Prior to the Patriot Act, the authority to engage in such searches was regulated by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA created a secret court that granted search warrants so long as a pleading before a closed court asserted that the primary purpose of the search or wire tap was to gather foreign intelligence. FISA required that a warrant be justified by suspicion of criminal behavior. In theory, American citizens were safe unless they were suspected agents of a foreign power.
Basically, the USA Patriot Act eliminated some of the former requirements needed to search an American citizen. Before the USA Patriot Act, police could search a citizen without probable cause only in very few types of situations. After the USA Patriot Act this number expanded greatly. (Lithwick, Turner)
The Department of Justice (DOJ) argues that the principal impact of Section 218 lies not in the expanded applicability of the warrants, but in the way Section 218 has facilitated intelligence sharing. DOJ spokesmen explain that Section 218 eliminates the unnecessary barriers to communication among intelligence agencies. They identify the indictment of Sami Al-Arian, the USF professor alleged to be a leader of a Palestinian Islamic Jihad cell, as a prime example of what can be achieved when agencies work together. (Lithwick, Turner)
Section 214 -- Tap Expansion
Another controversial provision of the USA Patriot Act is under Section 214. This section allows for “Trap and trace” devices that monitor the sources of all incoming calls. The act removes the warrant requirement for such taps so long as the government certifies that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing investigation against international terrorism. Before the act was passed, phone wiretaps could be obtained on a showing of probable cause that one of a list of certain crimes had been committed. Similarly, under Section 216, the rules that apply to telephone wiretapping also now apply to Internet taps. (Lithwick, Turner)
Summary of the Law
These are the more controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act. To summarize, the provisions of USA Patriot Act is that it basically gives extra powers to the intelligence officers and other law enforcement personnel, both foreign and domestic. The provisions of the USA Patriot Act permit monitoring and interception of email, warrantless searches, increased surveillance, the use of phone and Internet taps with less judicial scrutiny, and the ability for the Secretary of State to designate foreign groups as terrorist organizations and deport suspected terrorists. Surveillance is definately a hot spot with the aAmerican people. The USA Patriot Act also allows law enforcement to detain aliens as suspected terrorists for longer periods of time without a lawyer. The act was designed to facilitate easier communication among law enforcement groups and to make easier, the governments’ ability to conduct searches and seizures when possible terrorism is involved. (“U.S.A Patriot Act”)
A Changing Policy
In launching the Patriot II Act, more emphasis was put into expanding the powers by the White House. On the second anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush rallied Congress to implement new provisions to the USA Patriot Act, expanding power to the Justice Department and other government agencies over individual citizens and suspected terrorists." The USA Patriot Act imposed tough new penalties on terrorists and those who support them. “But as the fight against terror progressed, we have found areas where more help is required," said President Bush. These new provisions were voiced by Attorney General John Ashcroft, who wanted to pursue the death penalty in more terrorism-related cases, to hold suspects without bail and to remove the grand jury from the steps needed to issue a subpoena. President Bush pressured Congress to act quickly to pass this legislation. "For the sake of the American people, Congress should change the law and give law enforcement officials the same tools to fight terror as they do to fight other crime,” President Bush said. In launching the "Patriot II" Act, President Bush even put himself at odds with some Republican legislators who joined Democrats in an effort to tone down part of the original USA Patriot Act. Some of the provisions made in the Patriot II Act, strengthen the power given to intelligence, and others imposed limits on that power. (Weinberg) Since the piece of legislation was put into law, many reforms have been made in light of concerns of citizens, human rights groups, and members of Congress. On July 22, 2003, Congress adopted an appropriations rider to bar the government from invoking the USA Patriot Act to search a home or business without immediately notifying the occupants. The sponsor of the provision was Republican Butch Otter. Representative Otter, along with the ACLU was pleased with this vote and considered it a mighty blow against “sneak and peak” searches (Lithwick, Turner). The ACLU has adamantly opposed many provisions of the act, explaining that it tramples Fourth Amendment freedoms.
Similarly, gun owners, and groups such as the NRA are also lobbying for reform. The NRA attributes that the problem with the USA Patriot Act lies within Section 2. This section amends Section 922 of title 18, in the United States Code, so that sections of the gun law “shall not apply during any period in which the threat condition under the Homeland Security Advisory system is elevated, high or severe.” In effect, it’s a permanent suspension of existing law,” NRA Communications Director Andrew Arulanandum told NewsMax.com. Further, he sees the USA Patriot Act as “an attempt to create a national firearm registration system.” The NRA spokesman says the bill would suspend statutes that limit law enforcement to three days for completing background checks of firearms purchases, as well as a law that requires the destruction of records of anyone whose purchase is approved, “meaning they’re law abiding.” It would mean “a suspension of rules that protect firearms owners, as long as we’re in a state of heightened alertness,” Arulanandam declared. (Vernon)
These tactics used by the ACLU and other groups have succeeded somewhat, in preventing Congress from granting the administration additional new powers, such as a proposal to make clear the FBI’s authority to search the possessions of suspected terrorists. However, some believe that the civil liberties groups and Congress have ignored more dangerous provisions of the act, such as the administration’s incarceration of suspected “enemy combatants” without charges, access to lawyers, or meaningful judicial review. At the same time, some other people think that these groups have prevented Congress from giving needed power to the government to expand its investigation powers that are the main hope of catching possible terrorists. (Taylor)
The USA Patriot Act: surveillance and Future of the Law...
|
