Politics & International Relations
The Patriot Act
The Patriot Act is a U.S. law passed in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, aimed at enhancing the government's ability to combat terrorism. It expanded surveillance powers, allowed for increased information sharing between government agencies, and granted broader authority for law enforcement to investigate and detain suspected terrorists. The Act has been both praised for its role in national security and criticized for potential violations of civil liberties.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
12 Key excerpts on "The Patriot Act"
eBook - PDF- M. Astrada(Author)
- 2010(Publication Date)
- Palgrave Macmillan(Publisher)
CHAPTER 4 The USA PATRIOT Act 2001 Domestic-Foreign Enemies of Freedom T he USA PATRIOT Act of 2001—that is, the Uniting and Strength- ening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (hereinafter PA)—is an example of how 9/11 has been utilized to push for an absolutist security agenda (ASA) that legally posits U.S. national security as the controlling standard for international security. 1 An examination of the linkage between legality, criminality, terror, and security within a domestic juridical framework illuminates the post-9/11 secu- rity context. Law is particularly relevant when one considers that U.S. power is premised upon the notion that international society should be subject to an objective rule of law. Law is a means by which U.S. domestic security can be invested with a truth value beyond (legitimate) question. When considering law and power, it must be kept in mind that power “is exercised through networks, and [actors] do not simply circulate in those networks; they are in a position to both submit and exercise this power. They are never the inert or consenting targets of power . . . power passes through [actors]. It is not [necessarily] applied to them.” 2 Knowledge and truth are produced and reified by security measures and the order-combine from which they devolve. Legality, therefore, functions as a means of producing and reflecting U.S. security priorities at the expense of competing priorities, such as civil liberties and state sovereignty. The United States articulates a specific set of values, prerogatives, principles, and morals when it utilizes law to enhance its power. Since the post–World War II period, the United States holds itself out as the “unitary power that maintains the social peace and produces . . . ethical truths” for the international community.
No longer available |Learn more- (Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- University Publications(Publisher)
____________________ WORLD TECHNOLOGIES ____________________ Chapter- 9 USA PATRIOT Act The USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as The Patriot Act) is an Act of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The title of the Act is a contrived three letter initialism (USA) preceding a seven letter acronym (PATRIOT), which in combination stand for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 . The Act dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, 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 broadened 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 USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers could be applied. The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties. 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.
No longer available |Learn more- (Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- College Publishing House(Publisher)
________________________ WORLD TECHNOLOGIES ________________________ Chapter 13 USA PATRIOT Act The USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as The Patriot Act) is an Act of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The title of the Act is a contrived three letter initialism (USA) preceding a seven letter acronym (PATRIOT), which in combination stand for Uniting and Strengthening Ame-rica by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 . The Act dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eased restri-ctions 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 broadened 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 ter-rorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers could be applied. The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties. 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 sub-stantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language.
eBook - PDF- Victor V. Ramraj, Michael Hor, Kent Roach, George Williams(Authors)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
The laws of the United States may be read to support targeted killing wherever the United States is fighting a defensive war, yet questions persist about the scope and dimensions of the battlefield and William C. Banks 470 compliance with international law and the laws of war. At the same time the Obama Administration defended its use of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen in 2010, it defended successfully against a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the targeting of US citizen Anwar al-Aulaqi who is believed to be hiding in Yemen. 68 7. The USA PATRIOT Act A few weeks after 9/11, after minimal hearings and scant debate, Congress enacted The Patriot Act. 69 Perhaps more than any other legal development, The Patriot Act became a symbol for galvanising supporters and defend- ers of the Bush Administration response to 9/11. Yet anyone who took the time to read the 352-page act would have recognised the more modest and incremental changes in law and policy that were actually reflected in the legislation. The Patriot Act is hardly a code for fighting the war on terror- ism, nor one for saving the US homeland from another attack. Instead, it is an amalgam of often unrelated pieces of authority, most of which sim- ply amend existing laws, and the larger share of which are unremarkable complements to existing authority. That is not to say that The Patriot Act lacks importance. The few really significant changes in investigative authorities and criminal law were initially made subject to a three-year sunset provision, and controversy really surrounded only several pages of the 352. An entire subtitle of the Act that would have authorised lengthy detention of any alien immigrant on the say-so of the Attorney-General 70 has not been utilised, because existing immigration statutes and regulations conferred equally expan- sive authority.
eBook - ePubWar by Other Means
An Insider's Account of the War on Terror
- John Yoo(Author)
- 2007(Publication Date)
- Atlantic Monthly Press(Publisher)
Recent history certainly has to make anyone wary of increased state police powers in any form. Yet it is also true that American law and politics have evolved since the days of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which prohibited criticism of the government during the 1798 Quasi-War with France, or the Palmer raids, which rounded up communists after World War I. Abuses that occur today are more likely to be isolated and individual acts—mistakes—rather than wholesale deprivations of civil liberties. And at the risk of seeming Pollyannaish, it is worth noting that our career government officials are, by and large, keenly respectful of law and the Bill of Rights—notwithstanding bad-cop stereotypes that stir media excitement. It is hard to imagine any President ordering the surveillance of political opponents today without numerous government officials reporting it to the press and to Congress.Many legal academics have warned in books, articles, and hearings that The Patriot Act endangers civil liberties. Most of this criticism amounts to the valid but generalized point that any increase in national security might potentially infringe on civil liberties. The rhetoric intensified with the 2004 presidential campaign. Former Vice President Al Gore, calling for The Patriot Act’s repeal, accused the Bush administration of using “fear as a political tool to consolidate its power and to escape any accountability for its use.” Then-candidate Howard Dean denounced the Act as “morally wrong” and “shameful.” In debate on the House floor Dennis Kucinich claimed that “it has become crystal clear that this administration is currently and will continue to abuse, attack and outright deny the civil liberties of the people of this country in defiance of our constitution.”6 The American Civil Liberties Union convinced several city councils to pass symbolic resolutions to disobey the Act and some librarians to file lawsuits against its expanded surveillance powers.For its part, the Bush administration defended The Patriot Act as a crucial expansion of executive authority to “detect terror cells, disrupt terrorist plots and save American lives.”7
eBook - PDFNo Questions Asked
News Coverage since 9/11
- Lisa Finnegan(Author)
- 2006(Publication Date)
- Praeger(Publisher)
Representative Peter DeFazio said in 2003. ‘‘It was hundreds of pages long, and no member of Congress can tell you they knew what they were voting for in its entirety. It was time to be stampeded, and who wanted to be against the USA Patriot Act at a time like that?’’ 5 The Patriot Act’s lone dissenter in the Senate, Russell D. Feingold, urged his colleagues to consider history before casting their votes: There have been periods in our nation’s history when civil liberties have taken a back seat to what appeared at the time to be the legitimate exigencies of war. Our national consciousness still bears the stain and the scars of those events: The Alien and Sedition Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the intern- ment of Japanese-Americans, German-Americans, and Italian-Americans during World War II, the blacklisting of supposed Communist sympathizers during the McCarthy era, and the surveillance and harassment of antiwar protesters, including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 6 The act concentrates increased new powers in the executive branch of government, while decreasing judicial oversight. Briefly, these measures include the following: 50 No Questions Asked • Creation of the new federal crime of ‘‘domestic terrorism,’’ which includes any dangerous acts that ‘‘appear to be intended . . . to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.’’ Broadly applied, this could be (and has been) used to silence any political dissent critical of government policies, including antiwar protestors. • Diminished due process for immigrants, who can be detained or deported with little or no judicial review. • Broadening the grounds for increased surveillance and wiretap authority (including roving wiretaps), sneak-and-peek searches, tracking of Internet use, and monitoring of financial transactions. It lets the FBI track library books checked out by individ- uals and place a gag order on librarians.
eBook - PDF- Jacqueline Klosek(Author)
- 2006(Publication Date)
- Praeger(Publisher)
1 While it would exceed the scope of this publication to examine each of these measures as well as the numerous measures that have continued to have been proposed each year thereafter in detail, the following section shall examine some of the most significant counterterrorism legislation enacted in the United States subsequent to the terrorist attacks of September 11. USA PATRIOT Act Overview One of the most important—and controversial—legislative developments to occur after September 11 is the USA PATRIOT Act 2 (Patriot Act). This extremely lengthy and comprehensive bill was passed in an extraordinarily fast manner. Once the legislation was introduced, former Attorney General Ashcroft was said to have given Congress one week in which to pass the measure. Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, managed to convince the Jus- tice Department to agree to some changes, and members of the House sought sig- nificant improvements. However, reportedly, the former Attorney General warned that new attacks were imminent, the legislation was needed right away, and cau- tioned that Congress could be to blame if the measures were not enacted and fur- ther attacks ensued. 3 Quick but extensive negotiations then ensued in the Senate, and a bill, stripped of many of the protections that Senator Leahy had worked to implement, resulted. Senator Thomas Daschle, the majority leader, sought unani- mous consent to pass the proposal without debate or amendment; Senator Russ Feingold was the only member to object. Minor changes were made in the House, which passed the bill 357 to 66. The Senate and House versions were quickly rec- onciled, and the act was signed into law on October 26, 2001. While The Patriot Act was long considered controversial by many, some took comfort in the fact that many of the provisions were intended to be of temporary effect. Many of the clauses of The Patriot Act were set to expire in 2005 if not renewed.
- Jeannette Woodward(Author)
- 2007(Publication Date)
- Libraries Unlimited(Publisher)
Tracking reading habits would betray our high regard for the First Amendment, and even if someone in government wanted to do so, it would represent an impossible workload and a waste of law enforcement resources’’ (Ashcroft 2003). Unfortunately, though the Attorney General got a laugh at the expense of the library community, the accuracy of his comments left much to be desired. Former ALA President Carla Hayden expressed her concerns when she responded ‘‘We are deeply concerned that the Attorney General should be so openly contemptuous of those who seek to defend our Constitution. Rather than ask the nations’ librar- ians and Americans nationwide to ‘just trust him,’ Ashcroft could allay concerns by releasing aggregate information about the number of libraries visited using the expanded powers created by the USA Patriot Act.’’ Hayden stressed that the danger to libraries and library patrons is very real. ‘‘The Patriot Act gives law enforcement unprece- dented power of surveillance-including easy access to library records with minimal judicial oversight’’ (American Library Association 2003). UNDERSTANDING The Patriot Act Officially titled ‘‘The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,’’ The Patriot Act was first signed into law on October 26, 2001, following closely upon the national tragedy of 9/11. Many members of Congress freely admitted that they did not have time to read the voluminous text, but the climate of public opinion propelled The Patriot Act through the House, the Senate, and the White House with almost unprecedented speed. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) Since the provisions of The Patriot Act that affect libraries are amend- ments to or reinterpretations of FISA, it may be helpful to summarize FISA’s key provisions.
eBook - PDF- Cora Zeugmann(Author)
- 2008(Publication Date)
- Diplomica Verlag(Publisher)
citizens, decreased over time to a pre 9/11 level. In the following, one of the most notorious failed legislations will illustrate where the line was drawn. On February 7, 2003 the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) posted a copy of a secretly planned and “confidential” marked bill on its website (Ball 2004, 119). That bill was named Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 and became famous under the name PATRIOT Act II and was never enacted since criticism on the Bush administration’s performance had been mounting, not only from civil liberties groups but also conservative organizations and federal lawmakers (Ball 2004, 119; Siedel 2004, 33). Nonetheless, drafted almost right after The Patriot Act ’s enactment, it is allegedly just “lying in wait for another tragic terrorist attack” to happen (Siedel 2004, 30). According to William Safire a “card-carrying conservative” New York Times columnist The Patriot Act II was an “abomination” and the “Justice's aim is to avoid judicial or Congressional control” (ACLU 2003), while Kunschak (2004, 96) speaks of a surveillance state of Orwell-like dimension. The bill, which is divided into five parts, would dramatically enhance the Executive’s power, while at the same time decreasing judiciary control over it. Title I is aimed at the 73 enhancement of FISA . S ection 101 which, for example, broadens the definition of “foreign power” under 50 U.S.C. §1801 (a)(4) including any individual “engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore”. Moreover, Section 121 redefines terrorist activities as “criminal acts of domestic and international terrorism” and broadens the scope of criminal investigations to “any investigation of criminal activity”. At the same time the standards for the use of pen register are extremely lowered under Section 107 .
eBook - PDF- Deborah E. Gibbons(Author)
- 2005(Publication Date)
- Information Age Publishing(Publisher)
Amendments that expanded the FBI’s capacity to collect evidence for antiterrorism investigations became a lightning rod for protests of civil liberties groups. Although the new authority was still subject to several restrictions—a requirement that there be a connection to antiterrorism investigations, a requirement of review by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a bar on investigations based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment—it was never-theless criticized as a license for “snooping” against innocent citizens by “curious” federal agents (Schulhofer, 2002, p. 51). Critics dwelt specifically on the threat that The Patriot Act was thought to pose to the integrity of public libraries and “reader privacy,” and by 2005 there was an emerging bipartisan consensus to restrict the provision to eliminate this threat, even though there was no evidence that the authority had ever been used for this purpose (“Patriot Misfire,” 2005). That there were legitimate questions surrounding the drafting of The Patriot Act could not be disputed; but the problem of “reader pri-vacy” differed by an order of magnitude from the predicament of foreign nationals detained indefinitely at Guantanamo or flown covertly to Dam-ascus or Diego Garcia. Neglect of Homeland Security At the same time the United States has taken only limited steps to pro-tect itself against further terrorist attacks. Before 9/11, says analyst Stephen Flynn, it was “the consensus view … that it would take a cata-strophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil to get the federal government to embrace real change.” But the attack has occurred—and the United States, rather than meeting the new threat, “has fallen back asleep” (Flynn, 2005, pp. 1, 178). The failure to prepare adequately has, in Flynn’s view, two broad ele-ments. The first is the unwillingness to fund homeland security initiatives adequately.
eBook - ePubLanguage, Symbols, and the Media
Communication in the Aftermath of the World Trade Center Attack
- Robert E., Jr. Denton(Authors)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
It allows a single federal district court to authorize the “trapping” and tapping of phone numbers anywhere in the United States. 20 These “roving taps” allow interception of electronic evidence such as e-mail and a history of numbers called from or to tapped phones and e-mail. The legislation gives wider latitude to the special court that authorizes wiretaps on suspected agents of foreign powers (Lichtblau 2001, A3). The legislation allows information concerning foreign agents in the United States to be shared among government agencies. 21 The legislation allows the Immigration and Naturalization Service to detain aliens up to seven days. 22 It permits the attorney general to detain “terrorist aliens” and expands the definition of terrorist activity. The district court of the District of Columbia has been given exclusive jurisdiction over such cases. The legislation ends the statute of limitation on the newly defined terrorist activities and increases the maximum sentence to life imprisonment. 23 Finally, the new law bans possession of biological agents that pose a threat to national security unless the possession would serve peaceful purposes. The USA Patriot Act was drafted by the White House with the help of John Ashcrofťs Department of Justice. In the Congress it was considered by the House Judiciary Committee which reported it out on 36 to none vote. In the Senate it was also favorably reported to the floor as a 187-page document; the Senate voted in favor 96 to l. 24 Amendments by Senator Russell Finegold (D-Wis.) to protect the rights of “innocent” people were defeated; he cast the lone dissenting vote to the legislation in the Senate. During the debate, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) argued that the government cannot guarantee total protection of the public “when you have people willing to commit suicide to do us harm. … [Those who argue for weakening this law should consider] “the loss of civil liberties of those who died” on September 11 (Jackson 2001, A13)
- D. Cohen, J. Wells, D. Cohen, J. Wells(Authors)
- 2004(Publication Date)
- Palgrave Macmillan(Publisher)
Thus, in practice, American citizens or permanent residents may be particularly at risk to FISA warrants because executive discretion determines when they are know- ingly engaging in spying for foreign powers or, alternatively, about to commit a crime involving U.S. laws. Robinson, ‘‘We’re Listening!,’’ 58. 35. Gregory E. Birkenstock, ‘‘The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Stan- dards of Probable Cause: An Alternative Analysis,’’ Georgetown Law Journal 80 (1992): 843, 852. See 50 U.S.C. Section 1801(b)(2)(A)-(B). 36. Joginder S. Dhillon and Robert I. Smith, ‘‘Defensive Information Operations and Domestic Law: Limitations on Government Investigative Techniques,’’ Air Force Law Review 50 (2001): 135, 165–166. See 18 U.S.C. Section 1801(h) and 1804 (a). 62 Christopher P. Banks 37. John W. Whitehead, ‘‘Forfeiting ‘Enduring Freedom’ for ‘Homeland Security’: A Constitutional Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Justice Depart- ment’s Anti-Terrorism Initiatives,’’ American University Law Review 51 (2002): 1081, 1088–1090. 38. Doyle, ‘‘The USA PATRIOT Act: A Legal Analysis,’’ CRS-2. 39. Doyle, ‘‘The USA PATRIOT Act: A Legal Analysis,’’ CRS-2 to CRS-5. 40. Sections 201, amending 18 U.S.C. Section 2516(1), and 202, amending 18 U.S. Section 2516(1)(c); Doyle, ‘‘The USA PATRIOT Act: A Legal Analysis,’’ CRS- 8. These sections also added terrorism and chemical weapons to the list of prohibited criminal conduct. See Joshua L. Dratel, ‘‘Fourth Amendment Impli- cations of the USA PATRIOT Act,’’ Champion 26 (2002): 51. Authority to intercept messages from a protected computer system is given through Section 217. Section 217, amending the Federal Wirtetap Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2511. Doyle, ‘‘The USA PATRIOT Act: A Legal Analysis,’’ CRS-8; Pikowsky, ‘‘An Overview of the Law of Electronic Surveillance Post September 11, 2001,’’ 610. 41. Section 203(b), amending disclosure provisions of Rule 6(e)(3)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
