1. By Cindy Webber

2. Background of the Act  Introduced on October 23, 2001 by Rep. Sensenbrenner.  Response to the September 11 attacks.  Heavily supported by Attorney General John Ashcroft  Congress caved immediately. No formal report from House, Senate or Conference Committee

3. Background  Passed 98-1 in the Senate (Senator Feingold only “no” vote.)  Passed 357-66 in the House.  Several of the provisions have sunset clauses and must be renewed by Congress every 4 years.

4. Provisions of the Act  Title I- Enhancing Domestic Security against Terrorism Created a counterterrorism fund Officially condemned discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans Increased funding for the FBI’s Tech Support Center. Assured military assistance for enforcement of prohibition in emergencies.

5. Title I Continued Expanded National Electronic Crime Task Force Initiative Increased Presidential Authority.

6. Provisions of the Act  Title II- Enhanced Surveillance Procedures  Title III-International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-terrorist Financing Act of 2001.  Title IV-Protecting the border.  Title V-Removing obstacles to investigating terrorism.  Title VI-Providing for victims of terrorism, public safety officers, and their families.

7. Provisions of the Act  Title VII- Increased information sharing for critical infrastructure protection.  Title VIII- Strengthening the criminal laws against terrorism.  Title IX- Improved Intelligence  Title X-Miscellaneous.

8. Provisions of the Act  Title II- Enhanced Surveillance Procedures Grants authority to law enforcement agencies to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism, computer fraud, or computer abuse offenses. Also grants authority for various agencies to share criminal investigative information.

9. Criticism of the Act  Expands Executive Branch and takes away some checks-and-balances.  Major criticism of the Act alludes to civil rights and liberties violations. Mostly stemming from concerns over Title II. Concerning the right to privacy, and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

10. Title II  Encouraged hiring of translators by the FBI.  Increased duration of FIFSA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power.  Allows for seizure of voicemail messages pursuant of warrants.  Also allows for emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect life and limb.

11. Title II  Allows for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant.  Immunity for compliance with FISA.

12. Key Court Cases  Doe and ACLU v. Ashcroft et. Al, 2004/Doe v. Gonzales. Ruled that the provision in the Patriot Act that allows the government to issue National Security letters in order to obtain customer records from ISPs or other businesses is unconstitutional. ○ Violates both 1 st and 4 th amendments. Also states that “gag” provision is too broad and creates a restraint on free speech. Government amended the law to include limited judicial review but that was rejected in D v. G.

13. Key Court Cases  Mayfield v. United States (2007) Ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act allows for searches without meeting the requirements of the 4 th Amendment (unconstitutional)

14. Key Court Cases  Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project Challenges the constitutionality of the provision that makes it a crime to provide material support to groups deemed terrorist- related. The Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear the case, the first time any part of the PATRIOT Act has been scrutinized by the High Court.

15. Policy Recommendation  Narrow the language in the Act to specify under which circumstances surveillance and wire-tapping measures are acceptable, as well as restrain the gag provision to more specific standards.  Incorporate Judicial Review.

16. Reasoning/Pro’s of Recommendation  The broad language of the PATRIOT Act leaves a fair amount of interpretation to law enforcement agencies, creating large concern for the potential for abuse and misuse.  There would be greater public support and less scrutiny if when renewed, the provisions had specific criteria in order which surveillance and wire-tapping are legitimate methods.

17.  Having more judicial review will also help. If routine and done in the right manner, it will create a less high-profile atmosphere and will help curb abuse.

18. Cons of Recommendation  Being specific limits flexibility. We’re dealing with a form of terrorism that is based on irregularity, unpredictability, and the idea of catching the target off guard. Trying to limit how we catch terrorists in a small, regulated box when they have no set face, pattern, or mechanism is a very tricky move.

19.  Opening up information about persons of interest or surveillance information to the courts creates a level of publicity undesirable to law-enforcement and intelligence agencies. Their job is to work in secret. Trying to pick up “chatter” is only going to work if terrorists do not know you are listening.

20. Success of the PATRIOT ACT  Up to date, there have been approximately 18 terror plots discovered and foiled against the United States since 2001.  Most recently, in September a 24 year old man from Colorado was arrested. He is accused of plotting to use explosive devices against the United States.

21. Bottom Line  Ideally, if there was a way to ensure that American citizens civil rights and liberties are being protected without drastically reigning in the allowance of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to use more secretive methods of surveillance, that would be preferred.  Highly unlikely to make everyone happy, “nature of the beast.”

22. Conclusion  3 Provisions of the PATRIOT Act are due for re-authorization by the end of the year. It is expected that there will be considerable amending.  With more cases against the Patriot Act pending, including the Supreme Court hearing, more has to be done to clarify the language and assure Americans their rights are being looked after.

23. Conclusion  Narrowing the circumstances will make it more challenging for agencies to be effective and force them to be creative within the law.  However, the alternative is drawing negative attention by appearing to violate the constitution. Could be a hindrance… if they arrest a suspect and it appears they did not do so legally, the suspect will be freed.

24. Works Cited  Boyer, Paul S.. "USA PATRIOT ACT." The Oxford Companion to United States History. High Beam Research. 3 Dec. 2009.  "Colorado Man, Father Arrested in Terror PRobe." CNN.com. 20 Sep. 2009. 4 Dec. 2009..  Grabianowski, Ed. "How The Patriot Act Works." HowStuffWorks. 2 Dec. 2009..  "Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project." Washington Legal Foundation. 2 Dec. 2009..  "In ACLU Case, Federal Court Strikes Down Patriot Act Surveillance Power As Unconstitutional." ACLU: Because Freedom Can't Fight For Itself. 24 Sep. 2009. 3 Dec. 2009..

25. Works Cited  >. "Judge Rules Part of Patriot Act Unconstitutional." MSNBC.com. 27 Sep. 2009. 2 Dec. 2009..  "Mayfield v. United States of America." Integrative Center for Homeland Security. 4 Oct. 2007. 2 Dec. 2009..  "Two Patriot Act Provisions Ruled Unlawful." Corrente Wire. 27 Sep. 2007..  United States. Cong. House. H.R. 3162. 110th Cong., 2nd sess. Terrorism. 13 Oct. 2001. 2 Dec. 2009.  Wentworth, Donna. "ACLU & Doe v. Ashcroft - the Good Bits." Electronic Frontier Foundation. 5 Oct. 2004. 2 Dec. 2009.