Saturday, March 29, 2008

The Rant

As you may have begun to gather I believe that a basic level of political awareness is important not only as a responsible member of a democracy but also so as to be educated about your own rights should a time come when you believe them to be questioned. In contrast to my belief, however, a general political apathy in recent years has caused the continued success of sensational and irresponsible journalism and a general lack of knowledge as to current legislation. The Patriot Act has fallen victim repeatedly to such media and, in the mass fear and paranoia of a post-9/11 world, myth concerning the piece of legislation is difficult to discern from fact.
~~
When looking for sources for my research this became painfully obvious. Speeches at well-respected venues from well-respected speakers directly countered each other, even when in reference to the same section of legislation. Careful detective work, however, has made it clear that the restrictions so quickly ignored by the media are, in fact, there. The Patriot Act is not the all encompassing, Big Brother-esque piece of legislation that the mass media has created and popular culture spoofs. Instead, the Act is merely a continuation of older laws, clarification of outdated laws and creation of newer laws and harsher penalties that are necessary to deal with the greater technology available. As this is only a rant I will spare you many of the specific citations or legal technicalities available: but it must be noted that probably cause and court orders are still necessary in order to utilize any of the tools authorized in the Patriot Act. Of these tools of communication, surveillance and law enforcement one would be hard pressed to find a 'new' right of law enforcement not previously used during the "War on Drugs." Instead, the Patriot Act merely allows the same tools that are publicly accepted and worldly used to follow organized crime and the drug trade to protect the American public against terrorism, the most immediate threat to the safety of American lives and property. (The September 11 attacks can not be overlooked. Such terrorist attacks, which were previously though impossible on American soil, show the danger that an unaware and unprotected country could find themselves in.)
~~
This is not to say that the cautions of those people against the Patriot Act are not valid. It is the cautions of such civil rights groups that will be the prime tool in preventing abuse of power where it may lie and encouraging and stimulating the creation of new legislation to protect the public. When the sensationalism of an often biased media prevents the public from becoming educated about such legislation, however, one may find that the 'mass fear' that some accuse the Patriot Act of causing is merely internal.

Just the Facts

Ten Strong Facts to Support my Argument.
  1. The Patriot Act allows wiretap and grand jury information to be shared within law enforcement offices, even if developed through a special court hearing. Probable cause, a judge, and the signed consent of the attorney general and the FBI are still all needed.
  2. The Patriot Act contains a provision explicitly prohibiting discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans.
  3. Section 801 makes it a federal offense to engage in attacks against mass transportation systems. Previously, as there was no specific laws, punishment against such an attack was vague or weak.
  4. All of the tools granted by the Patriot Act require a court order.
  5. Any of the surveillance tools of the Patriot Act also requires special permission from a FISA court. (Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act)
  6. The Justice Department is required to provide Congress with detailed reports of its usage of Patriot Act tools every six months.
  7. To date no congressional committee has found any evidence that law enforcement has abused the powers in the Patriot Act. The ACLU was unable to find one incidence of reported abuse of the Patriot Act. (The American Civil Liberties Union is one of the most powerful and extensive national civilian watchdog groups in the country.)
  8. Section 211 clarifies the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, by allowing Internet providers to provide law enforcement officials about users Internet usage habits without fear of a civil suit. This right was previously unavailable, which lead to cohesion and fear on behalf of business owners to participate in criminal investigations.
  9. After the Patriot Act was passed field guidance trained in the laws powers and checks went to US attorney offices about how best to utilize the Patriot Act. Over the next several years additional guidance and training was sent to lawyers across the lawyers.
  10. Section 18 USC 2339A and 2339B make it a crime to provide material support to terrorists or terrorist organizations and carries enhanced penalties. Section 411 clearly lists 46 entities that are to be recognized as terrorist organizations and the Patriot Act specifically limits the crimes of Section 18 to these terrorist organizations. (The bigger deal with this fact- it would be impossible under the Patriot Act to discriminate against in-country, civilian organizations, as some claimed would occur)

I tried to pick out a selection of ten facts that would show a well0rounded view of the Patriot Act. Let me know what you think!

Monday, March 24, 2008

What the Experts Say

Subtopic One: Removed Restrictions on the Ability for Law Enforcement to Gather Intelligence
1. John Ashcroft: "It allows law enforcement to use proven tactic long used in the fight against organized crime and drug dealers."
2. Alice Fisher (Deputy Attorney General): "... the Act has removed many restrictions on law enforcement's ability to gather intelligence through physical searches, wiretaps, electronic surveillance, and increased access to criminal records."
3. Kevin V. Ryan: "... the Patriot Act ensured that investigators could use the same tools in terrorism cases that have been available for many years in drug, fraud and racketeering cases."

Subtopic Two: Information Sharing Provisions are Necessary for Efficient Information Flow
4. John Ashcroft: "... law enforcement can share information and cooperate better with each other. From prosecutors to intelligence agents, the Act allows law enforcement to 'connect the dots.' "
5. President Bush: "You cannot fight the war on terror unless all bodies of your government at federal, state and local levels are capable of sharing intelligence on a real time basis."

Subtopic Three: Strengthened Penalties for Crimes of Terror
6. President Bush: "The Patriot Act strengthened the penalties for crimes committed by terrorists, such as arsons, or attacks on power plants and mass transit systems. In other words, we needed to get-- we needed to send a signal..."
7. Alice Fisher: "... the USA Patriot Act substantially strengthened criminal law, helping us pursue criminals in the most extensive criminal investigation in history."
8. Alice Fisher: "It is not a crime for anyone subject to US jurisdiction to provide anything of value-- including their own efforts or expertise-- to organizations designated as 'foreign terrorist organizations.'

Subtopic Four (Counterargument): Features Court Tested Safeguards
9. John Ashcroft (Attorney General): "The Act uses court-tested safegaurds and time-honored ideas to aid against terrorism, while protected the rights and lives of citizens."
10. John Ashcroft: "The Patriot Act grants the executive branch critical tools in the war on terrorism. It provides the legislative branch extensive oversight. It honors the judicial branch with court supervision over the Act's most important powers."
11. Senator Dianne Feinstein recently said, quote, "I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me. My staff emailed the ACLU and asked them for instances of actual abuses. They emailed back and said that they had none."

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Discussion of Secondary Argument

As my secondary argument I will be discussing the various information sharing provisions that the Patriot Act provides.
~~
What must be kept in mind when looking at the new information sharing provisions are that they are largely based on previous laws set up during Nixon's "War on Drugs" and established to help counter organized crime mobs. While the laws for information sharing on drug and mafia cases were reasonably clearly defined rules for inter-department or government level communications had never been established for suspected terrorist cases, and some 'walls' in this communication made it almost impossible for different branches of government to communicate. For example, during one notable case after the first World Trade Center bombing (1993) the FBI was able to talk to police, foreign officials, victims and even the bombers, but was unable to collaborate with other agencies working on terrorism, which largely halted the investigations.
~~
What the Patriot Act did, therefore, was to help break down some of these communications barriers and make it easier for the different levels of government and law enforcement to collaborate and share information. For example, whereas previously a local authority with a suspicion about a terrorist threat may have had difficulty lawfully contacting federal authorities the Patriot Act makes this transaction easier and less liable to civil lawsuit. Similarly, the Patriot Act allows sharing of evidence, obtained through such technology as wiretaps, or grand jury information, to be shared even if developed through a special court warrant, which for obvious reasons would allow for more efficient cycling of information. There rules differ from ones I mentioned in my previous post, they do not necessarily make it easier for law enforcement officials to get information, not do they allow them to over-extend their power, but the laws instead allow an accurate, reliable system of communications.
~~
The benefits of these new rules are somewhat self-evident, without proper communications on all levels investigators could have no hope to 'connect-the-dots.' The primary argument, once again, seems to lie upon misinformation. The laws that eased sharing of communications, as I said earlier, did not necessarily ease law enforcement's ability to get this information: probable cause, a judge, a high ranking FBI agent and an attorney general are all still needed to share wire tap or grand jury information.

Discussion of the Strongest Argument

As you have probably gathered, I will be arguing the 'pro' Patriot Act side of the argument as to whether the Patriot Act was (and is) a necessary piece of legislation and whether or not it takes away civil liberties.
~~
My first argument, and the strongest, is that the Patriot Act removes restrictions from government officials about gaining intelligence in order to combat the terrorist threat. High ranking government officials are now able to issue Security letters, which provides them with Internet and phone usage information, financial records, credit information and travel records that may cue them into terrorist activities or connections. The groups and people that can have access to these letters are reasonably small, and judge's go-ahead is still needed.
~~
Another way in which the Patriot Act allows government officials to more easily access information is by making the laws for gathering intelligence on terrorist activity more similar to the laws used for gathering information on the fight against illegal drugs, through the use of such technology as roving wire taps. (Authorities can adjust wire taps to what the person is using at that time. For example, rules for wiretaps used to mandate that authorities would need to get a new warrant for each new phone that the individual used. The law was update to that used for the war on drugs, that authorities can use a single warrant for all of the communicative media the person chooses to use.)
~~
Similarly, the Patriot Act allows for nationwide search warrants, another tool that was previously used in the war on drugs, to help expedite the time officials spent obtaining warrants. Previously, officials would need to apply for a new warrant each time their suspect entered a new jurisdiction, but the Patriot Act took away this need.
~~
In addition to these two specific examples the Patriot Act also incorporates several other laws to update the laws on terrorism to modern technology. Many of the laws had been made many years ago, and did not account for the large expanse of communication media that would become available. The Patriot Act helps to modernize these laws in reference to terrorism, and clarifies the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
~~
It must be kept in mind when considering these increases in the ability of the government to get information that judicial review is still required for a vast majority of the legal tools granted by the Patriot Act, and that probable cause is still needed for wiretaps and searches.
~~
Sorry this was late, I was sick yesterday! If you have any questions let me know!

Monday, March 17, 2008

EXTRA POST

It has come to my attention that, for those of you reading my post, it may be easier to understand the pro-con arguments with a basic, non-biased description of the major aspects of the Patriot Act itself. As I am neither a lawyer, nor have I had the time or training to read through the over three hundred pages of the Patriot Act, I am taking most of this research from various Congressional Summaries, which were used by politicians when voting for the act.
~~
The major aspects of the Patriot Act, and the ones that invoked the most controversy (therefore the ones I will be focusing on) are:
~a three tiered system to allow federal officials to gather intelligence (much of this portion is based off former laws which allowed the gathering of intelligence in the 'War on Drugs')
~an easing on some of the restrictions on gathering intelligence in the United States
~harsher penalties for money laundering and supporting terrorist organizations
~provisions designed to prevent alien terrorists from entering the United States
~the creation of new crimes and more clearly defined punishments for terrorist activity
~~
If you are feeling either particularly motivated or particularly bored, I will attach at the bottom of this post a link to a short congressional summary of the Patriot Act.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf

Positive v. Negative Arguments

Because the Patriot Act is such a long and complicated piece of legislation with such a potentially broad influence there are hundreds of arguments employed by both 'sides' dealing with the Act's necessity.
~~
Those opposing the Patriot Act believe, primarily, that the act grants the government, specifically the executive branch and law enforcement agencies, new and unnecessary powers. They believe that these powers are part of an effort to tip the scale of checks-and-balances to the side of the executive branch and to diminish the power of the judicial system. The second main argument against the Patriot Act is that the wording of 'domestic terrorism' used throughout the act is too general, and can therefore be too widely interpreted. They believe that this term could be used to include any type of speaking out against the government and could be abused to silence people's first amendment rights.
~~
In support of the Patriot Act I found an even greater array of arguments. Many proponents of the act believe that the information sharing provisions of the Act are necessary for efficient information flow, and that this information flow will lead to more success in inter-department communications. The second argument in favor of the Patriot Act is that it strengthens penalties for crimes of terror, and defines terrorism that has previously been undefined. The third primary argument is that the act removes burdensome restrictions on the ability to gather intelligence pertaining to past or planned terrorist activity, through features such as roving wire taps and nationwide search warrants. Similarly, many proponents of the Patriot Act believe that the Act will modernize the fight on terror and allow law enforcement officials to more appropriately counter terrorism with techniques and technology used by terrorists.
~~
For my research paper I will be discussing the "pro" side of the Patriot Act argument. I will be arguing this side because not only does it fit in more accurately with my personal beliefs but because I was able to find more quantified information of benefits of the Patriot Act then detriments of it.