Misplaced Pages

Patriot Act

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Reynwah (talk | contribs) at 23:00, 24 July 2003 (grammar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:00, 24 July 2003 by Reynwah (talk | contribs) (grammar)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act, H.R. 3162, S. 1510, Public Law 107-56) is a law of the United States. It was signed into law on October 26, 2001 in response to the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack. Critics argue that the law blatantly and outrageously violates the Fourth Amendment. Supporters argue that the federal courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, are the final arbiters of the Constitution, and that we must await the rulings of those courts.

This law includes provisions for indefinite imprisonment, without trial, of non-U.S. citizens whom the attorney general has determined a person to be a threat to "national security" (although they still have the ability to petition the courts for release). The law allows a wiretap to be issued against an individual, instead of a particular phone. The law permits law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant, and search a residence, without immediately informing the occupants; provided the attorney general has determined this to be an issue of "national security". The act also allows intelligence gathering at religious events.

The bill was passed 98-1 in the Senate with only Senator Russ Feingold voting against. There has been strong criticism of the act on the grounds that certain parts of it violate the Constitution and endanger civil liberties, notably by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). According to the ACLU, the PATRIOT Act's permitting issuing warrants on grounds lesser than those mandated by the Fourth Amendment, probable cause, without question violates the plain language of the Constitution, and some have noticed that these warrants resemble the general warrants that were one reason the colonists fought the American Revolution).

Critics of the law allege that the act was passed without serious review amidst a climate of fear and represents a reactionary agenda that has little or nothing to do with the September 11th attacks, pointing to the fact that the act has been around as proposed legislation, in various forms, since well before the attacks themselves occurred, and that some groups had been unsuccessfully seeking its passage for a long time.

Supporters of the law argue that the classic goal of law enforcement has always been to punish criminals, not prevent crime. In a era when the "crime" of terrorists might result in thousands or millions dead in a flash, we cannot wait for the "crime" to happen, and then hunt the criminals down. The new law will result in some rights abuses, but perhaps the most basic civil right is the right to live without perpetual fear.

Candidates for the Democratic Party nomination for the U.S. presidential election, 2004 have been united in condemning it as it has been applied by US Attorney-General John Ashcroft. However, of these, only Ohio Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich actually voted against it.

Three states in the United States (Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont), and 132 cities (including Eugene, Oregon and Cambridge, Massachusetts) have passed resolutions condemning the Patriot Act for attacking civil liberties. The city of Oakland, California is considering passing a resolution that will bar city employees (including police and librarians) from assisting or cooperating with any federal investigations under the PATRIOT Act that would violate any civil liberties protected under the Bill of Rights or United States Constitution. Arcata, California became the first city to actually pass such a law. Pundits question the legality of such a law, since the Constitution makes federal laws superior to state or local laws. This is why the Attorney General can prosecute people, for example, who possess medical marijuana even in states (such as California) where it is legal.

The act is 342 pages long and amends over fifteen statutes. The following summarizes the new powers granted by the law:

  • Sec. 106: Allows the President of the United States to seize property belonging to foreign nationals connected with terrorism. If the seizure is based on classified evidence, then the judge reviewing the case cannot share that evidence with the defense attorneys.
  • Sec. 203: Allows information collected by the police or presented to a Federal grand jury to be shared with intelligence agencies. This information sharing is limited to evidence of terrorist activities.
  • Sec. 206: Allows a wiretap to be granted against an individual, instead of a particular phone. Previously, for example, if a person had a cell phone, a home phone, and an office phone, the government had to obtain separate warrants on each.
  • Sec. 207: Increases the duration of a wiretap "permitted for non-U.S. persons who are agents of a foreign power."
  • Sec. 208: Increases (from seven to 11) the number of district court judges designated to hear applications for and grant orders approving electronic surveillance.
  • Sec. 209: Permits the seizure of voice-mail messages under a warrant.
  • Sec. 213: Allows FBI agents to conduct a search of a business or a place without notifying the owner that the search has been conducted until later. The agents still need a warrant, and only a Federal district court judge can issue this type of warrant. Further, this type of warrant may only be issued if notifying the owner of the search would result in "adverse consequences."
  • Sec. 217: Allows the government to intercept the electronic communication of a computer trespasser without a court order in certain circumstances.
  • Sec. 402: Triples the number of Border Patrol, Customs Service, and INS personnel stationed along the U.S. borders.
    • The law extends those actions to any foreigner who publicly endorses terrorist activity, belongs to a group that does, or provides support to a group that does.
    • The definition of "terrorist activity" is extended to include any foreigner who uses "dangerous devices" or raises money for a terrorist group, if that person knows or reasonably should have known that the group is engaged in terrorism
    • The attorney general can order the detention of any foreigners if he certifies that he has "reasonable grounds to believe" involvement in terrorism or activity that poses a danger to national security. He does not need to explain his reasoning or show evidence.
    • Criminal or immigration violation charges have to be brought against such people within seven days, but they can be held indefinitely.
    • However, they retain their right to petition the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, or any district court with jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition.
  • Sec. 416: Directs the Attorney General to implement fully and expand the foreign student monitoring program to include other approved educational institutions like air flight, language training, or vocational schools.
  • Sec. 503 requires DNA samples of convicted terrorists to a DNA database of violent convicts.

Opponents and supporters of the law make claims and counterclaims:

  • Critics state: that the law expands the powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to spy on Americans or foreign persons in the US (and those who communicate with them), and that it expands the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, from the situations where the suspicion that the person is the agent of a foreign government is "the" purpose of the surveillance to any time that this is "a significant purpose" of the surveillance.
  • Supporters reply: FISA surveillance under the new law is permitted only for non-U.S. persons. While a FISA wiretap may pick up the conversation of an American citizen when he is talking to a foreigner, FISA still cannot be specifically be used to "spy" on individual American citizens, and it is not wrong to have a higher standard of rights for American citizens as opposed to guests of the country. Finally, agents of Al-Qaeda are not "agents of a foreign government," and that FISA needed to be amended in a time where stateless terrorist conspiracies can murder thousands of people wholesale.

Critics state: that the law allows increased information sharing between domestic law enforcement and intelligence, repealing some of the barriers put up in the 1970s after the discovery that the FBI and CIA had been conducting joint investigations on over half a million Americans during the McCarthy era and afterwards, including Martin Luther King Jr. It allows wiretap results and grand jury information and other information collected in a criminal case to be disclosed to the intelligence agencies when the information constitutes foreign intelligence or foreign intelligence information, the latter being a broad new category created by this law. Supporters reply: that in an era where conspiracies to murder thousands or millions are being hatched by radical Islamists, the government cannot allow them complete sanctuary, even within the confines of a mosque.


See also

External Links and References