In response to criticism of the act, Congress may be having some second thoughts. The House of Representatives voted to repeal "sneak-and-peek" searches. This is a comprehensive bill, addressing a number of issues related to the Patriot Act.
One part of the Murkowski-Wyden bill would limit "sneak and peek" searches. Those whose homes or offices had been searched under "sneak and peek" would have to be notified within seven calendar days. Public opinion has consistently supported the Patriot Act. An August Gallup Poll asked whether the Patriot Act goes too far, is about right, or doesn't go far enough in restricting people's civil liberties. Only 22 percent responded that it goes too far.
Forty-eight percent said it is about right, and 21 percent answered that it does not go far enough. In June , the attorney general called for another law to further strengthen the powers of law enforcement to fight terrorists.
Called "Patriot Act II" by critics, the proposed new law would, among other things, enable the government to ask a court to revoke the citizenship of any American who provides "material support" to terrorists. The courts are just beginning to review the constitutionality of the Patriot Act.
The suit argues that these searches violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures as well as First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. Section is likely to chill lawful dissent. If people think that their conversations, their emails, and their reading habits are being monitored, people will feel less comfortable saying what they think—especially if they disagree with government policies.
She said there was no reason for anyone to feel "afraid to read books" or "terrified into silence. Supreme Court. The basic question that the court will have to answer is: What is the proper balance between national security and protecting individual rights?
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. There is danger that, if the [Supreme Court] does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.
Jackson dissenting in Terminiello v. City of Chicago By Mary Minow, an attorney and former librarian. Security vs. Flashpoints: In Focus: Patriot Act. The Senate agreed on the changes the following day, with just one dissenting vote and one nonvoting member. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on October 26, The Patriot Act, by amending old legislation and incorporating new provisions, has expanded greatly the authority of federal officials.
In addition, executive orders and related legislation have further expanded federal power in the fight against terrorism. The act and its ancillaries aid federal authorities in their efforts to close off U. Its passage has resulted in new procedures and penalties to combat domestic and international terrorism. The definitions of crimes, such as terrorist attacks on mass transportation facilities, biological weapons offenses, the harboring of terrorists, and assisting terrorists with material or financial support, have found specific delineation within the law.
Typically, the act supplemented existing laws and increased the penalties connected to them. For example, the act provided for the establishment of alternative maximum sentences for acts of terrorism and raised the penalty for conspiracy to perpetrate an act of terrorism against the United States. The Patriot Act has been cloaked in controversy almost since its inception, with parties on both sides of the debate claiming that the measures within the act lean to one extreme or the other.
Critics do not agree: either the provisions are not doing enough or they go too far and infringe upon civil liberties and First Amendment rights. Several of the law's surveillance sections expired on December 31, , although these were extended through March 10, Congress reauthorized the Patriot Act with little reform. For example, Section requires the FBI to apply to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain an order for the production of business records.
The FBI must only specify that the records pertain to a foreign intelligence investigation, a vague and broad concept.
The judge is required to issue the order after the FBI makes this specification, making the judicial review a mere formality than actual oversight. Myth: Critics believe that the Patriot Act authorized federal law enforcement power to arrest and indefinitely detain material witnesses. Reality: Federal law enforcement is abusing the current material witness statute, which the Patriot Act did not amend, to improperly detain ""material witnesses"" and failing to provide these detainees their rights in accordance with criminal statutes.
The material witness statute[14] was used prior to the Patriot Act and authorizes the federal government to arrest a witness if the government demonstrates in an affidavit to a federal district court that the witness has testimony that is material to a criminal proceeding and ""it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena.
A court may authorize the arrest of a witness who will likely flee if subpoenaed or will otherwise avoid testifying in a criminal proceeding and if it accepts the affidavit demonstrating that the witness has ""material"" information to the criminal proceeding. The government following September 11, however, has used this material witness statute to detain individuals whom the government believes has information concerning a terrorist investigation.
It has failed to provide them their rights to counsel, an initial hearing to determine whether the individual poses a flight risk,[16] and prevented the individuals from contacting family members that they have been arrested.
Most of these ""material witnesses"" have not been charged with any crime and were proven innocent. Myth: Critics are irresponsibly calling for the repeal of the Patriot Act. Reality: Most responsible critics do not call for the repeal of the Patriot Act. They believe that parts of the Patriot Act are necessary but they support including amendments to the Patriot Act that will restore reasonable checks and balances that will protect civil liberties while ensuring our national security.
Such amendments include making explicit that a recipient of a national security letter has the right to file a motion to quash the records demand. They support amendments to the statute to time limit the non-disclosure of receiving a national security letter or a section court order, and to exempt attorney-client communications from the ""gag"" rule. Attorney General Gonzales stated he also supports such amendments.
Reality: This statement is inaccurate. Two sections of the Patriot Act have been declared unconstitutional. In Doe v. Ashcroft , a federal district court struck down a ""national security letter"" records power expanded by the section a of the Patriot Act, noting that the failure to provide any explicit right for a recipient to challenge a such a broad national security letter search order power violated the Fourth Amendment.
It also held that the automatic rule that the recipient can tell no one that the recipient has received the order or letter, including any attorney with whom they may want to consult, violated the First Amendment.
Judge Marrero, who handed down the decision, noted as an example of the kind of abuse now authorized by the statute that it could be used to issue a NSL to obtain the name of a person who has posted a blog critical of the government, or to obtain a list of the people who have e-mail accounts with a given political organization.
Doe struck down in its entirety the national security letter statute that was amended by the Patriot Act, rendering all of section a inoperative if the decision is upheld on appeal. In Humanitarian Law Project v. Ashcroft ,[18] the court held that specific phrases in Title 18 Section A, as amended by the Patriot Act section a 2 B , violated First Amendment free speech rights and Fifth Amendment due process rights. Section A criminalizes providing "material support or resources" to terrorists and defines material support as including, inter alia, "expert advice or assistance.
The court agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that the phrase ""expert advice or assistance"" was vague and it prohibited protect speech activities, such as distributing human rights literature or consulting with an attorney.
Moreover, the court held that the phrase violated due process by failing to give proper notice of what type of conduct was prohibited. Comey, Deputy Attorney General, U. Department of Justice [hereinafter Comey Testimony June 8, ]. Department of Justice at 11[hereinafter Comey Written Statement ]. Libraries are key sources of information for their communities.
What can you do next? Standards The standards under which the FBI can obtain library records in the course of an investigation are slightly more stringent under the new law.
Individualized Suspicion The reauthorized statute brings in SAFE Act language regarding individualized suspicion, but it does not require the FBI to show such individualized suspicion and so it leaves the door open to wide search order requests.
The law now says that the records sought will be "presumptively relevant" i. Further, there is now no requirement that a recipient of a Section order inform the FBI of the identity of an attorney to whom disclosure was or will be made. But, upon the request of the Director of the FBI, a recipient is required to identify anyone besides an attorney to whom a disclosure is made or will be made.
Challenges The reauthorization legislation allows a recipient to challenge a Section order. The reauthorization legislation also allows a Section order recipient to challenge the gag order attached to the subpoena. But recipients may challenge only after one year. And the FISA judge may only overturn the gag if:. The certification of the government to these possibilities is to be taken as conclusive.
These reports will include information on the total number of orders either granted, modified, or denied when the application or order involved the production of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists; as well as firearm sales records; tax return records; educational records; or medical records containing information that would identify a person.
Following the language of the SAFE Act, the law now says that if the Director of the FBI or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at the Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director , certifies that disclosure of a National Security Letter would harm national security, interfere with an investigation, interfere with diplomatic relations, or endanger life or physical safety, receipt of the Letter may not be disclosed to other than those persons to whom disclosure is necessary to comply with such order, or to an attorney to obtain legal advice or assistance with respect to the request.
Persons to whom disclosure is made are subject to the same non-disclosure provisions. Penalties include a prison term of up to 5 years. District Court. The statute now allows a challenge to the gag order in a U. Enforcement The law allows the government to go to a U.
District Court to seek enforcement of the NSL, makes violation of the enforcement order punishable as contempt, and states that the court must close any contempt hearing to the extent necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a request.
In spite of years of work done by ALA members, our allies in the civil liberties arena, and dedicated Members of Congress, the legislation does not include most of the meaningful reforms we hoped would restore the privacy rights of America's library users. The Senators who voted against the flawed reauthorization bill are: Sen.
Akaka D-HI Sen. Bingaman D-NM Sen.
0コメント