Homeworks academic writing service

The constitutional nature of the usa patriot act

The Gallup Organization The court was a compromise between those who wanted to leave U. But because the agencies are not investigating domestic crime, they do not have to meet the probable cause standard.

They only have to certify that the purpose of the investigation is to track a foreign government or agent. They do not have to report to the court on the results of the surveillance. The court meets in secret with only government representatives present and has never denied an intelligence agency's application for a search warrant. The Patriot Act expands all these exceptions to the probable-cause requirement.

Section 215 of the act permits the FBI to go before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for an order to search for "any tangible things" connected to a terrorism suspect. The order would be granted as long as the FBI certifies that the search is "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities [spying]. The Patriot Act now authorizes this court to issue search orders directed at any U.

Such activities may, in part, even involve First Amendment protected acts such as participating in non-violent public protests. In Section 215, "any tangible things" may include almost any kind of property--such as books, documents, and computers. The FBI may also monitor or seize personal records held by public libraries, bookstores, medical offices, Internet providers, churches, political groups, universities, and other businesses and institutions.

The Patriot Act prohibits third parties served with Section 215 orders such as Internet providers and public librarians to inform anyone that the FBI has conducted a search of their records. Section 216 of the Patriot Act extends pen-trap orders to include e-mail and web browsing.

Patriot Act: A civil liberties breach or a foreign policy necessity?

The FBI can ask Internet service providers to turn over a log of the web sites a person visits and the addresses of e-mail coming to and from the person's computer.

Another area of concern is Section 213 of the Patriot Act. It authorizes so-called "sneak- and-peek" searches for all federal criminal investigations. When applying for a search warrant, officers may show that there is "reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification. The FBI says these searches may be necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence or to keep from jeopardizing an ongoing secret investigation.

  • The only requirement for these provisions is that orders from secret federal courts are required;
  • Ashcroft and the Assault on Personal Freedom;
  • After all, terrorists carry out criminal acts for ideological reasons;
  • Public opinion has consistently supported the Patriot Act;
  • This bill was carefully drafted and considered;
  • We will use every available statute.

In response to criticism of the act, Congress may be having some second thoughts. The House of Representatives voted 309-118 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 2003 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 21 percent responded that it goes too far.

  • The debate was not simply theoretical;
  • The ongoing issue for Barack Obama, at least internationally, is that America is a member of the United Nations, having signed the prerequisite document the Charter of the United Nations.

Fifty-five percent said it is about right, and 19 percent answered that it does not go far enough. In June 2003, the attorney general called for another law to further strengthen the powers of law enforcement to fight terrorists.

It violates the the Fourth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

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 215 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. The basic question that the court will have to answer is: What is the proper balance between national security and protecting individual rights?

It is unconstitutional

Do you think participants in public protests could ever be accused of "domestic terrorism" under this definition? Why or why not?

  • Yet the beginnings of the movement were modest;
  • Its president Nadine Strossen delcares:

The Justice Department has proposed that the government should be able to ask a court to revoke the citizenship of any American who provides "material support" to terrorists. Do you support the proposal? Below are two famous quotations.

What do they mean? Which, if any, do you agree with? Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Jackson, dissenting in Terminiello v. City of Chicago 1949 For Further Reading.