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.
~~
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.
3 comments:
Im not sure I understand this point of the argument here? Is it that the Act allows different branches to discuss information to better connect information? Im sorry I'm a little confused.
If I understand correctly, I agree with your stance on this issue. I didn't realize it was that difficult to get information together and to wiretap a phonecall. This certainly changes my opinion on the argument; I had been a bit skeptical before. Everything is very well written, and I will check back to make sure I understood everything correctly after you explain it to Erica. Good luck
Yup, you were right, my second argument is that the act is good because of the information sharing provisions it provides, allowing departments and branches of government to more effectively share information.
I'm not sure if that helped, but let me know?
Post a Comment