.S.C. § 3796h
- Public Law107-56), Title VII, Sec. 701, (1).
- Public Law107-56), Title VII, Sec. 701, (1)(d)
- Public Law107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 802.
- Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 813. Amended.
- Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 814. Amended.
- Public Law107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 801.
- Public Law107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 817.
- .
- .
- Public Law107-56), Title VIII, Section 805(a)(2)(B).
- ^ Public Law108-458), Title VI, Subtitle F, Sec. 6603.
- Public Law107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 814.
- Public Law107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 816.
- Public Law107-56), Title IX, Sec. 901.
- Public Law107-56), Title IX, Sec. 905.
- ^ Public Law107-56), Title IX, Sec. 903.
- Public Law107-56), 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 Disablity System, and for other purposes.", see the section "National Virtual Translation Center"
- Public Law107-56), 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 Disablity System, and for other purposes.", see the section "Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center"
- Public Law107-56), Title IX, Sec. 904.
- Public Law107-56), Title IX, Sec. 908.
- Public Law109-177), Title II ("Terrorist Death Penalty Enhancement")
- Public Law109-177), Title III ("Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports")
- Public Law109-177), Title IV ("Combating Terrorism Financing")
- Public Law109-177) Title VI ("Secret Service")
- Public Law109-177), Title VII ("Combating Methamphetamine Epedemic Act of 2005")
- Public Law109-177), Title I, Sec. 106
- Public Law109-178), Sec. 3.
- Public Law109-177), Title I, Sec. 115
- ^ Public Law109-177), Title I, Sec. 116
- Public Law109-178), Sec. 4.
- Public Law109-178), Sec. 5.
- Public Law109-177), Title I, Sec. 118
- Public Law109-177), 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 (Dec. 12, 2005), accessed on October 6th, 2007.
- Public Law109-177), Title I, Sec. 114
- Public Law109-177), Title I, Sec. 107
- Public Law109-177), Title I, Sec. 109
- Public Law109-177), Title I, Sec. 105
- Public Law109-177), Title I, Sec. 104
- Public Law109-177), Title I, Sec. 112
- ^ Yeah, Brian T.; Doyle, Charles (December 21, 2006), USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005: A Legal Analysis (PDF), Congressional Research Service, p. 24, retrieved 2007-10-07
- Public Law109-177), Title I, Sec. 110
- Public Law109-177), Title I, Sec. 111.
- Public Law109-177), Title I, Sec. 127.
- ^ "'Trust me' just doesn't fly". News. USA Today. Retrieved 2007-10-07.
The conspiracy indictment disclosed Tuesday of three men already awaiting trial in England is a reminder that terrorism is a real threat, and most of the law is non-controversial.
{{cite news}}: Text "December 4, 2005" ignored (help) - ^ Steranko, Anastasia (September 19, 2003). "PATRIOT Act inspires discussion of civil liberties". The Pitt News. Retrieved 2007-10-07.
- ^ "Debate around Patriot Act increases". News. The Daily Pennsylvanian. February 13, 2004. Retrieved 2007-10-07.
- ^ "History of the Patriot Act". Electronic Privacy Information Center. Retrieved 2007-10-07.
Though the Act made significant amendments to over 15 important statutes, it was introduced with great haste and passed with little debate, and without a House, Senate, or conference report. As a result, it lacks background legislative history that often retrospectively provides necessary statutory interpretation.
- Electronic Frontiers Foundation. October 31, 2001. Retrieved 2007-10-12.
...it seems clear that the vast majority of the sections included were not carefully studied by Congress, nor was sufficient time taken to debate it or to hear testimony from experts outside of law enforcement in the fields where it makes major changes.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Lithwick, Dahlia; Turner, Julia (September 8, 2003). "A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 1". Jurisprudence.
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|publication=ignored (help) - ^ "USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll results". USA Today. January 10, 2006.
- ^ Locy, Toni (26th February, 2007). "Patriot Act blurred in the public mind". USA Today.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Murray, John C. (July 1, 2004). "NCIS: the parody that chills". Entertainment/TV & Radio. The Age.
- Public Law107-56), Title II, Sec. 206.
- ^ "Analysis of Specific USA PATRIOT Act Provisions: Expanded Dissemination of Information Obtained in Criminal Investigations". Analysis. Electronic Privacy Information Center. Retrieved 2007-10-08.
- Electronic Frontiers Foundation..
- Microsoft Encarta
- ^ Rosenzweig, Paul, "Terrorism is not just a crime", Patriot Debates, American Bar Association
- Public Law107-56), Title II, Sec. 209.
- ^ James X. Dempsey, "Why Sections 209, 212, and 220 Should be Modified" (undated), accessed October 15, 2007.
- ^ EFF, "Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 209: 'Seizure of VoiceMail Messages Pursuant to Warrants'", accessed December 29, 2005
- ^ Orin Kerr, "Why Sections 209, 212, and 220 Should be Modified" (undated), accessed October 12, 2007.
- Public Law107-56), Title II, Sec. 220.
- ^ a b c EFF, "Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 220: 'Nationwide Service of Search Warrants for Electronic Evidence'", accessed October 12, 2007.
- ^ Analysis of Specific USA PATRIOT Act Provisions: Authority to Conduct Secret Searches ("Sneak and Peek"), Electronic Privacy Information Center. Accessed December 5, 2005.
- ^ "Uncle Sam Asks: "What The Hell Is Going On Here?"in New ACLU Print and Radio Advertisements" (Press release). American Civil Liberties Union. September 10, 2003.
- ^ ACLU Ad On "Sneak-and-Peek" Searches: Overblown, FactCheck.org, September 21, 2004
- ^ Heather Mac Donald (undated), "Sneak-and-Peek in the Full Light of Day". American Bar Association, accessed October 12, 2007.
- ^ 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'", accessed 2007-10-12.
- ^ "National Security Letters main page of the ACLU". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 2007-10-13.
- Electronic Frontiers Foundation. Retrieved 2007-10-13.
- ^ "EPIC: National Security Letters (NSLs)". Electronic Privacy Information Center. Retrieved 2007-10-13.
- ^ "FBI Unbound: How National Security Letters Violate Our Privacy". Bill of Rights Defense Committee. Retrieved 2007-10-13.
- Business Week. Retrieved 2007-10-13.
- ^ C. McCarthy, Andrew. "Why Sections 214 and 215 Should be Retained". American Bar Association. Retrieved 2007-10-13.
- ^ "No Patriot Check Out At Libraries". CBS News. September 18, 2003.
- ^ "Resolution on the USA Patriot Act and Related Measures That Infringe on the Rights of Library Users". American Libraries Association. January 29, 2003. Retrieved 2007-10-13.
- ^ Kasindorf, Martin (December 16, 2003). "FBI's reading list worries librarians". USA Today. Retrieved 1007-10-13.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help) - )
- ^ "Libraries Rally Against USA Patriot Act". Politics. Fox News. May 7, 2003. Retrieved 2007-10-13.
- ^ Graham, Judith (April 3, 2003). "Libraries warning patrons: Federal government may be spying on you". Chicago Tribune.
- City Journal.
- ^ Ramasastry, Anita (October 5, 2001), "Indefinite detention based on suspicion: How The Patriot Act Will Disrupt Many Lawful Immigrants' Lives", FindLaw, retrieved 2007-10-15
- Feingold, Russell (October 25, 2001). "Statement Of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On The Anti-Terrorism Bill From The Senate Floor". Retrieved 2007-10-15.
- ^ "Resolution Passed at the May 6, 2004 Special Meeting of the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate" (PDF). University of California. Retrieved 2007-10-15.
- ^ "Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act > Non surveillance provisions". American Civil Liberties Union. April 3, 2003. Retrieved 2007-10-15.
- Government sources
-
- "The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty" by the Department of Justice
- 2005 renewal
-
- H.R. 3199, Bill Summary and Status
- Section-by-section summary by Senator Patrick Leahy
- 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
- 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
- Jennifer Van Bergen, Repeal the USA PATRIOT Act 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
- Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act: PEN American Center
- League of Women Voters' Resources on the USA PATRIOT Act and Individual Liberties
- Other
- Pros vs. Cons Examination of the USA PATRIOT Act
- Patriot Act news and resources, JURIST
- Video Debate: Howard Dean and Governor Bill Owens (R-CO), debate the USA PATRIOT Act, August 9 2004 (Real Player required)
- More on Wikipedia and its PATRIOT Act overview; Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr
- Read Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding the USA PATRIOT Act
- PATRIOT Act at Wikia
- Is the Patriot Act Unconstitutional? - Encarta
- 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 Review55 (2003): 955.
- Kerr, Orin. "Digital Evidence and the New Criminal Procedure". Columbia Law Review (2005).
- 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).
- –––. "The making of the USA PATRIOT Act I: Legislative Process and Dynamics". International Journal of the Sociology of Law34.3 (2006): 179–219.
- –––. "The making of the USA PATRIOT ACT II: Public Sentiments, Legislative Climate, Political Gamesmanship, Media Patriotism". International Journal of the Sociology of Law34.2 (2006): 105-140.
- –––. "USA PATRIOT Act and a Policy of Alienation". Michigan Journal of Minority Rights 1 (2006): 1–44.
- –––. "USA PATRIOT Act: Some Unanswered Questions". International Journal of the Sociology of Law43.1 (2006): 1-41.
- Books
- 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[1]. Paris: Lignes, 2006. 215 p.
- Mailman, Stanley, Jeralyn E. 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, 2002. ISBN 0-87586-155-5. (Covers all ten titles of the USA PATRIOT Act; an updated version, including discussion of amendments and complements to the Act, is just completed but not yet available.)
- 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.)
- 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.)
- Kam C. Wong, "The Impact of USA Patriot Act on American Society: An Evidence Based Assessment" (N.Y.: Nova Press, 2007) (In print)
- Kam C. Wong, "The Making of USA Patriot Act: Legislation, Implementation, Impact" (Beijing: China Law Press, 2007) (In print)
da:USA PATRIOT Act
de:USA Patriot Act
fr:USA PATRIOT Act
id:Patriot Act
it:USA PATRIOT Act
nl:USA PATRIOT Act
ja:米国愛国者法
no:USA PATRIOT Act
pl:USA Patriot Act
fi:USA PATRIOT Act
sv:Patriot Act
th:กฎหมายต่อต้านการก่อการร้ายสหรัฐ