Talk:Patriot Act/Draft
.svg)
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56), known as the USA PATRIOT Act or simply the Patriot Act, is an Act of Congress which U.S. President George W. Bush signed into law on October 26, 2001.
Passed 43 days after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, the Act dramatically expanded the authority of U.S. law enforcement agencies for the stated purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad. Among its provisions, the act increased the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone and e-mail communications and medical, financial, and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhanced the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include "domestic terrorism", thus enlarging the number of activities to which the Patriot Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.
Although the Act passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress, it has been criticized from its inception for weakening protections of civil liberties. In particular, opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; "sneak and peek" searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of "National Security Letters", which allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to government records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.
Many of the act's provisions were to sunset beginning December 31 2005, approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sunsetting provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee that was criticized by Senators from both 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[edit]
The Patriot Act made a number of changes to U.S. law. Key acts changed were the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1968 (ECPA), the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 and Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), as well as the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Title II of the Patriot Act made a number of significant changes to the laws relating to foreign intelligence surveillance, of which the main two Acts that were affected were FISA and the ECPA. FISA came about after the Watergate scandal and subsequent investigations by the Church Committee, which discovered and criticised abuses of domestic spying by the National Security Agency (NSA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This led to widespread congressional and public outcry, resulting in Congress passing FISA in 1978.[2] FISA governs the way in which U.S. intelligence agencies may conduct wiretaps and the interception of communications in order to gather foreign intelligence. FISA established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and a FISC Court of Review which administer foreign intelligence related applications for access to business records, wiretaps, microphone "bugging", physical searches and the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices. The Act does not apply to U.S. citizens, but is limited to dealings with foreign powers and nationals.
The ECPA was an amendment to title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which is sometimes known as the "Wiretap statute". The Wiretap statute was mainly the result of two Supreme Court cases — Katz v. United States and Berger v. New York — and from criticism by the Church Committee of the actions of COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program). The Supreme Court found in both Katz v. U.S. and Berger v. New York that Fourth Amendment search and seizure protections prohibited warrantless wiretaps. COINTELPRO was a program of the FBI that was aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States. COINTERPRO's operations during 1956–1971 were broadly targeted against organizations that were (at the time) considered to have politically radical elements. These included those whose stated goal was the violent overthrow of the U.S. government (such as the Weathermen), non-violent civil rights groups such as Martin Luther King Jr.'s Southern Christian Leadership Conference and violent groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party.[3] The Church Committee found that most of the surveillance was illegal.[3] Consequently Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, though noting that wiretaps and interception of communications are a vital part of the law enforcement, found that wiretapping had been undertaken without legal sanction and were being used to overhear the private conversations of U.S. citizens without their consent. These conversations were then often being used as evidence in court proceedings. Therefore, in order to protect the integrity of the courts while also ensuring the privacy of citizens was not violated the Act provided a legal framework within which wiretaps and interceptions of communications could be used. The Act requires a court order authorizing the use of such measures against U.S. citizens, with penalties for those who do not get such authorization. The notable exception to these orders is in section , which makes an exception to the restrictions of wiretaps in cases where the President must take measures to protect the U.S. from actual or potential hostile actions from a foreign power.
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 Money Laundering Control Act (MLCA), which was itself an amendment to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) The BSA was passed by Congress in 1970 and is designed to fight drug trafficking, money laundering and other financial crimes. It requires financial institutions to keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments, file reports of cash transactions exceeding a daily aggregate amount of $US10,000, and to report suspicious activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities. The MLCA, passed in 1986, further enhanced the BSA by making it a crime to structure transactions in such a way as to avoid BSA reporting requirements.
Immigration law was also tightened under the Patriot Act. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, was passed by Congress in 1952 and was designed to restrict immigration into the U.S. It allowed the government to deport immigrants or naturalized citizens engaged in subversive activities and also allowed the barring of suspected subversives from entering the country. The Act is codified under Title 8 of the United States Code, which primarily governs immigration and citizenship in the United States. Prior to the INA, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized within one body of text. The Act was later modified by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, and then by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Since the Patriot Act, Title 8 has been modified even further by various Acts, including the Real ID Act of 2005.
History[edit]
September 11 terrorist attack[edit]
The catalyst for the USA PATRIOT Act occured on September 11, 2001 when terrorists attacked New York City and caused the destruction of the World Trade Center. In response President George W. Bush declared a War on Terror and soon thereafter Senators from both sides of politics started working on legislation that would give law enforcement greater powers to prevent and investigate terrorism in the United States.
According to The Washington Post, Viet Dinh — who was then the Assistant Attorney General of the United States — started work on measures to increase the authority of Federal Agencies, reportedly based upon understandings that "[t]he charge [from then Attorney General John Ashcroft] was very, very clear: 'all that is necessary for law enforcement, within the bounds of the Constitution, to discharge the obligation to fight this war against terror'".[4] Simultaneously, James Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), expressed concerns that civil liberties might be trampled in the rush to push through legislation. According to Dempsey, it was hard enough to get their attention, but "[even if] you [did,] some members of the House and Senate were, 'Don't bother me with the details.'"[4] Various interested parties, including the CDT, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), closely scrutinised and critiqued the various proposed bills leading to the final Act, as well as the Act itself once passed.
First bills introduced[edit]
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 Orin Hatch (R-UT) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) with Democrat Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on 13th September.[5] Among its proposed measures, it ordered a report on the readiness of the National Guard to pre-emptively disrupt domestic acts of terrorism that used weapons of mass destruction and called for long-term research and development into terrorist attacks. It also called for a review of the authority of Federal agencies to address terrorist acts, proposed a change that would have allowed the CIA to recruit terrorist informants and proposed to allow law enforcement agencies to disclose foreign intelligence that was discovered through wiretaps and other interception methods. The amendment proposed a Sense of Congress that not enough was being done to impeded and investigate terrorist fundraising, and sought to increase measures to prevent the laundering of the proceeds of terrorism.[5]
The Public Safety & Cyber Security Enhancement Act was introduced on September 20th to the House by Republican Senator Lamar Smith (R-TX).[6] Its main focus was on the unauthorized access of protected computers and proposed making modifications to the laws surrounding cable subscriber privacy, as well as various changes to pen register and trap & trace laws. The bill would have made an exception for foreign intelligence gathering in the laws that require a court order necessary for pen register and trap & trace surveillance. It would also have removed restrictions on the prohibition of gaining access to cable subscriber records and only prohibited the disclosure of viewing patterns of cable television subscribers.[7]
The Intelligence to Prevent Terrorism Act was introduced to the Senate on 28th September by Senators Bob Graham (D-FL) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).[8] The bill proposed a number of changes relating to the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). The most significant change proposed was to require the Attorney General or head of any other Federal department or agency to disclose to the DCI any foreign intelligence acquired in the course of a criminal investigation. However, it also would have required that the DCI and Secretary of the Treasury jointly report to Congress on the whether it would be a good idea to reconfigure the Office of Foreign Assets Control and its Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center to provide for the analysis and dissemination of foreign intelligence relating to the financial capabilities and resources of international terrorist organizations. It would also have required the DCI to establish and maintain a National Virtual Translation Center[9] for timely and accurate translations of foreign intelligence for elements of the intelligence community. Another area it covered was a proposal to make the Attorney General provide a program of training to Government officials regarding the identification and use of foreign intelligence. [10][11]
Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act[edit]
Meanwhile, Republican Senators Orin Hatch and Arlen Specter (R-PA), along with Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) had been working with John Ashcroft on a draft bill, called the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001. Many of the most controversial aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act were first part of this draft and it was later to be introduced as the PATRIOT Act/USA Act — which in turn became the basis for the final USA PATRIOT Act. Among other things, the administration proposal discussed extending roving wiretaps from the sole domain of domestic agencies into the domain of foreign intelligence surveillance and proposed the expansion of the use of wiretaps from phonelines to Internet technology. It would have made it possible for more law enforcement agencies to disseminate wiretap information and would have expanded the scope of surveillance subpoenas to allow broader access to personal records — including "books, records, papers, documents, and other items".[12][13] Both the bill introduced by Senator Graham and the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act draft were referred to the Select Committee on Intelligence. According to the Washington Post, EPIC's James Dempsey and a number of other representatives from other civil liberties groups were invited to discussions about the draft, but Dempsey's recollection was that "They [members of the Department of Justice] were livid, [and they] explicitly said, 'We don't think outsiders should be here, and we won't talk unless they leave the room.'". Though a deal was brokered, this began causing tensions between parties negotiating the bill and previously amicable discussions started breaking down between Leahy and Ashcroft.[4]
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 Mike Oxley (R-OH), and was passed and then referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.[14] It proposed strengthening financial law enforcement through a number of measures. These included establishing FinCEN as a bureau of the Department of the Treasury, enhancing forfeiture laws and preventing the structuring of transactions to bypass anti-money laundering and reporting legislation.[15] It also proposed establishing measures to increase the cooperation between the public and private sectors when it came to reporting and preventing financial crimes such as money laundering,[16] along with further measures to combat international money laundering.[17]
Birth of the USA PATRIOT Act[edit]
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.[18] This was based on the afore-mentioned Anti-Terrorism Act, but had been changed after negotiations and work between Attorney General Ashcroft, Senators Leahy, Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), Bob Graham, Trent Lott (R-MS) and Orin Hatch. It was introduced into the Senate as the USA Act of 2001 (S. 1510) by Tom Daschle (D-SD)[19] where Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) proposed a number of amendments, all of which were passed. Feingold amended the provision relating to interception of computer trespasser communications,[20] limited the roving wiretap authority under FISA[21] and modifed the provisions relating to access to business records under FISA.[22] The USA Act was later vitiated and indefinitely postponed, because the Senate and House bills could not be reconciled in time.[23]
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).[24] Though there were some objections and concerns raised about the legislation[25] a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill was passed.[26] Patrick Leahy in particular commented that "our ability to make rapid progress [on drafting the bill] was impeded because the negotiations with the Administration did not progress in a straight line. On several key issues that are of particular concern to me, we had reached an agreement with the Administration on Sunday, September 30. Unfortunately, over the next two days, the Administration announced that it was reneging on the deal. I appreciate the complex task of considering the concerns and missions of multiple Federal agencies, and that sometimes agreements must be modified as their implications are scrutinized by affected agencies. When agreements made by the Administration must be withdrawn and negotiations on resolved issues reopened, those in the Administration who blame the Congress for delay with what the New York Times described as "scurrilous remarks," do not help the process move forward."[27] The Act was opposed by only one vote, the sole dissenting Senator being Russell Feingold[28] who found a number of measures objectionable or troubling. Feingold's concerns included the way that the bill was passed,[29] aspects of the wiretapping provisions, the changes to search and seizure laws,[30] the expanded powers under FISA that allowed law enforcement to gain access to business records[31] and the changes to detention and deportation laws for immigrants.[32] The Act had a number of "sunsets" included in it after insistence by Republican Senator Richard Armey (R-TX)[4] However, the Act took into account any ongoing foreign intelligence investigations and allowed them to continue once the sections had expired.
Opposition grows[edit]
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 House Committee on the Judiciary wrote a letter to Attorney General Ashcroft asking 50 questions about the use and effectiveness of the Act. In the letter they stated that "[t]he Committee is interested in hearing from you [John Ashcroft] and FBI Director Robert F. Mueller concerning the Department of Justice’s use of [the Act's new investigative tools to combat new terrorist threats against the United States] and their effectiveness. In light of the broad scope of the Act, we are initially seeking written responses to the following questions, and we plan to schedule a hearing in the near future to allow further public discussion of these and other issues relating to the Department of Justice’s activity in investigating terrorists or potential terrorist attacks."[33] Only 28 questions were answered publicly, with 7 answered under seperate cover to the Committee.[34] Meanwhile, organisations such as the ACLU, the EFF and EPIC had not stopped opposing the most controversial parts of the Act. Three months after the official response to the Select Committee on the Judiciary, EPIC filed a Freedom of Information request seeking the information that was not released by the U.S. Department of Justice.[35] While the DOJ released a number of records in response to the request, they didn't release all the material, asserting that certain responsive records were exempt from disclosure. In order to gain access to these records, the ACLU and EPIC brought a civil action against the Department of Justice,[36] and on November 26th U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle ordered the Department of Justice to complete its processing of the FOI request by January 15, 2003.[37]
Meanwhile, on July 31, the Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act was introduced into the Senate by Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Ron Wyden (D-OR).[38] It was the first of many bills introduced to attempt to change the Patriot Act. Among the changes were ones to FISA provisions, including limits to "sneak and peek" and roving wiretap provisions, the narrowing of the Patiot Act's definition of terrorism and the reinstatement of judicial review when agencies wished to access library and business records. It also would have restored the primary purpose criteria of FISA surveillance to be for foreign intelligence purposes, which had been changed in the Patriot Act to be a "significant purpose". The bill proposed a moratorium on data mining by agencies except under specific instances allowed under law and also would have prevented government access to education records without specific facts showing why those records were required in investigations.[39][40] Further legislation attempting to curtail the Patriot Act was introduced into the House on September 24 by Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Ron Paul (R-TX). That bill was the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act,[41] which is an allusion to Benjamin Franklin's famous quote that "those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Amongst other things, it proposed a 90-day review period after which 11 sections of the Patriot Act would cease to have effect. It would have reverted the sections on sneak and peek searches, expansion of pen register and trap and trace authorities as well the authority for the FBI to gain access to records and other tangible items under FISA. Also reverted would have been the sections that changed the primary purpose test for foreign intelligence surveillance under FISA to "significant purpose", the mandatory detention of aliens, the use of National Security Letters and the broadened definition of "domestic terrorism". The bill was referred to subcommittees for consideration, where no further action was taken before the end of the 108th Congress. The bill never went further and it was never reintroduced. The bill was publicly supported by the ACLU[42] and the EFF.[43]
Further controversy soon came to a head when, in late January 2003, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, Charles Lewis, published a leaked draft copy of an Administration proposal titled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003.[44] The document was quickly dubbed "PATRIOT II" or "Son of PATRIOT" by the media and organisations such as the EFF.[45] The draft, which was circulated to 10 divisions of the Department of Justice,[46] proposed to make further modifications to extend the USA PATRIOT Act[47] and would have made more changes to FISA, including extending the definition of a foreign power in relation to FISA and allowed the use of wiretaps 15 days after Congress authorized the use of military force (currently, the law allows this only after a declaration of war). Further, it would have allowed Federal agencies to acquire foreign government's spoken communications and would have expanded the use of pen registers under FISA to apply to U.S. citizens. It proposed that the FISA Court of Review be allowed to employ a lawyer with security clearance to defend the judgement of the FISC, and would have expanded the use of law enforcement investigative tools under FISA. Further gags were proposed in the draft and, had it been introduced into Congress, it would have prevented the disclosure of terrorism investigation detainee information, "Worst Case Scenario" information and information relating to Capitol buildings. The draft contained measures to further restrict what participants in Grand Jury terrorism hearings could disclose, while other proposed measures would have enhanced investigations into terrorism, including the establishment of a terrorism identification database. Changes were proposed to define terrorism as a crime and the legal framework with which to prosecute such crimes. Further modifications would have also changed immigration and border-security laws.[48] Though the Department of Justice released a statement that it was only a draft,[49] it caused an enormous amount of controversy, with many criticising it for impinging on privacy and civil liberties.[50][47] In particular, Patrick Leahy complained that "If there is going to be a sequel to the USA PATRIOT Act, the process of writing it should be open and accountable. It should not be shrouded in secrecy, steeped in unilateralism or tinged with partisanship. The early signals from the Administration about its intentions for this bill are ominous, and I hope Justice Department officials will change the way they are handling this."[51]
By now public opinion of the Act appeared to be waning, with a Gallup poll response to the question "Based on what you have read or heard, do you think the Patriot Act goes too far, is about right, or does not go far enough in restricting people's civil liberties in order to fight terrorism?" showing that between 2003 and 2004 nearly a quarter of all Americans felt that the Act went too far, while most felt that it was either just right or did not go far enough.[52] In response, the Department of Justice established a website www.lifeandliberty.gov that defended the Act from such organisations as the ACLU (which itself had created a website that campaigned against the Partiot Act called Safe and Free).[53] At the same time, Attorney General Ashcroft toured 16 cities giving speeches to invite only crowds defending the Patriot Act and touting its importance.[54][55] In the speeches — which among other things made allusions to Bunker Hill, Antietam, the Argonne, Iwo Jima, Normandy Beach and Abraham Lincoln — he defended the Patriot Act's provisions that eliminated the "wall" preventing foreign intelligence agencies from sharing information with domestic law enforcement agencies, roving wiretaps and the expanded capabilities of the U.S. Joint Terrorism Task Force. He also claimed that they had "neutralized alleged terrorist cells in Buffalo, Detroit, Seattle and Portland [and] brought 255 criminal charges. One hundred thirty two individuals have been convicted or pled guilty. All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many more have met a different fate."[56] Among those arrested was Sami Amin Al-Arian and seven others who were indicted on 50 counts, including using an Islamic think tank to funnel funds to the group Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which is classed as a terrorist organization by the United States government.[57][58] Ashcroft cited the arrests to show how the Patriot Act had broken down information sharing barriers between agencies. The speeches themselves were met with support, but in many states Ashcroft attracted protests and a number of critical editorials were written[55][54] — in one particularly stinging column, the Philadelphia Enquirer wrote that there was "an air of desperation about it."[59] Meanwhile, controversy over the Patriot Act was leading to resistance from many State and local governments. Arcata in California passed an ordinance in February 2003 that barred city employees (including police and librarians) from assisting or cooperating with any federal investigations under the Act that would violate civil liberties (Nullification).[60][61] Eventually, eight states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana and Vermont) and 396 cities and counties (including New York City; Los Angeles; Dallas; Chicago; Eugene, Oregon; Philadelphia; and Cambridge, Massachusetts) passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties. The Bill of Rights Defense Committee helped coordinate many local efforts. These ordinances are largely symbolic, as under the United States Constitution's supremacy clause, federal law overrides state and local laws.
Security and Freedom Ensured Act[edit]
The Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE)[62] was introduced some time later by Republican Senator Larry Craig (R-ID). It was introduced on October 2, 2003 and was co-sponsored by Senators John E. Sununu (R-NH) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) and would have limited the scope of roving wiretaps,[63] changed the "sneak and peek" delayed notification period from "within a reasonable period" to not later than 7 days after execution of the warrant,[64] restored the requirements for seizure of business records that there are specific and articulate facts that business records are those of a foreign power or agents of a foreign power[65] and prevent the use of National Security Letters to gain access to library records.[66] It also would have extended the sunset provisions of the Patriot Act to include section 213 (Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant), section 216 (Modification of authorities relating to use of pen registers and trap and trace devices), section 219 (Single-jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism) and section 505 (Miscellaneous national security authorities).[67] The EFF urged the swift passage of the bill,[68] while Senator Russell Feingold urged the bill be passed as "[t]hese are reasonable and moderate changes to the law. They do not gut the provision. They do not make it worthless. They do recognize the growing and legitimate concern from across the political spectrum that this provision was passed in haste and presents the potential for abuse. They also send a message that fourth amendment rights have meaning and potential violations of those rights should be minimized if at all possible."[69] In Congressional debate, Rick Durbin stated that "many in Congress did not want to deny law enforcement some of the reasonable reforms contained in the PATRIOT Act that they needed to combat terrorism. So, we reluctantly decided to support the administration's version of the bill, but not until we secured a commitment that they would be responsive to Congressional oversight and consult extensively with us before seeking any further changes in the law."[70]
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 veto the bill if it appeared on his desk.[71][72][73] Senator Durbin countered that this was "an unfortunate overreaction to a reasoned and measured effort to mend the Patriot Act [and] I believe it is possible to combat terrorism and preserve our individual freedoms at the same time."[71] SAFE was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on April 7, 2004 and a Conference report prepared. However, the co-sponsors of the Act were extremely unhappy with the report, stating that "[t]he conference report, in its current form, is unacceptable. There is still time for the conference committee to step back and agree to the Senate’s bipartisan approach. If the conference committee doesn’t do that, we will fight to stop this bill from becoming law". Thus, this bill never proceeded any further.[74]
Judicial and legislative challenges[edit]
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 Kurdistan Workers' Party (in Kurdish it is the Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan, or PDK) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (also known as either the Tamil Tigers, the Ellalan Force or the LTTE). However, both these groups engaged in peaceful and non-violent activities. The Humanitarian Law Project supported both groups, and brought a civil action against the government complaining that the law was unconstitutional. The Federal court agreed and in a decision brought in December 2004 struck down section 805(a)(2)(B) because, in the courts view, it violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution as it was so vague that it "could be construed to include unequivocally pure speech and advocacy protected by the First Amendment." In the decision, the judge determined that this vagueness would cause a person of average intelligence to guess whether they were breaking the law, and thus potentially cause a person to be charged for an offence that they had no way of knowing was illegal. The vagueness may also have the effect of allowing arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law, as well as possible chilling effects on First Amendment rights. [75][76] Soon after the decision, the Department of Justice released a statement that "The provision at issue in today's decision was a modest amendment to a pre-existing antiterrorism law that was designed to deal with real threats caused by support of terrorist groups. By targeting those who provide material support by providing 'expert advice or assistance' the law made clear that Americans are threatened as much by the person who teaches a terrorist to build a bomb as by the one who pushes the button."[77]
Title V of the Patriot Act amended the ECPA's National Security Letter (NSL) provisions (18 U.S.C. § 2709). These were challenged by the ACLU, who filed a lawsuit on April 9th, 2004 on behalf of an unknown party against the U.S. government.[78] The specifics of the original case brought by the ACLU is not known, except that the unknown party is an Internet service provider, and the case involves either wiretaps or secretly subpoenaed customer records from telephone and Internet companies —ostensibly in the course of investigating possible terrorist activity. Due to the NSL provisions, the government would not let the ACLU disclose they had even filed a case for nearly a month, after which they were permitted to release a heavily redacted version of the complaint.[79][80][81] The ACLU argued that the NSL violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the US Constitution because section 2709 failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone or Internet company could try to oppose an NSL subpoena in court. They also argued that section 2709 prohibited the recipient of an NSL subpoena from disclosing that they had received such a request from the FBI, and therefore outweighed the FBI's need for secrecy in counter-terrorism investigations. The Court subsequently found the NSL provisions of the ECPA unconstitutional. It reasoned that it could not find in the provision an implied right for the person receiving the subpoena to challenge it in court as is constitutionally required. The court found in favour of the ACLU, and declared the provision unconstitutional.[78] The finding of unconstitutionality essentially dismisses any claimed presumptive legal need for absolute secrecy in regard to terrorism cases. However, the USA Patriot Act is affected only if the limits on NSLs in terrorism cases also apply to non-terrorism cases such as those authorized by the Act. However, even though the NSL was dropped, the John Doe remained under a gag order.
Legislative action was also undertaken by Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), John Conyers Jr., Clement Leroy Otter (R-ID) and Ron Paul. They proposed an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill of 2005 which would cut off funding to the Department of Justice for searches conducted under section 215.[82] The amendment initially failed to pass the House with a tie vote, 210–210.[83] Although the original vote came down in favor of the amendment, the vote was held open and several House members were persuaded to change their votes.[84] However, on June 15, 2005 they made a second attempt to limit section 215 searches in an amendment to another House appropriations bill[85] and this time it passed with a vote of 238-187 in favor of the Sanders amendment.[86]
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."[87] The bill would have allowed FBI agents to seek warrants for surveillance of "lone wolf terrorists", allowed greater sharing of intelligence between federal authorities and state and local authorities, punish those making terrorism hoaxes, and impose 30-year mandatory-minimum penalties for possession of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, atomic and radiological bombs, and variola virus.[88] However, perhaps due to the increasingly controversial nature of the Act, the Senate did not further consider the proposed legislation.
Lead up to reauthorization[edit]
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 Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy he reiterated his belief that key provisions should be reauthorized, and that "The Patriot Act has accomplished exactly what it was designed to do: it has protected American liberty and saved American lives. For the sake of our national security, Congress must not rebuild a wall between law enforcement and intelligence".[93][94] However, by this time the Act was as controversial as ever, and more than a few groups were campaigning against it. Aside from the EFF, the ACLU, the CDT and EPIC, the Act had raised the ire of the American Library Association (ALA) and the American Booksellers Foundation for Freedom of Expression, who were all extremely concerned about the provisions of the Patriot Act, with a particular focus on section 215.[95] An even more disparate group called the "Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances" (or PRCB) had also been formed to campaign against the Act, and were urging Congress to let the sections expire. Many unlikely bedfellows formed this group, and those numbered in its membership including the ACLU, the American Conservative Union, Gun Owners of America, and the United States Libertarian Party. The group had also supported the SAFE Act.[96]
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 House Committee on the Judiciary ended in furore. During the testimony on the reauthorization of the Act, Chairman James Sensenbrenner abruptly gavelled the proceedings to a close after Congressional Democrats and their witnesses launched into broad denunciations of the War on Terror and the condition of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. In frustration, Sensenbrenner declared, "We ought to stick to the subject. The USA PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with Guantanamo Bay. The USA PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with enemy combatants. The USA PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with indefinite detentions." He then gavelled the meeting to a close and walked out with the gavel. However Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat Congressman representing New York's 8th congressional district, and other witnesses continued speaking despite Sensenbrenner's departure, and C-SPAN cameras continued to roll after microphones in the hearing room had been turned off. According to the Washington Post, James J. Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, complained that the action taken by the Chairman was "totally inappropriate — no mike on, and no record being kept" and that "I think as we are lecturing foreign governments about the conduct of their behavior with regard to opposition, I'm really troubled about what kind of message this is going to teach to other countries in the world about how they ought to conduct an open society that allows for an opposition with rights."[97]
Reauthorization[edit]
In June the Select Committee on Intelligence met behind closed doors to consider a draft proposal by Pat Roberts (R-KS) which, among other things, would have removed the primary purpose of FISA warrants issued ex parte and in camera to be for foreign intelligence. Instead, the warrants could also have been used for purposes unrelated to foreign intelligence. This was condemned by the ACLU,[98] with ACLU Attorney Lisa Graves complained that the secret hearings into the draft was "an attempt to force the debate onto their terms, versus where the momentum has been headed, which is to roll back the Patriot Act to bring it in line with the Constitution and make sure its tools are focused on terrorists, as opposed to Americans". [99]
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,[100] the requirement that the Director of the FBI must personally approve any library or bookstore requests by the FBI under section 215,[101] making law enforcement report back to a court within 15 days of using the a roving wiretap [102] and the narrowing of the scope for "sneak-and-peek" delayed notification search warrants.[103] Several other amendments were related to NSLs, including allowing those in receipt of an NSL the ability to consult a lawyer and challenge it in court [104] and preventing the penalization of NSL recipients who are mentally incompetent, under undue stress, under threat of bodily harm, or under a threat of being fired if they disclose they have been served an NSL.[105] Other amendments included standardizing penalties for terrorist attacks and other violence against railroad carriers and mass transportation systems on land, water, or in the air[106] and clarifying the definition of terrorism in forfeiture laws.[107] Congressman Howard Berman proposed an amendment that required a report to Congress on the development and use of data-mining technology by departments and agencies of the Federal government.[108] Other amendments were proposed to other areas not covered by the USA PATRIOT Act, for instance one amendment defined a new crime of "narco-terrorism", while another addressed crime and terrorism at U.S. seaports. The bill was passed 257-171[109] however when it was introduced into the Senate it was replaced by a bill proposed by Arlen Spector, S.1389. The Senate then requested a conference with the House.
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.[110] The House duly proposed a House report, which was incorporated into a Conference report, which was then presented to the Senate. However, the Senate rejected the report, and on December 16th refused to end debate on legislation to renew the Act. A cloture motion was then ordered, but it failed, having fallen seven votes short of invoking closure on the matter, leaving the future of the Act in doubt. The vote went as follows: Fifty Republicans as well as two Democrats voted unsuccessfully to end debate; Five Republicans, 41 Democrats and one independent voted to block.[111] With the sunsets threatening to expire, on December 21 the U.S. Senate came to a bipartisan agreement (S.2167) to extend by six months the expiring provisions of the Act.[112] Under House rules, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner had the authority to block enactment of the six-month extension. On the following day the House rejected the six-month extension and voted for a one-month extension,[113] which the Senate subsequently approved later that night.[114] However, on February 1st, the House voted to again extend the sunsets to March 10th.[115][116][117][118] The reauthorization Act was finally passed on March 2nd by the Senate with a vote of 95-4, though this was opposed by Senator Feingold who unsuccessfully attempted to extend the sunsets.[119] The House voted 280-138 in favour of authorizing the Act.[120] Finally, on March 8th, President Bush signed the reauthorization Act,[121] declaring that "The Patriot Act has served America well, yet we cannot let the fact that America has not been attacked since September the 11th lull us into the illusion that the terrorist threat has disappeared" and that the White House would "continue to give [military law enforcement, homeland security and intelligence professionals] the tools to get the job done."[122] However, after the ceremony, he issued a signing statement that "The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties"[123] — in other words, he would not feel bound to comply with some of the provisions of the law if they conflicted with other Constitutional laws.[124] This immediately drew a sharp rebuke from Senator Leahy, who condemned the statement as "nothing short of a radical effort to re-shape the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law ... The President’s signing statements are not the law, and we should not allow them to be the last word. The President’s constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by the Congress. It is our duty to ensure, by means of congressional oversight, that he does so."[125][126]
Judges strike key provisions[edit]
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 Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield on suspicions that he had been involved in the 2004 Madrid train bombings. They had concluded this wrongly because they believed that they found his fingerprint on a bag of detonators found at the scene.[130] Agents seized three hard drives and ten DNA samples preserved on cotton swabs, and took 335 photos of personal items. Mayfield then filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Government, contending that his rights were violated by his arrest and by the investigation against him, and that the sneak and peek provisions were unconstitutional. The Government was forced to apologise to Mayfield and his family, stating that "[t]he United States acknowledges that the investigation and arrest were deeply upsetting to Mr. Mayfield, to Mrs. Mayfield, and to their three young children, and the United States regrets that it mistakenly linked Mr. Mayfield to this terrorist attack."[131] However, Mayfield took it further and on September 26, 2007 judge Ann Aiken found that the searches violated the provision of the United States Fourth Amendment that prohibits unreasonable searches. Thus the law was declared unconstitutional.[132][133]
Titles[edit]
Titles I and X: Miscellaneous provisions[edit]
Title I authorizes measures to enhance the ability of domestic security services to prevent terrorism. The title established a fund for counter-terrorist activities and increased funding for the FBI's Technical Support Center. The military was authorized to provide assistance in some situations that involve weapons of mass destruction when so requested by the Attorney General. The National Electronic Crime Task Force was expaneded, along with the President's authority and abilities in cases of terrorism. The title also condemned the discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans that happened soon after the September 11 terrorist attacks. The impetus for many of the provisions came from earlier bills. For instance the condemnation of discrimination was originally proposed by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) in an amendment to the Combatting Terrorism Act of 2001, though in a different form. It originally included "the prayer of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop of Washington in a Mass on September 12, 2001 for our Nation and the victims in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist hijackings and attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania reminds all Americans that 'we must seek the guilty and not strike out against the innocent or we become like them who are without moral guidance or direction.'"[134] Further condemnation of racial vilification and violence is also spelled out in Title X, where there was condemnation of such activities against Sikh Americans, who were mistaken for Muslims after the September 11th terrorist attack.[135]
Title X created or altered a number of miscellaneous laws that didn't really fit into the any other section of the Patriot Act. Hazmat licenses were limited to drivers who pass background checks and who can demonstrate they can handle the materials.[136] The Inspector General of the Department of Justice was directed to appoint an official to monitor, review and report back to congress all allegations of civil rights abuses against the DoJ.[137] It amended the definition of "electronic surveillance" to exclude the interception of communications done through or from a protected computer where the owner allows the interception, or is lawfully engaged in an investigation.[138] Money laundering cases may now be brought in the district the money laundering was committed or where a money laundering transfer started from.[139] Aliens who committed money laundering were also prohibited from entering the U.S.[140] Grants were provided to first responders to assist them with responding to and preventing terrorism.[141] US$5,000,000 was authorized to be provided to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to train police in South and East Asia.[142] The Attorney General was directed to commission a study on the feasibility of using biometric identifiers to identify people as they attempt to enter the United States, and which would be connected to the FBI's database to flag suspected criminals.[143] Another study was also commissioned to determine the feasibility of providing airlines names of suspected terrorists before they boarded flights.[144] The Department of Defense's was given temporary authority to use their funding for private contracts for security purposes.[145] The last title also created a new Act called the Crimes Against Charitable Americans Act.[146] This amended the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act to require telemarketers who call on behalf of charities to disclose the purpose and other information, including the name and mailing address of the charity the telemarketer is representing.[147] It also increased the penalties from one year imprisonment to five years imprisonment for those committing fraud by impersonating a Red Cross member.[148]
Title II: Surveillance procedures[edit]
Title II is titled "Enhanced Surveillance Procedures" and covers all aspects of the surveillance of suspected terrorists, those suspected of engaging in computer fraud or abuse, and agents of a foreign power who are engaged in clandestine activities. It primarily made amendments to FISA and the ECPA, and many of the most controversial aspects of the Patriot Act reside in this title. In particular, the title allows government agencies to gather "foreign intelligence information" from both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens, and changed FISA to make gaining foreign intelligence information the significant purpose of FISA-based surveillance, where previously it had been the primary purpose.[149] The change in definition was meant to remove a legal "wall" between criminal investigations and surveillance for the purposes of gathering foreign intelligence, which hampered investigations when criminal and foreign surveillance overlapped.[150] However, that this wall even existed was found by the Federal Surveillance Court of Review to have actually been a long-held misinterpretation by government agencies. Also removed was the statutory requirement that the government prove a surveillance target under FISA is a non-U.S. citizen and agent of a foreign power, though it did require that any investigations must not be undertaken on citizens who are carrying out activities protected by the First Amendment.[151] The title also expanded the duration of FISA physical search and surveillance orders,[152] and gave authorities the ability to share information gathered before a federal grand jury with other agencies.[153]
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 packet switched networks[154] — EPIC objected to this, arguing that it does not take into account email or web addresses, which often contain content in the address information.[155] The Act allowed any district court judge in the United States to issue such a surveillance orders[154] and search warrants for terrorism investigations.[156] Search warrants were also expanded, with the Act amending Title III of the Stored Communications Access Act to allow the FBI to gain access to stored voicemail through a search warrant, rather than through the more stringent wiretap laws.[157]
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.[158] The definition of a "protected computer" is defined in and broadly encompasses those computers used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including ones located outside the United States. The law governing obligatory and voluntary disclosure of customer communications by Cable companies was altered to allow agencies to demand such communications under U.S.C. Title 18 provisions relating to the disclosure of electronic communications (chapter 119), pen registers and trap and trace devices (chapter 206) and stored communications (121), though it excluded the disclosure of cable subscriber viewing habits.[159] Subpoenas issued to Internet Service Providers were expanded to include not only "the name, address, local and long distance telephone toll billing records, telephone number or other subscriber number or identity, and length of service of a subscriber" but also session times and durations, types of services used, communication device address information (e.g. IP addresses), payment method and bank account and credit card numbers.[160] Communication providers are also allowed to disclose customer records or communications if they suspect there is a danger to "life and limb".[161]
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,[164] while opponents see it as violating the particularity clause of the Fourth Amendment.[165][166] Another highly controversial provision is one that allows the FBI to make an order "requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution."[167] Though it was not targeted directly at libraries, the American Library Association (ALA), in particular, opposed this provision. In a resolution passed on June 29, 2005 they stated that "Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act allows the government to secretly request and obtain library records for large numbers of individuals without any reason to believe they are involved in illegal activity".[168] However, the ALA's stance did not go without criticism. One prominent critic of the ALA's stance was the Manhattan Institute's Heather Mac Donald, who argued in an article for the New York City Journal that "[t]he furore over section 215 is a case study in Patriot Act fear-mongering."[169]
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 District of Columbia),[170] trade sanctions against North Korea and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan [171] and the employment of translators by the FBI.[172]
At the insistence of Republican Senator Richard Armey,[4] the Act had a number of sunset provisions built in, which were originally set to expire on December 31, 2005. The sunset provision of the Act also took into account any ongoing foreign intelligence investigations and allowed them to continue once the sections had expired. [173] The provision that were to expire are below.
| 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[edit]
Title III of the Act, titled "International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001", is intended to facilitate the prevention, detection and prosecution of international money laundering and the financing of terrorism. It primarily amends portions of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 (MLCA) and the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA). It is divided into three subtitles, with the first dealing primarily with strengthening banking rules specifically against money laundering, especially on the international stage. The second attempts to improve communication between law enforcement agencies and financial institutions. This subtitle also increases record keeping and reporting requirements. The third subtitle deals with currency smuggling and counterfeiting, including quadrupling the maximum penalty for counterfeiting foreign currency.
The first subtitle tightened the record keeping requirements for financial institutions, making them record the aggregate amounts of transactions processed from areas of the world where money laundering is a concern to the U.S. government. It also made institutions put into place reasonable steps to identify beneficial owners of bank accounts and those who are authorized to use or route funds through payable-through accounts.[174] It also charged the U.S Treasury with formulating regulations designed to foster information sharing between financial institutions in order to prevent money-laundering.[175] Along with expanding record keeping requirements it put new regulations into place to make it easier for authorities to identify money laundering activities and to make it harder for money launderers to mask their identities.[176] If money laundering was uncovered, the subtitle legislated for the forfeiture of assets of those suspected of doing the money laundering.[177] In an effort to encourage institutions to do their bit to reduce money laundering, the Treasury was given authority to block mergers of bank holding companies and banks with other banks and bank holding companies that had a bad history of preventing money laundering. Similarly, mergers between insured depository institutions and non-insured depository institutions that have a bad track record in combating money-laundering could be blocked.[178]
Restrictions were placed on accounts and foreign banks. Foreign shell banks that are not an affiliate of a bank that has a physical presence in the U.S. or that are not subject to supervision by a banking authority in a non-U.S. country were prohibited. The subtitle has several sections that prohibit or restrict the use of certain accounts held at financial instutitions.[179] Financial institutions must now undertake steps to identify the owners of any privately owned bank outside the U.S. who have a correspondent account with them, along with the interests of each of the owners in the bank. It is expected that additional scrutiny will be applied by the U.S. institution to such banks to make sure they are not engaging in money laundering. Banks must identify all the nominal and beneficial owners of any private bank account opened and maintained in the U.S. by non-U.S. citizens. There is also an expectation that they must undertake enhanced scrutiny of the account if it is owned by, or is being maintained on behalf of, any senior political figure where there is reasonable suspicion of corruption.[180] Any deposits made from within the U.S. into foreign banks are now deemed to have been deposited into any interbank account the foreign bank may have in the U.S. Thus any restraining order, seizure warrant or arrest warrant may be made against the funds in the interbank account held at a U.S. financial institution, up to the amount deposited in the account at the foreign bank.[181] Restrictions were placed on the use of internal bank concentration accounts because such accounts do not provide an effective audit trail for transactions, and this may be used to facilitate money laundering. Financial institutions are prohibited from allowing clients to specifically direct them to move funds into, out of, or through a concentration account, and they are also prohibited from informing their clients about the existence of such accounts. Financial instutitons are not allowed to provide any information to clients that may identify such internal accounts.[182] Financial institutions are required to document and follow methods of identifying where the funds are for each customer in a concentration account that co-mingles funds belonging to one or more customers.
The definition of money laundering was expanded to include making a financial transaction in the U.S. in order to commit a crime of violence;[183] the bribery of public officials and fraudulent dealing with public funds; the smuggling or illegal export of controlled munitions[184] and the importation or bringing in of any firearm or ammunition not authorised by the U.S. Attorney General[185] and the smuggling of any item controlled under the Export Administration Regulations.[186][187] It also includes any offense where the U.S. would be obligated under a mutual treaty with a foreign nation to extradite a person, or where the U.S. would need to submit a case against a person for prosecution due to the treaty; the importation of falsely classified goods;[188] computer crime;[189] and any felony violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.[187] It also allows the forfeiture of any property within the jurisdiction of the United States that was gained as the result of an offense against a foreign nation that involves the manufacture, importation, sale, or distribution of a controlled substance.[190] Foreign nations may now seek to have a forfeiture or judgement notification enforced by a district court of the United States.[191] This is done through new legislation that specifies how the U.S. government may apply for a restraining order[192] to preserve the availability of property which is subject to a foreign forfeiture or confiscation judgement.[193] In taking into consideration such an application, emphasis is placed on the ability of a foreign court to follow due process.[191] The Act also requires the Secretary of Treasury to take all reasonable steps to encourage foreign governments make it a requirement to include the name of the originator in wire transfer instructions sent to the United States and other countries, with the information to remain with the transfer from its origination until the point of disbursement.[194] The Secretary was also ordered to encourage international cooperation in investigations of money laundering, financial crimes, and the finances of terrorist groups.[195]
The Act also introduced criminal penalties for corrupt officialdom. An official or employee of the government who acts corruptly — as well as the person who induces the corrupt act — in the carrying out of their official duties will be fined by an amount that is not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the bribe in question. Alternatively they may be imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or they may be fined and imprisoned. Penalties apply to financial institutions who do not comply with an order to terminate any corresponding accounts within 10 days of being so ordered by the Attorney General or the Secretary of Treasury. The financial institution can be fined $US10,000 for each day the account remains open after the 10 day limit has expired.[181]
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 suspicious activity reports to notify U.S. intelligence agencies.[196] A number of amendments were made to address issues related to record keeping and financial reporting. One measure was a new requirement that anyone who does business file a report for any coin and foreign currency receipts that are over US$10,000 and made it illegal to structure transactions in a manner that evades the BSA's reporting requirements.[197] To make it easier for authorities to regulate and investigate anti-money laundering operations Money Services Businesses (MSBs) — those who operate informal value transfer systems outside of the mainstream financial system — were included in the definition of a financial institution.[198] The BSA was amended to make it mandatory to report suspicious transactions and an attempt was made to make such reporting easier for financial institutions.[199] FinCEN was made a bureau of the United States Department of Treasury[200] and the creation of a secure network to be used by financial institutions to report suspicious transactions and to provide alerts of relevant suspicious activities was ordered.[201] Along with these reporting requirements, a considerable number of provisions relate to the prevention and prosecution of money-laundering.[202] Financial instutitions were ordered to estable anti-money laundering programs and the BSA was amended to better define anti-money laundering strategy.[203] Also increased were civil and criminal penalties for money laundering and the introduction of penalties for violations of geographic targeting orders and certain record-keeping requirements.[204] A number of other amendments to the BSA were made through subtitle B, including granting the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System power to authorize personnel to act as law enforcement officers to protect the premises, grounds, property and personnel of any U.S. Federal reserve bank and allowing the Board to delegate this authority to U.S. Federal reserve banks.[205] Another measure instructed United States Executive Directors of international financial institutions to use their voice and vote to support any country that has taken action to support the U.S.'s War on Terrorism. Executive Directors are now required to provide ongoing auditing of disbursements made from their institutions to ensure that no funds are paid to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism.[206]
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[edit]
Title IV amends the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, giving more law enforcement and investigative power to the United States Attorney General and to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The Attorney General was authorized to waive any cap on the number of full time employees (FTEs) assigned to the INS on the Northern border of the United States.[215] Enough funds were set set aside to triple the maximum number of Border Patrol personnel, Customs Service personnel and INS inspectors along with an additional US$50,000,000 funding for the INS and the U.S. Customs Service to improve technology for monitoring the Northern Border and acquiring additional equipment at the Canadian northern border.[216] The INS was also given the authority to authorise overtime payments of up to an extra US$30,000 a year to INS employees.[217] Access was given to the Department of State and the INS to criminal background information contained in the National Crime Information Center's Interstate Identification Index (NCIC-III), Wanted Persons File and any other files maintained by the National Crime Information Center in order to determine whether visa applicants and applicants could be admitted to the U.S.[218] The Department of State was required to form final regulations governing the procedures for taking fingerprints and the conditions with which the department was allowed to use this informations.[219] Additionally, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was ordered to develop a technology standard to verify the identity of persons applying for a United States. The reason was to make the standard the technology basis for a cross-agency, cross-platform electronic system used for conducting background checks, confirming identities and ensuring that people have not received visas under different names.[220] This report was released on November 13, 2002,[221] however, according to NIST, this was later "determined that the fingerprint system used was not as accurate as current state-of-the-art fingerprint systems and is approximately equivalent to commercial fingerprint systems available in 1998".[222] This report was later superseded by section 303(a) of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002.
Under subtitle B, various definitions relating to terrorism were altered and expanded. The INA was retroactively amended to disallow aliens who are part of or representatives of a foreign organization or any group who endorses acts of terrorism from entering the U.S. This restriction also included the family of such aliens.[223] The definition of "terrorist activity" was strengthened to include actions involving the use of any dangerous device (and not just explosives and firearms).[223] To "engage in terrorist activity" is defined as committing, inciting to commit or planning and preparing to undertake an act of terrorism. Included in this definition is the gathering of intelligence information on potential terrorist targets, the solicitation of funds for a terrorist organisation or the solicitation of others to undertake acts of terrorism. Those who provide knowing assistance to a person who is planning to perform such activities are defined as undertaking terrorist activities. Such assistance includes affording material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training to perform the terrorist act.[223] The INA criteria for making a decision to designate an organisation as a terrorist organisation was amended to include the definition of a terrorist act.[224] Though the amendments to these definitions are retroactive, it does not mean that it can be applied to members who joined an organisation, but since left, before it was designated to be a terrorist organisation under 8 U.S.C. § 1189 by the Secretary of State.[223]
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 espionage, are exporting goods, technology or sensitive information illegally or are attempting to control or overthrow the government, or have, or will have, engaged in terrorist activities.[225] The Attorney General or the Attorney General's deputy may maintain custody of such aliens until they are removed from the U.S., unless it is no longer deemed they should be removed, in which case they are released. The alien can be detained for up to 90 days but can be held up to 6 months after it is deemed that they are a national security threat. However, removal proceedings or an arrest must be made no longer than 7 days after the alien's detention, otherwise the alien will be released. However, such detentions must be reviewed every 6 months by the Attorney General, who can then decide to revoke it, unless prevented from doing so by law. Every 6 months the alien may apply, in writing, for the certification to be reconsidered.[225] Judicial review of any action or decision relating to this section, including judicial review of the merits of a certification, can be held under habeas corpus proceedings. Such proceedings can be initiated by an application filed with the United States Supreme Court, by any justice of the Supreme Court, by any circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, or by any district court otherwise having jurisdiction to entertain the application. The final order is subject to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[225] Provisions were also made for a report to be required every six months of such decisions from the U.S. Attorney General to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.[225]
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[edit]
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.[233] The State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 was amended to allow the Department of State to offer rewards, in consultation with the Attorney General, for the full or significant dismantling of any terrorist organisation[234] and to identify any key leaders of terrorist organisations.[235] The Secretary of State was given authority to pay greater than $US5 million if he so determines it would prevent terrorist actions against the United States.[236] The DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act was amended to include terrorism or crimes of violencein the list of qualifying Federal offenses.[237] Another perceived obstacle was to allow Federal agencies to share information with Federal law enforcement agencies. Thus, the act now allows Federal officers who acquire information through electronic surveillance or physical searches to consult with Federal law enforcement officers to coordinate efforts to investigate or protect against potential or actual attacks, sabotage or international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power.[238]
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 National Security Letters (NSLs). An NSL is a form of administrative subpoena used by the FBI, and reportedly by other U.S. government agencies including the CIA and the Department of Defense (DoD). It is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various records and data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight and also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued. Title V allowed the use of NSLs to be made by a Special Agent in charge of a Bureau field office, where previously only the Director or the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI were able to certify such requests.[241] This provision of the Act was challenged by the ACLU on behalf of an unknown party against the U.S. government on the grounds that NSLs violate the First and Fourth Amendments of the US Constitution because there is no way to legally oppose an NSL subpoena in court, and that it was unconstitutional to not allow a client to inform their Attorney as to the order due to the gag provision of the letters. The court's judgement found in favour of the ACLU's case, and they declared the law unconstitutional.[78] Later, the Patriot Act was reauthorized and amendments were made to specify a process of judicial review of NSLs and to allow the recipient of an NSL to disclose receipt of the letter to an attorney or others necessary to comply with or challenge the order.[242] However, in 2007 the U.S. District Court struck down even the reauthorized NSLs because the gag power was unconstitutional as courts could still not engage in meaningful judicial review of these gags.
Title VI: Victims and families of victims of terrorism[edit]
Title VI made amendments to the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA) in order to make changes to how the U.S. Victims of Crime Fund was managed and funded. Changes were made to VOCA to improve the speedy provision of aid to families of public safety officers by expedited payments to officers or the families of officers. Under the changes, payments must be made no less than 30 days after the officer is catastrophically injured or killed in the line of duty.[243] The Assistant Attorney General was given expanded authority under section 614 of the Patriot Act to make grants to any organisation that administers any Office of Justice Programs, which includes the Public Safety Officers Benefits Program.[244] Further changes to the Victims of Crime Fund increased the amount of money in the Fund, and changed the way that funds were distributed.[245] The amount available for grants made through the Crime Victim Fund to eligible crime victim compensation programs were increased from 40% to 60% of the total in the Fund. A program can provide compensation to U.S. citizens who were adversely affected overseas. Means testing was also waived for those who apply for compensation.[246] Under VOCA, the Director may make an annual grant from the Crime Victims Fund to support crime victim assistance programs. An amendment was made to VOCA to include offers of assistance to crime victims in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and any other U.S. territory.[247] VOCA also provides for compensation and assistance to victims of terrorism or mass violence.[248] This was amended to allow the Director to make supplemental grants to States for eligible crime victim compensation and assistance programs, and to victim service organizations, public agencies (including Federal, State, or local governments) and non-governmental organizations that provide assistance to victims of crime. The funds could be used to provide emergency relief, including crisis response efforts, assistance, compensation, training and technical assistance for investigations and prosecutions of terrorism.[249]
Title VII: Information sharing for infrastructure protection[edit]
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 jurisdictional boundaries. It consists of only one section, section 701, titled "Expansion Of Regional Information Sharing System To Facilitate Federal-State-Local Law Enforcement Response Related To Terrorist Attacks". It modifies the law that regulates grants provided for regional information sharing systems. Before it was amended by the Patriot Act the law allowed the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (a division of the Justice Department) to "make grants and enter into contracts" with State, local criminal authorities, and non-profit organizations to stop criminal activities that cross jurisdictional boundaries.[250] Title VII added "terrorist conspiracies and activities" to the list of activities to which the Director could provide grants.[251] It also adds to the list of items that grants and contacts may be made for "secure information sharing systems" to aid in "addressing multi-jurisdictional terrorist conspiracies and activities." The Bureau of Justice Assistance's was given a budget of US$50,000,000 for the 2002 fiscal year, and US$100,000,000, for the 2003 fiscal year in order to provide grants.[252]
Title VIII: Terrorism criminal law[edit]
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 mass transportation systems. If the offender committed such an attack while no passenger was on board, they are fined and imprisoned for a maximum of twenty years. However, if the activity was undertaken while the mass transportation vehicle or ferry was carrying a passenger at the time of the offense, or the offense resulted in the death of any person, then the punishment is a fine and life imprisonment.[256] The title amends the biological weapons statute to define the use of a biological agent, toxin, or delivery system as a weapon, other than when it is used for "prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purposes". Penalties for anyone who cannot prove reasonably that they are using a biological agent, toxin or delivery system for these purposes are 10 years imprisonment, a fine or both.[257]
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.[258] U.S. forfeiture law was also amended to allow authorities to seize all foreign and domestic assets from any group or individual that is caught planning to commit acts of terrorism against the U.S. or U.S. citizens. Assets may also be seized if they have been acquired or maintained by an individual or organisation for the purposes of further terrorist activities.[259] One section of the Act (section 805) prohibited "material support" for terrorists, and in particular included "expert advice or assistance".[260] This was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Federal Court after the Humanitarian Law Project filed a civil action against the U.S. government. The court found that it violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the provision was so vague it would cause a person of average intelligence to have to guess whether they were breaking the law, thus leading to a potential situation where a person was charged for an offence that they had no way of knowing was illegal. The court found that this could potentially have the effect of allowing arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law, as well as possible chilling effects on First Amendment rights. [75][76] Congress later improved the law by defining the definitions of the "material support or resources", "training" and "expert advise or resources".[261]
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[edit]
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 National Virtual Translation Center, with the goal of developing automated translation facilities to assist with the timely and accurate translation of foreign intelligence information for elements of the U.S. intelligence community.[267] The Patriot Act required this to be provided on February 1, 2002, however the report, entitled "Director of Central Intelligence Report on the National Virtual Translation Center: A Concept Plan to Enhance the Intelligence Community's Foreign Language Capabilities, April 29, 2002" was received more than two months late, which the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported was "a delay which, in addition to contravening the explicit words of the statute, deprived the Committee of timely and valuable input into its efforts to craft this legislation."[268] Another report was commissioned on the feasibility and desirability of reconfiguring the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center and the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury.[269] It was due by February 1, 2002 however, it was never written. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later complained that "[t]he Director of Central Intelligence and the Secretary of the Treasury failed to provide a report, this time in direct contravention of a section of the USA PATRIOT Act" and they further directed "that the statutorily-directed report be completed immediately, and that it should include a section describing the circumstances which led to the Director's failure to comply with lawful reporting requirements."[270]
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[edit]
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 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It created new provisions relating to the death penalty for terrorists,[273] enhancing security at seaports, [274] new measures to combat the financing of terrorism,[275] new powers for the Secret Service,[276] anti-Methamphetamine initiatives[277] and a number of other miscellaneous provisions. The second reauthorization act, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006, amended the first and was passed in February 2006.
The first act reauthorized all but two of the provisions of title II that would have expired. Two sections were changed to sunset on December 31, 2009: section 206 — the roving wiretap provision — and section 215, which allowed access to business records under FISA. Section 215 was amended further regardless so as to give greater judicial oversight and review. Such orders were also restricted to be authorized by only the FBI Director, the FBI Deputy Director, or the Executive Assistant Director for National Security, and minimization procedures were specified to limit the dissemination and collection of such information. Section 215 also had a "gag" provision, which was changed to allow the defendant to contact their Attorney.[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[78] the reauthorization Act amended the law in an attempt to make them lawful. It provided for judicial review and the legal right of a recipient to challenge the validity of the letter. The reauthorization act still allowed NSLs to be closed and all evidence to be presented in camera and ex parte.[280] Gag provisions were maintained, but were not automatic. They only occurred when the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office certified that disclosure would result in "a danger to the national security of the United States, interference with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interference with diplomatic relations, or danger to the life or physical safety of any person".[281] However, should there be no non-disclosure order, the defendant can disclose the fact of the NSL to anyone who can render them assistance in carrying out the letter, or to an attorney for legal advise. Again, however, the recipient was order to inform the FBI of such a disclosure.[281] Due to the concern over the chilling effects of such a requirement, the Additional Reauthorization Amendments Act removed the requirement to inform the FBI that the recipient spoke about the NSL to their Attorney.[282] Later, the Additional Reauthorization Amendments Act excluded libraries from receiving NSLs, except where they provide electronic communications services.[283] The reauthorization Act also ordered the Attorney General submit a report semiannually to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and the House Committee on Financial Services and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, Urban Affairs on all NSL requests made under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.[284]
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[edit]
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.[297][298][299] Opponents of the Act, however, have been quite vocal in asserting that it was passed opportunistically after the September 11th terrorist attacks, believing there to have been little debate. They view the Act as one that was hurried through the Senate with little change before it was passed, even though Senators such as Patrick Leahy and Russell Feingold proposed amendments to modify the final revision.[300][301][27] The sheer magnitude of the Act itself was noted by Michael Moore in his movie/documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. In one of the scenes of the movie, he records Senator Jim McDermott alleging that no Senator read the bill[302] and John Conyers Jr. as saying "We don't really read most of the bills. Do you know what that would entail if we read every bill that we passed?" Senator Conyers then answers his own rhetorical question, asserting that if they did it would "slow down the legislative process".[303] As a dramatic device, Moore then hired an ice-cream van and drove around Washington DC with a loud speaker, reading out the Act to puzzled passers-by, which included a few Senators.[304] Moore was not the only commentator to notice that not many people had read the Act. Dahlia Lithwick and Julia Turne for Slate asked "How bad is Patriot, anyway?". They decided that it was "[h]ard to tell." and that "[t]he ACLU, in a new fact sheet challenging the DOJ Web site, wants you to believe that the act threatens our most basic civil liberties. Ashcroft and his roadies call the changes in law "modest and incremental." Since almost nobody has read the legislation, much of what we think we know about it comes third-hand and spun. Both advocates and opponents are guilty of fear-mongering and distortion in some instances."[305] A Gallop poll found that similar confusion existed in the minds of a portion of the American population. In August 2003 only 10% of people polled were "very familiar" with the Patriot Act, while 40% were "somewhat familiar", 25% were "not too familiar" and another 25% were "not at all familiar" with the Act. By January 2006 this had only risen to 17% who were "very familiar", 59% were "somewhat familiar", 18% who were "not too familiar" and 6% were "not at all familiar".[306] Perhaps unsurprisingly, script writers for such television shows as NCIS and Las Vegas have been keen to use the Patriot Act as a plot device, often for purposes it was not intended.[307][308]
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,[309] were particularly controversial. Many commentators have objected to them, believing them to bypass the Fourth Amendment requirement that search warrants detail the place to be searched. EPIC have criticised the law as unconstitutional, especially when "the private communications of law-abiding American citizens might be intercepted incidentally",[310] while the EFF hold that the lower standard applied to wiretaps "gives the FBI a 'blank check' to violate the communications privacy of countless innocent Americans".[311] Others do not find the roving wiretap legislation to be as concerning. Professor David Cole of the Georgetown University Law Center, a critic of many of the provisions of the Act, found that though they come at a cost to privacy are a sensible measure[312] while Paul Rosenzweig, a Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, argues that roving wiretaps are just a response to rapidly changing communication technology that is not necessarily fixed to a specific location or device.[313]
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.[163] Critics such as EPIC and the ACLU strongly criticized the law for violating the Fourth Amendment,[320] with the ACLU going so far as to release an advertisement condemning it and calling for it to be repealed.[321][322] However supporters of the amendment, such as Heather MacDonald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor to the New York City Journal, expressed the belief that it was necessary because the temporary delay in notification of a search order stops terrorists from tipping off their counterparts who are being investigated.[323] In 2004 FBI agents used this provision to search and secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. Whilst the U.S. Government publicly apologised to Mr. Mayfield and his family[131] Mr. Mayfield took it further through the courts. On September 26th, 2007 judge Ann Aiken found the law was, in fact, unconstitutional as the search was an unreasonable imposition on Mr. Mayfield and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.[132][133]
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 National Security Letter (NSL) provisions. Because they allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order they were criticized by many parties.[325][326][327][328] In November 2005, Business Week reported that the FBI had issued tens of thousands of NSLs and had obtained one million financial, credit, employment, and in some cases, health records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses. Selected businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental agencies. An anonymous Justice official claimed that such requests were permitted under section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act and despite the volume of requests insisted "We are not inclined to ask courts to endorse fishing expeditions". [329] Before this was revealed, however, the ACLU challenged the constitutionality of NSLs in court. In April 2004 they filed suit against the government on behalf of an unknown Internet Service Provider who had been issued an NSL, for reasons unknown. In ACLU v. DoJ, the ACLU argued that the NSL violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the US Constitution because the Patriot Act failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone or Internet company could try to oppose an NSL subpoena in court. The court agreed, and found that because the recipient of the subpoena could not challenge it in court it was unconstitutional.[78] Congress later tried to remedy this in a reauthorization Act, but because they did not remove the non-disclosure provision a Federal court again found NSLs to be unconstitutional because they prevented courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review.[127][128][129]
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.[225] Before the Patriot Act was passed, Anita Ramasastry, an associate professor of law and a director of the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce, & Technology at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, Washington, accused the Act of depriving basic rights for immigrants to America, including legal permanent residents. She warned that "Indefinite detention upon secret evidence — which the Patriot Act allows — sounds more like Taliban justice than ours. Our claim that we are attempting to build an international coalition against terrorism will be severely undermined if we pass legislation allowing even citizens of our allies to be incarcerated without basic U.S. guarantees of fairness and justice."[338] Many other parties have also been strongly critical of the provision. Russell Feingold, in a Senate floor statement, claimed that the provision "falls short of meeting even basic constitutional standards of due process and fairness [as it] continues to allow the Attorney General to detain persons based on mere suspicion".[339] The University of California[340], while the ACLU has accused the Act of giving the Attorney General "unprecedented new power to determine the fate of immigrants... Worse, if the foreigner does not have a country that will accept them, they can be detained indefinitely without trial."[341]
References[edit]
- ^ "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) - ^ a b Saitu, Natsu Taylor (2002). "Whose Liberty? Whose Security? The USA PATRIOT Act in the Context of COINTELPRO and the Unlawful Repression of Political Dissent" (PDF). 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) - ^ a b 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)
- ^ Frank James Sensenbrenner & 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) - ^ "EFF Supports the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act". 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.
- ^ a b Singel, Ryan (12th March, 2003). "A Chilly Response to 'Patriot II'". Politics : Law. Wired News. Retrieved 2007-08-29.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Patriot II (draft), Electronic Frontiers Foundation. Retrieved August 30th, 2007.
- ^ United States Department of Justice (February 7th, 2007), Statement of Barbara Comstock, Director of Public Affairs
- ^ Morahan, Lawrence (February 13, 2003). "'Patriot 2' Raises Concerns for Civil Liberties Groups". The Nation. 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) - ^ Owen III, Henry (2007). "The Life and Liberty.gov Web site review" (fee required). Government Information Quarterly. 24 (1): 229–229. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2006.07.014. ISSN 0740-624X. Retrieved 2007-09-01.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - ^ a b Lichtblau, Eric. "Ashcroft's Tour Rallies Supporters and Detractors". New York Times.
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|published=ignored (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) - ^ U.S. v. Sami Amin Al-Arian et al., Findlaw
- ^ Cited in Lichtblau, Eric. "Ashcroft's Tour Rallies Supporters and Detractors". New York Times.
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|published=ignored (help) - ^ "Town criminalizes compliance with Patriot Act". CNN. May 18th, 2003.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Nieves, Evelyn (April 21, 2003). "Local Officials Rise Up to Defy The Patriot Act". 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
- ^ EFF: Analysis of the SAFE Act, Electronic Frontiers Foundation website. 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) - ^ McUllagh, Declan (January 29, 2004). "Ashcroft says surveillance powers should stand". 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) - ^ McCullagh, Declan (September 29, 2004). "Judge disarms Patriot Act proviso". 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
- ^ "House GOP Defends Patriot Act Powers". Politics, In Congress. Washington Post. July 9, 2004. p. A01.
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ 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.
- ^ Gordon, Jane (April 24th, 2005). "In Patriot's Cradle, the Patriot Act Faces Scrutiny" (HTML (restricted access)). New York Times.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ 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.
- ^ H. AMDT 498 (21st June, 2005). Proposed by Daniel E. Lungren
- ^ H. AMDT 489 (21st June, 2005). Proposed by Jeff Flake
- ^ H. AMDT 490 (21st June, 2005). Proposed by 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
- ^ H. AMDT 494 (21st June, 2005). Proposed by William D. Delahunt
- ^ H. AMDT 497 (21st June, 2005). Proposed by 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
- ^ House Amendment 678 (December 22nd, 2005), proposed by 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.
- ^ "President's Statement on H.R. 199, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005"" (Press release). 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)
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1002.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1012.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1001.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1003.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1004.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1006.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1005.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1007.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1008.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1009.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1010.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1011 (a).
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1011 (b).
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1011 (c).
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 218.
- ^ Andrew C. McCarthy, "Why Section 218 Should be Retained", accessed January 23, 2006. The Patriot Debates.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 214.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 207.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 203.
- ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), 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.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 219.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 204 & 209.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 217.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 211.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 210.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 212.
- ^ Field Guidance on New Authorities (Redacted), Federal Bureau of Investigation (hosted by the Electronic Privacy Information Center). Accessed 2007-09-24.
- ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 213.
- ^ United States Department of Justice, The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty, pg. 2. 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
- ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, 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
- ^ Mac Donald, Heather (Summer 2003). "Straight Talk on Homeland Security". City Journal.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 208.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 221.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 205.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 224.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 311.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 314.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 317.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 312, 313, 319 & 325.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 327.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 313.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 312.
- ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, 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).
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), 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
- ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 315.
- ^ Defined in 18 U.S.C. § 541
- ^ Defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 320. Amended .
- ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 323. Amended 28 U.S.C. § 2467
- ^ Pursuant to
- ^
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 328.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 330.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 356.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 365.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 359.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 352, 354 & 365.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 361.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 362.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 352.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 354.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 353.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 364.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 360.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 371.
- ^ So defined in 31 U.S.C. § 5313, 31 U.S.C. § 5316 and 31 U.S.C. § 5324
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 372. Amended
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 371. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 1960.
- ^ "The Patriot Act: Justice Department Claims Success". National Public Radio. July 20, 2005.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 374. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 1960.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 376. Amended
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 377.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 401.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 402.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 404. Amended the Department of Justice Appropriations Act, 2001.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 403. Amends 8 U.S.C. § 1105.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Sec. 403. Final regulations are specified in 22 CFR 40.5.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 405.
- ^ National Institute of Standards and Technology, November 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)
- ^ a b c d USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 411.
- ^ As specified in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989; see
- ^ a b c d e USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 412. A new section was created by the Act — 8 U.S.C. § 1226a
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 414.
- ^
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 416.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 417.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 418.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle C.
- ^ Office of Patrick Leahy, USA PATRIOT Act Section-by-section analysis
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 501.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 502. Amended
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 502. Amended
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 502. Amended
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 503. Amended
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 503. Amended 50 U.S.C. § 1825.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 506.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 507.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 505. Amended ; Section 1114(a)(5)(A) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 () and Section 624 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681u).
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177) Title I, Sec. 115 & 116
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle A, Sec. 611.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle A, Sec. 614.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 621
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 622.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 623. Amended .
- ^ See 42 U.S.C. § 10603b
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 624.
- ^ 42 U.S.C. § 3796h
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VII, Sec. 701, (1).
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VII, Sec. 701, (1)(d)
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 802.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 813. Amended .
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 814. Amended .
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 801.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 817.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 803. Created 18 U.S.C. § 2339.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 806. Amends 18 U.S.C. § 981.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Section 805(a)(2)(B).
- ^ a b Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (U.S. S. 2845, Public Law 108-458), Title VI, Subtitle F, Sec. 6603.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 814.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 816.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 901.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 905.
- ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 903.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 906.
- ^ Senate Report 107-149 - "To authorize appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003 for Intelligence and Intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Disablity System, and for other purposes.", see the section "National Virtual Translation Center"
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 907.
- ^ Senate Report 107-149 - "To authorize appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003 for Intelligence and Intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Disablity System, and for other purposes.", see the section "Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center"
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 904.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 908.
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title II ("Terrorist Death Penalty Enhancement")
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title III ("Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports")
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title IV ("Combating Terrorism Financing")
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177) Title VI ("Secret Service")
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title VII ("Combating Methamphetamine Epedemic Act of 2005")
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 106
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. S. 2271, Public Law 109-178), Sec. 3.
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 115
- ^ a b USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 116
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. S. 2271, Public Law 109-178), Sec. 4.
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. S. 2271, Public Law 109-178), Sec. 5.
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 118
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 108
- ^ American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU Letter to Congress Urging A “No” Vote On the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act Conference Report (Dec. 12, 2005), accessed on October 6th, 2007.
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 114
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 107
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 109
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 105
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 104
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 112
- ^ 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
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 110
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 111.
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 127.
- ^ "'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.
- ^ "EFF Analysis Of The Provisions Of The USA PATRIOT Act That Relate To Online Activities". 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.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), 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.
- ^ "Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 206: "Roving Surveillance Authority Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978"". USA PATRIOT/Sunset. Electronic Frontiers Foundation..
- ^ Cole, David, "The Patriot Act Violates Our Civil Liberties", Is the Patriot Act Unconstitutional?, Microsoft Encarta
- ^ Rosenzweig, Paul, "Terrorism is not just a crime", Patriot Debates, American Bar Association
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), 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.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), 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.
- ^ "Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT Section 505 - National Security Letters (NSLs)". 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.
- ^ Dunham, Richard S. (November 10, 2005). "The Patriot Act: Business Balks". 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) - ^ Murphy (April 7, 2003). "Some Librarians Use Shredder to Show Opposition to New F.B.I. Powers". New York Times. Retrieved 1007-10-13.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help); Unknown parameter|First=ignored (|first=suggested) (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.
- ^ Mac Donald, Heath (Summer 2003). "Straight Talk on Homeland Security". 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 Review 55 (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 Law 34.3 (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 Law 34.2 (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 Law 43.1 (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