Patriot ActFrom TinWiki.orgThe provisions of the Patriot Act permit monitoring and interception of e-mail, warrantless searches, increased surveillance, the ability to conduct phone and internet taps with less judicial scrutiny, and the ability for the Secretary of State to designate foreign and domestic groups as terrorist organizations, and deport suspected terrorists. The Patriot Act, officially documented as HR3162, has been the focus of a large amount of controversy since it was passed shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11 2001. It is both a focal point and side reference of many conspiracy theories dealing with secretive government activity, and is considered by many to be a large step in the creation of a police state.
[edit] WhatDue to the amount of negative media attention the Patriot Act has received in the years since it was signed into law, many citizens feel that it is unconstitutional, but most have not actually read the legislation for themselves, thus are ignorant of the extensive power it grants the federal government. The law - as it was initially designed - gives extra authorization to both the intelligence community and law enforcement personnel, foreign-based and domestic. The provisions of the Patriot Act permit monitoring and interception of e-mail, warrantless searches, increased surveillance, the ability to conduct phone and internet taps with less judicial scrutiny, and the ability for the Secretary of State to designate foreign and domestic groups as terrorist organizations, and deport suspected terrorists. The Patriot Act also allows law enforcement to detain suspected terrorists who are non-U.S. citizens for longer periods of time without providing them their right to due process. These heightened powers are granted under a handful of the many sections within the Patriot Act, these seven are outlined below. [edit] Section 215Section 215 modifies the rules on records searches, allowing third-party holders of every citizen's financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue, and mosque records can be searched without their knowledge or consent. The only requirement investigating parties must meet is to cite they are investigating terrorism. Before this was passed into law, the above actions were still possible, but investigators were required to present probable cause to a judge and obtain a search warrant, as outlined under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Act of 1978, the intelligence community were granted the right to conduct warrantless surveillance but only in the pursuit of foreign intelligence gathering. Now, investigators need only inform a FISA judge, without evidence or probable cause, that the search protects against terrorism. The judge cannot reject the proposal. Also, the target of a search doesn't have to be a terror suspect themself, so long as the government's purpose is cited as "an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism." [edit] Section 218Section 218 bypasses the FISA Act by allowing secret searches, authorized by secret courts without public knowledge or Department of Justice (DoJ) accountability, as long as the investigator alleges that there is a foreign intelligence basis for the search. This means that anyone can be the target of a secret search; investigators need only say they believe the target may be connected to international terrorism. [edit] Section 213Section 213 is another extremely controversial part of the Patriot Act. It allows warrants obtained under FISA searches to apply to any criminal search, which allows for secret searches of homes or offices without prior notice. Before this law, investigators were required to "knock and announce" their inentions of searching before executing a warrant. This was another law modified by the FISA Act, which like other FISA laws allowed this requirement to be ignored only if foreign agents were suspected of terrorism. Section 213 expands the warrants if "immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result." Under Section 213, such warrants are no longer limited to terrorism investigations but now extend to include any criminal investigation at all. Moreover, the act requires only that notice be given of the search or wiretap "within a reasonable period of its execution," which may be extended by the court if "good cause" is shown. [edit] Section 505Section 505 authorizes what is essentially an administrative subpoena of personal records. The subpoenas require no probable cause or DoJ oversight. Beforehand, these subpoenas could only be issued to an individual suspected of espionage, and only by senior federal officials. Now, they may be issued independantly by FBI field offices, and unlike warrants obtained under Section 215, require no judicial oversight whatsoever. The records that can be obtained through these letters include telephone logs, e-mail logs, financial and bank records, and credit reports, again only by stating that the information is "relevant" to an ongoing terrorism investigation. While they cannot be used in ordinary criminal investigations, it is again important to note that no court order, not even a rubber-stamped, secret FISA court order, is required. Individuals whose records are subpoenad are also placed under a gag order, forbidden under threat of prosecution from disclosing anything about the investigation to anyone, even a lawyer. [edit] Section 802This provision has received a lot of attention and is almost single-handedly responsible for alienating many civic groups by creating a new crime. Section 802 creates a category of crime called "domestic terrorism," which forbids activities that "involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States," if the individual's intent is to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." This possibly means that citizens exorcising their right to peaceful protest on any issue can possibly be deemed "intimidating", and imprisoned. Unlike the other sections of the Patriot Act, Section 802 does not modify an existing law, because no similar law has ever existed. [edit] Sections 411 & 412These provisions work together in a way which, while obviously able to reign in known terrorists, potentially allow the abuse of resident aliens. Section 411 makes resident aliens deportable for associating with anything the government deems to be a "terrorist organization" (including "domestic terrorists"). Section 412 gives the Attorney General the authority to order imprisonment based on a personal statement citing "reasonable grounds to believe" that a noncitizen endangers national security. Aliens can be held for seven days without being charged with a crime. If the alien does not have a country willing to accept him, he may be detained indefinitely, without trial. The act requires a bi-annual report to Congress, but the report is not required to contain information regarding the names of those held, when they were seized, where they were detained, or the nature of the charges against them. [edit] How did we let this pass?The Patriot Act was passed into law October 24, 2001, just six weeks after the September 11th tragedy. During this time, Americans were still reeling from the death toll of the terrorist attacks, and in the fervor of that time it is likely that constituents would have passed virtually any bill which promised punishment to those involved and prevention of future assaults. The Patriot Act did meet with minor opposition at the outset, but its proponents stressed the advantages the bill would have on counter-terrorism; it was even insinuated that, had the Patriot Act been in place before 9/11, the attacks may never have occurred. The speed at which the Patriot Act was drafted and expedited is, in itself, a topic of much speculation. Some believe that it had been completed prior to 9/11 and was sitting in limbo, merely awaiting the opportune moment for its presentation. [edit] Patriot IIOn Janurary 9, 2003, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft circulated a draft of a section by section analysis of Patriot II amongst senior White House officials. Officially coined The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, it included more than 100 additional provisions to the Patriot Act, many of them highly unusual and somewhat frightening in nature. An anonymous official, obviously concerned about the potential for abuse granted by these provisions, leaked a copy of the draft to the Center for Public Integrity in early February, which hit the public sector shortly thereafter. The more controversial of these provisions included:
Up to this point, Ashcroft had refused comments when asked what, if any, additional provisions may be in development. However, as a result of this leak and the negative press it generated, opposition to the Patriot II had gained momentum, not only from the liberal side of the spectrum but from various right-wing organizations. The timing of this bill was suspicious; it appeared that the administration was waiting for the start of the Iraq War to introduce the bill, and then exploit the crisis to rush it through Congress with little public attention. Under scrutiny, the administration dismissed the bill as a simple "draft" that would be nothing like the final product. On December 13, 2003, the very day he announced the capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, President George W. Bush quietly signed portions of the Patriot II into law. This time, the method used to sign the bill into law was more unusual than the bills themselves; December 13 was a Saturday, an unusual day for the President to be passing legislature; additionally, the provisions were broken up into fragments and embedded in the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2004 (officially documented as H.R.2417), a massive document dealing with financial matters for virtually the entire Legislative Branch of the government. Because not all of the original provisions were included, less media attention was garnered to this event and the bill passed, though not without some speculation by its political opponents who felt uncomfortable about the secretive fashion in which the bill was signed into law. [edit] Forced revisionsSince the inception of the Patriot Act, the United States has been at war with Afghanistan, engaged with Islamic radicals while supporting a budding Iraqi democracy amidst what many believe is a civil war, and fighting a global war on terror (GWOT). These events, as well as other global happenings, consume the media and keep most other news out of the public eye. However, on June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court ruled against certain provisions of the Patriot Act. Approximately 450 prisoners had been held in a Guantanamo Bay prison, some for as long as four years, without access to legal counsel and without being charged with a crime, cited as threats to national security under the Patriot Act. They were slated to be tried under a Bush-redefined military tribunal, but the ruling, as stated by Justice John Paul Stevens, dictated that the proposed military tribunals were, in this case, illegal under U.S. constitutional law and international Geneva Convention laws. The Supreme Court's ruling in the matter should also have outlawed various related provisions of the Patriot Act. However, due to the nature of the Patriot Act itself, there is little or no requirement for oversight in most of these matters, thus there is truly no way to know if the Court's ruling is in fact being followed. [edit] Reports of abuseSince it was signed into law, usage of the Patriot Act has managed, for the most part, to work while staying out of the general public's eye. Still, unusual, and in some cases frightening reports of these laws in action have surfaced over the years. Guantanamo Bay, as mentioned above, held approximately 450 prisoners, people who were not prisoners of war and had not been charged with a crime; they were simply "suspected of terrorism". It is suspected, but not confirmed, that similar facilities are in use, or at least prepared to imprison other individuals deemed "terrorists". On May 31, 2006, four librarians from the state of Connecticut came forward and identified themselves as having received a "National Security Letter" from the FBI, which requested the library records of an undisclosed amount of patrons. Along with this letter came a gag order, which barred them from revealing the FBI's request under threat of prosecution. They released their statements on the very day the gag order expired. The federal government is not the only body which has increased its reach into citizens' rights with the Patriot Act. Banks, pharmacies, and other businesses are using the bill to demand social security numbers and other private financial or medical information. Generally, it is because the changes in federal laws now require this of certain institutions, but there are unconfirmed reports of this information being requested when it is otherwise not necessary. This comes at a time when identity theft is quickly becoming a major criminal enterprise, and it only serves to increase the level of paranoia and overall distrust within the general populace. [edit] Speculation on the future of AmericaFor all its bad press and potential for malevolent use, the Patriot Acts do have noble possibilities. It has been reported that several terrorist attacks have been thwarted using the bills, though the grounds on which suspected individuals are detained, as well as the reality of the danger, often falls under question. Sadly, relatively little information is given to the public in this regard. Since its renewal in February 2006, a handful of further revisions have been added which slightly limit the provisions granted by the Patriot Act. It should be noted however, that along with the revisions, more authority was granted in other areas. Regardless, the Bush Administration has yet to answer pivotal questions about its constitutional stunts: If these laws are necessary to protect United States citizens, then why can the legislation not stand up to public scrutiny? If the new act's provisions serve the public interest, why use underhanded methods to sneak them through the legislative process? Questionable press reports aside, most of the speculation surrounding the Patriot Acts do not center around how, or if, the current administration will abuse its newfound power; concerned citizens worry about the future of their individual freedoms and liberties, and if they will be further restricted as laws evolve to keep up with the flow of society. If to guarantee security means giving up our individual liberties, the same rights that countless Americans and American allies have fought and died for, the question begs to be asked: Is it truly worth it? [edit] See also[edit] Further reading
[edit] External links
[edit] Relevant discussions
|
 |
Personal tools
- This page was last modified 20:47, 28 July 2008.
- This page has been accessed 4,734 times.
- Content is available under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike2.5.
- About TinWiki.org
- Disclaimers