Patriot Act October 26, 2001

United (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing appropriate tools required (to) intercept (and) obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001

Passage Following the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the Justice Department drafted a bill called the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 The bill was designed to enhance federal anti-terrorism investigations Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner introduced the bill to congress and Viet Dinh was the main author The Senate version passed on October 11, The House version was altered several times before being passed. In the Senate, all but one Senator supported the act President Bush signed the bill into law on October 26, 2001

Main provisions of the act Title 1 - Authorizes the seizure of property from suspected terrorists Title 2 - Allows the interception of communications if they’re related to terrorist activities without initial consent Title 3 - Law enforcement agencies can gather information from banks Title 4 - Strengthens border security by increasing funding for border patrols and officials. Title 5 - Allows NSLs (National Security Letters- demand for release of information and paperwork related to a person under investigation) to be used against U.S. citizens and can prevent the target from knowing about it/telling anyone

Main provisions of the act (cont.) Title 6 - Gives provisions and financial help to victims of terrorism and their families Title 7 - Authorization and budgeting for increased sharing of information between law-enforcement agencies and jurisdictions Title 8 - Adds several crimes to acts of terrorism Title 9 - Creates a method of sharing national intelligence information between government agencies Title 10 - Minor provisions

Controversy Goes against the first amendment: The Patriot Act allowed Muslim organizations and individuals to be accused of having links to terrorism Goes against fourth amendment: The Patriot Act appears to infringe on a person’s privacy and allows the search of electronic information without consent Goes against the fifth amendment: The Patriot Act allows the confiscation of a terrorist’s property without stating a his/her offenses (accept terrorist ownership)

IssueProsCons Information from criminal probes can be shared with intelligence agencies and other federal organizations Greatly enhances intelligence sharing within the FBI and the intelligence community at large Could lead to a massive database that involves people not even related to terrorism One wiretap can cover a variety of devices, not just one Roving wiretaps are needed to keep up with terrorists who are technologically advanced Could lead to an invasion of privacy with anyone who is casually in contact with a suspect “Sneak and peak” warrants, which allows a authorities to search a home without immediate notification Provides investigations without jeopardizing the catching of criminals Warrants for minor crimes as well, not just terrorist suspects

IssueProsCons Allows easier access to to business records in foreign intelligence investigations Allows the search of a variety of documents that could be potentially helpful in finding a terrorist The provision does not call for how severe a record has to be for investigation Lowers the standards for launching foreign intelligence wiretaps/searches Much easier for investigators to obtain foreign intelligence Since foreign intelligence probes are conducted in secret, its hard to uncover abuses Expands ban on “material support” to terrorists to include “expert advice or assistance” Helps cut off support networks that make terrorism possible Infringes on freedom of speech

For and Against Opposition Generally Democrats are against the Patriot Act Many interest groups including: All Libertarians Campaign for Liberty American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) American Liberty Association Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances Support Generally Republicans are for the Patriot Act, however, in recent times, more and more are opposing it Department of Homeland Security Law Enforcement Agencies Emergency Response Agencies Not many, if not zero, interest groups

Public Opinion Should the government take all steps necessary to prevent additional acts of terrorism in the U.S. even if it means your liberties would be violated? Or should the government take steps to prevent additional acts of terrorism but not if those steps would violate your basic civil liberties? Aug Jan Take steps, even if civil liberties violated 29%47% Take steps but not violate civil liberties 67%49% No opinion 4% Source: The Gallup Organization

Public Opinion (cont.) Do you think the Bush administration has gone too far, has been about right, or has not gone far enough in restricting people’s civil liberties in order to fight terrorism? Aug Jan Too far 21%11% About right 55%60% Not far enough 19%25% No Opinion 5%4% Source: The Gallup Organization

Reauthorization Because the law was set to expire in 2005, Bush heavily advocated its renewal The renewal proposed permanent sections and several new amendments and was passed However, the supreme court struck down some of its proponents in 2007 In 2011, President Obama signed into law a four-year extension to proponents of the bill that had to be renewed including: roving wiretaps court-ordered searches of business records surveillance of non-American suspects without confirmed ties to terrorist groups

Bibliography extension-signed-obama-autopen_n_ html extension-signed-obama-autopen_n_ html terrorism/the-patriot-act.html terrorism/the-patriot-act.html al.html#issue6 al.html#issue6 paris3.academia.edu/JacobMaillet/Papers/76560/The_ Controversy_over_the_USA_Patriot_Act paris3.academia.edu/JacobMaillet/Papers/76560/The_ Controversy_over_the_USA_Patriot_Act