Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:Jazzman831/liberalism

2007-09-05T00:21:11Z

Jazzman831: New page: <center>Liberalism in International Politics: An Essay and Lesson Written by JazzMan (Work in progress)</center> T...

<center>Liberalism in International Politics: 
An Essay and Lesson
Written by [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] (Work in progress)</center>

This essay is a defence of the international politics definition of ''liberal'', and how it applies to the United Nations. Ideally I can use this essay to petition the definition's inclusion into the article on [[liberalism]], but I won't hold my breath. The definition upon which this essay is predicated is as follows:

:''In [[international politics]], liberal is a term which describes an [[actor]] whose foreign policy methods are focused on institutions and [[international law]]s instead of [[political power]]. They believe that there is a complex [[interdependence]] between states, and that there is no hierarchy of importance among international issues. The [[United Nations]] is an example of a liberal political organization.''

:''The opposite of a liberal is a [[realist]].''

Talk:Innocence Project

2007-09-04T21:09:18Z

Jazzman831: I think I took a sarcasm pill or something. I just can't stop myself today!

I'm tempted to remove that whole second paragraph. It's obviously there to slam the innocence project. Anyone second me? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:15, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:The Innocence Project is a [[liberal]] facet of the ultra-liberal [[University of Wisconsin]]. As such, it deserves to be slammed. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 17:02, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

::Ah yes, this is a very productive way to run an encyclopedia. Thanks for the clarification, Huey. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:09, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

Actor

2007-09-04T19:31:57Z

Jazzman831: bold subject, minor changes

An '''actor''' (male) or '''actress''' (female) is a person assumes a role for the purpose of entertaining others, through a [[television]] show, a [[radio]] broadcast, a stage play, or a [[movie]], among others.

Actors are highly respected in American [[popular culture]], and the details of their lives closely scrutinized, some say to the point of absurdity, by the [[paparazzi]]. By comparison, actors in [[Ancient Rome|Ancient Roman]] society occupied a very low rung on the social ladder.

[[category:Artists]]

Talk:Patriot Act

2007-09-04T19:24:54Z

Jazzman831: /* Sunset clauses */

[[Image:Costoffreedom2.gif|center|300px]]
 
Not only was the following obviously a direct uncited quotation, a Yahoo! search revealed it to be from wikipedia! You'd think the Patriot Act page would be as closely followed as the page on [[Theory of Evolution|evolution]] or [[unicorn]]s!!

<blockquote>
On March 9, 2007, a Justice Department audit found that the FBI had "improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA Patriot Act to secretly obtain personal information" about United States citizens. [1]

On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused a Patriot Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.[2]

On April 6, 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the FBI over the USA PATRIOT Act's authority to demand that a business hand over records that may contain private financial or business information that is not pertinent to an ongoing investigation. The specific action in question was the request of the FBI for the account information for users of an Internet service provider.

Citing possible secrecy provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Department of Justice prevented the ACLU from releasing the text of a countersuit for three weeks. [4] After judicial and congressional oversight, sections of the countersuit that did not violate secrecy rules of the USA PATRIOT Act were released.

The lawsuit filed by the ACLU was dropped on October 27, 2006. ACLU stated it is withdrawing the lawsuit because of improvements to the law. "While the reauthorized Patriot Act is far from perfect, we succeeded in stemming the damage from some of the Bush administration's most reckless policies," Ann Beeson, associate legal director of the ACLU.

In June 2005, the United States House of Representatives voted to repeal the Patriot Act provision that allows federal agents to examine people's book-reading habits at public libraries and bookstores as part of terrorism investigations.[5]
</blockquote>
[[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:58, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:Can you specifiy what the difference is between "the Bush administration's most reckless policies," and a Law past by the Legislative Branch. The above appears to be little more than twisted, veiled, and distorted criticism of the Bush administration. If the Bush administration were not enforcing a law passed by the Congress, that would be grounds for legitimate criticism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:53, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

::I take no responsibility for the content in the above statement. It was copied from Wikipedia onto this article and all I did was remove it from our page. I believe that part about the Bush administration has also since been removed from the Wikipedia article. Even so, I wouldn't get too riled up about the comment; it's so non specific Ms. Beeson really could have been talking about anything. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 15:24, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Good job. If it wasn't so subtle, this would probably be a good example for [[Bias in Wikipedia]], but it would take more words to explain the subtlelty than the subtlelty itself. 16:16, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

==Entering homes==

Cut from article:

:The act took away civil liberties law enforcement may enter a persons place of business or home without a warrant. We all know without a warrent it is unconstitutional to enter someones private property. Also the owner doesnt have to know about the search or invasion of his/her home or business

This needs references. What is your source? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:As much as I dislike the Patriot Act, that quotation is either vandalism or a misunderstanding of how the act works. The Act allows, under very specific circumstances, so-called "sneak and peek" warrants, which are exactly as they sound. Law enforcement ''does'' need a warrant, but the suspect doesn't know about the search (until a certain time after the fact). These are performed when notifying the subject of the warrant could seriously hamper the investigation.

:Later tonight (too burnt out from school right this moment) I will integrate the research paper I did on the Patriot Act last semester into this article. For now, the above explanation should suffice. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::Done and done. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:20, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Correct name==
I think this should this be moved to [[Patriot Act]] (for capitalization purposes) or [[USA PATRIOT Act]] (for complete name purposes). To me it makes more sense to have the full article at its correct name and then make [[Patriot act]] a redirect. Opinions? [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 16:47, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*I'm confused.....didn't you feel the movement? :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::Smooth work, TK my man. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 16:51, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:<edit conflict> I vote for '''USA PATRIOT Act of 2001''', which is technically it's full name. However, this link is really ugly, and most people won't know to use it. I'm not sure what our priorities are (or what theys should be). If we want clarity, we should stick with what we have; if we want technical correctness, we should move it to the most correct form. (Well technically '''Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001''' is the most correct, but that just breaches some boundaries of sensible practicality!!) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:55, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*Usually the guideline would be accuracy coupled with common usage of the subject used for searching. "Patriot Act" would seem to me to be the common use. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:15, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Gotcha. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:20, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

Rob, it's clear you aren't reading my sources before you change my work. The Patriot Act was one of the fastest bills passed through Congress. Period. Other people have in the past proposed measures which were included in the bill, but those have no bearing on how fast ''this act'' was passed. Additionally, Ashcroft wanted the bill "passed by the end of the week" not "considered immediately". You are being overly hostile to my edits for not having actually read their source. Additionally, you are assuming bad faith on all my edits.

I know Ed Poor or TK will pop up and tell me I shouldn't edit if I don't want them reviewed relentlessly, but it's clear you have a vendetta against me and it's also clear you haven't read the source material. If you want to push away a good faith editor you are doing a great job (here and on other articles). Here's a quotation for you:

:"When Attorney General ''John Ashcroft asked for the new law enforcement powers Sept. 19 — calling on Congress to clear a bill by the end of that week'' — Republicans and Democrats alike balked. The proposal ''included'' powers that the Justice Department had sought ''unsuccessfully for years''." (Emphasis added).

Ashcroft pushed these measures, and asked it to be passed in less than a week. He still today takes credit for the Patriot Act; I saw him speak last year.

I'm not sure why you think it's such a bad thing that Bush might have written part of the Patriot Act (Conservapedia is in favor of GWB, correct?) but I don't remember which source I pulled that from right now. I'll leave that but correct the parts supported above. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:46, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
:Nice try JazzMan, but the quote above is absolutlely meaningless without authorship. Now, let's start from the beginning, give the identity of authors and the source language for any reversion I make that you wish to argue over. Thank you.

:P.S.: I'd advise against throwing around personal references such as you do above, (terms like "vendetta", or accusing people of lack of good faith; frankly, it is a waste of time, and does not address the issues under consideration whatsoever). Thank you again. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:57, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

::There's a reference right on the page!! It's the little [1] that links down to the bottom of the page. If I understand correctly, it's the same thing we do on every single page of this website.

::P.S.: I wouldn't have to throw around personal references if I didn't truely believe that you are trying as hard as you can to prove I'm a Marxist who's been indocrinated by Marxist professors (which you have insinuated several times on [[talk:liberal]]). The coincidence is simply too large to be credible. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:10, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, I saw that. Unfortunely it is the Congressional Quarterly. And unfortunely I have too much first hand knowledge and direct experience with Kathryn Wolfe [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=Kathryn+Wolfe%2BCongressional+Quarterly&btnG=Search] and her anonymous editing and conflict of interest as Wikipedia Admin User:Katefan0. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=katefan0%2BKathryn+Wolfe%2BCongressional+Quarterly&btnG=Search] So I'm not impressed at all with Congressional Quarterly. It ''still'' needs an authors name attached to it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:15, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

::::It's hard to keep track of who you guys don't like around here. There are no listed authors for the source; that's the full reference. Feel free to use your own (references, that is, not memories) if mine aren't good enough. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:13, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::It is and remains a questionable source; don't be surprised if portions are disallowed. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:05, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::So you get to decide what sources are questionable, and you don't have to explain yourself or present any evidence contrary to my assertions? That's the way to foster a productive atmosphere. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:29, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*Here is what actually happened:

Before and just immediately after 9/11, there were many measures before Congress, many at the White House and Justice (some of them remainders from the Clinton Administration) that were intended to deal with improving intelligence gathering, and increase national security. There were hundreds in Congress and the Executive who were already worried about the terrorists before 9/11, you know. In the aftermath of the World Trade Center, Pentagon and the airplane crash in PA, the big guns in Congress, Ashcroft and the people at the White House conducted lots of public and private meetings. Some of what are considered the most draconian components of the final act were included against the wishes of Justice and the White House, and vice-versa. That is how our government and legislative process works, like it or not. To claim Bush or Ashcroft (or even Rove) were the principle authors of the act is utter nonsense. Ashcroft was not alone in asking for the things he did, and had remarkable bi-partisan support in the Congress, mainly because his requests mirrored what was already in introduced or proposed legislation! I was there, and I can tell you there were dozens of really draconian ideas that the Administration and some Congressional leaders insisted be canned, mainly because they would have been hell to implement or administer, or were thought to be ultimately held un-Constitutional. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:34, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

:Amen to this. I heard with my own two ears Newt Gingrich discuss these reforms in 1993, to say it was "rushed through" without much debate and consideration is balderdash. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:05, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
:Also, Ashcroft was doing his job as Attorney General and fiduciary of the public trust; he'd be crtiticized if failed to act in the wake of 9/11. I am rapidly tiring of this approach, that User:Jazzman (and yes, I named Jazzman by name) is using to suggest or imply Ashcroft is the reincarnation of Heinrich Himmler. I am rapidly loosing patience with this garbage. IOW, don't even attempt this crap. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:10, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

::Wow! So I guess when you said personal attacks weren't ok you were being a little [[deceit|dishonest]]? And when you said I shouldn't accuse you of assuming bad faith... it was because you didn't want me to know that you are secretly think that when I said "Ashcroft wrote the Patriot Act" (which he still takes credit for, by the way; I've heard the words out of his own mouth!! I might even have a recording of it somewhere) you thought I ''actually'' meant "Ashcroft is a dirty little neocon fascist"? Or is it that people with power get to make personal remarks, but lowly editors just have to sit there and take it like a fraternity pledge? I mean, I know I'm a Marxist and all (you know, because my user page says I'm the exact opposite, and I've made major contributions to anti-marxists pages, and I've never indicated any Marxist traits whatsoever, and of course, I've made over 1,000 edits to the mainspace and haven't managed to be permabanned -- I've got to be a Marxist!!), but gee, I thought I was still able to make serious edits to the site. Thank you, Rob, for helping me see the light! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:29, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*Even more hilarious is their notion that the POTUS was personally taking pen to paper and writing up the "legislation". Does anyone actually have any idea at all of a President's day, let alone their week, or the way our government works? They really want people to ignore the fact that Pelosi, Boxer, Kennedy and the usual cast couldn't insert enough abridgments to civil rights! Of course they would later claim they didn't want them, so long as they were allowed on the bandwagon when it was expedient to ride it. And later planned on removing the most helpful provisions, the better to appeal to the Internet Liberal nut jobs they count on to spread their filth. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:01, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:TK, I never meant that Bush or Ashcroft *literally* wrote the PA. I'm sorry if it wasn't clear enough, but I thought it was common usage to refer to the head of a government body as the decision-maker. Bush hardly makes any decisions all by himself, and we all know that, but we still say "Bush decided X" because it's more convenient. Feel free to change my wording to be more precise, but I was trying to be more concise. (Heh, I rhymed!). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:29, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
::*Yep, the President who was outdone by Dan Quayle who may actually have been able to spell "potato" given a third chance, now we are to believe can read and write above "My Pet Goat" level. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:36, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*LOL....I almost deleted our "Goat" entry...let's leave the goat references to the moron brigade! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:47, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wiki links.... ==

I haven't looked to see who..but ''whoever'' is, please refrain from just adding linked phrases unless you plan to speedily create articles for them, okay? This article creates way too many red links, and no one is adding the pages for them. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:13, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:It was me. I do plan to create articles for them (see [[User:Jazzman831/redlinks|here]]). But in the meantime, creating a redlink encourages other people to create articles, so I don't have to do it all myself! :p Additionally, not all of them are actually "red links," they just need a redirect. I find it's faster to link them first then check afterwards to see where I need to redirect the link. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:21, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*Well get going! My OCD cannot take much more! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:30, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:Touche! I'm working on it; Sundays are big homework nights... [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:23, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

==Sunset clauses==
Which one do you care to use,
:"The [Clinton] Administration's intelligence authorization legislative proposal '''sought repeal of the existing `sunset' clause, thus making the Secretary's intelligence commercial activities authority permanent.''' Senior officials from both the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency testified to the continuing and growing need for the Secretary to have this authority under certain circumstances to provide bona fide commercial cover that can withstand detailed investigation by hostile foreign intelligence services as well as domestic scrutiny. The conferees agreed to the extension of the authority. However, in view of the lack of a record of use thus far, Section 503 extends the authority for three years, instead of the permanent extension originally sought by the Administration.

*[http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1995_cr/h951220-ia.htm October 11, 1995. Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker, House of Representatives]

:"Sunset" clauses (provisions that phase out or cancel the plan at a specified date in the future), scheduled reviews and updates, and flexible language in the plans are all useful techniques to avoid overly rigid long-range plans.

*Creating Strategic Vision, LONG-RANGE PLANNING FOR NATIONAL SECURITY, Perry M. Smith Jerrold P. Allen John H. Stewart II F. Douglas Whitehouse WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY NEWT GINGR1CH., 1987. [http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Books%20-%201980%20to%201989/Creating%20Strategic%20Vision%20-%20July%2087/CSVLRP.pdf] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:18, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not saying Newt Gingrich didn't use sunset clauses; your sources among countless others show this to be true. Sunset clauses have been around, well, since laws have been around. What I ''am'' saying is that it's a bit of a reach to say that Gingrich (or Gingrich-style reforms) had anything to do with the sunset clauses in the Patriot Act. It's an obvious rhetorical attempt to give conservatives credit for something they didn't do. Liberals are the ones who have problems with parts of the Patriot Act, not conservatives, and it makes the most logical sense for liberals to be the ones to want to add sunset clauses to a bill with such large changes. Liberals are more likely to argue that the act is allowable in an emergency situation and conservatives are more likely to argue that the changes are needed for an ongoing fight with terror. If this isn't the case, and conservatives voluntarily constrained themselves in the spirit of cooperation, it needs to be properly referenced, especially considering there's already (sourced) language in the article which suggests otherwise. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:24, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

Patriot Act

2007-09-04T16:58:07Z

Jazzman831: /* Passage of the Act */ *cough* spin *cough* add wikilink to newest well referenced addition

[[Image:Gwbushsigningpatriotact.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President George Bush signing Patriot Act before Bi-Partisan gathering of Members of Congress]]‎
The '''Patriot Act''' -- The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (more commonly known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 or simply the Patriot Act) -- is an antiterrorism bill written in response to the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]. It was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on October 26th, 45 days after the terrorist attacks. The primary purpose of the bill was to provide [[law enforcement]] with the tools it needs to fight the domestic war on terror. The bill expanded the definitions of other crime-fighting bills to include [[terrorist]]s, it provided funds to the [[Justice Department]] for fighting terrorism, and, made broad changes to [[surveillance]] and intelligence procedures.

==Passage of the Act==
[[United States|Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]] formally proposed the increases in law enforcement powers on September 19th, requesting that they be considered immediately. Bush administration, along with the overwhelming majority of members of Congress, felt these provisions were necessary to prevent any more imminent or future attacks. Many of the proposed powers had been sought by the Justice Department for years (the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] administration, for example, sought but was denied so-called [[roving wiretap]]s – a power that was included in the final bill), but in the wake of a successful attack upon American soil and the demands of the American public for action gave Congress the impeteous to pass the measures. <ref name="CQ">"USA PATRIOT Act, 2001-2002 Legislative Chronology." Congress and the Nation, 2001-2004, vol. 11, pp. 187-8 (Washington: CQ Press, 2006)</ref>

The [[House Judiciary Committee]] debated the proposal for weeks and reached an agreement on October 2nd, with few minor changes. A [[sunset provision]], the hallmark of [[Newt Gingrich|Gingrich]]-style reform, was included requiring renewal of the act within two years. The committee said that it understood the need for expediency, so it would add the sunset clauses to allow debate on the issue when time was not as much of an issue. The administration, however, was worried that the United States would still be fighting the war on terror when the clause came into effect.<ref>Bridis, Ted and Jess Bravin. “White House Seeks to Remove Time Limit On Surveillance Part of Antiterrorism Bill.” The Wall Street Journal, October 5th, 2001, p. A.18</ref>

The Democratically controlled [[United States Senate|Senate]] version of the bill went more in favor of the White House. While the bill was never considered by the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], the committee’s chair [[Patrick J. Leahy]], a [[Democrat]] from [[Vermont]], along with members from both parties met with the Bush Administration to negotiate a bill that the Senate and [[White House]] could agree on. This version (finalized on October 4th) did not include a sunset provision, and it allowed lower barriers for obtaining [[search warrant]]s. Additionally it gave the [[federal]] government new tools to fight [[money laundering]]. <ref name="CQ" />

The Senate passed its version of the bill with a 96-1 vote (only Senator [[Russ D. Feingold]], a Democrat from Wisconsin voted nay) after just three hours of debate on October 11th. The House revised its version of the bill to make it a little more to the Administration’s and Senate's liking than the version approved by the House Judiciary Committee, including moving the date of the sunset back three years, to 2006. The Senate agreed to the sunset provision and this version passed the House the next day by a massive 337-79 vote. The House and Senate reconciled an agreement between the two versions (including changing the sunset date to December 31st, 2005) and sent the bill, now officially known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, back to their respective chambers, where it passed 357-66 in the House on October 24th and 98-1 in the Senate (with Senator Feingold dissenting) a day later. It was signed into law by President Bush on the following day, 37 days after the original proposal to Congress.<ref name="CQ" />

==How the Act Fights Terrorism==
The Patriot Act Fights Terrorism in three main ways: disrupting terrorist’s funding, improving methods of prosecuting terrorists, and expanding surveillance procedures and intelligence sharing. There were other minor parts, such as setting up a fund in the Treasury Department to reimburse the Department of Justice for fighting terrorism and a section which condemns discrimination against Muslims and Arab Americans.<ref name="leahy">Leahy, Patrick. “USA PATRIOT Act – Section by Section Analysis.” http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200110/102401a.html (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Most of the provisions deal directly with terrorism, but some have broader applicability, and some are not related to terrorism at all.

===Roving Wiretaps===
The first step in disrupting terrorism is finding the terrorists before they can successfully act on a plot to attack the United States. The Patriot Act provides the means for the federal government to gather intelligence on these plots, primarily through wiretaps and search warrants. One such provision is the so-called [[roving wiretaps]] provision. Roving wiretaps themselves are not new, they have been use investigating crime since 1986; the Patriot act simply extends this tool to gathering intelligence of terrorists.<ref name="206derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Before roving wiretaps, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] would need to get a separate FISC ([[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]) warrant for each method of communication used by a terrorist. This means that if the suspect switched phones or used public [[computer]]s the FBI would need to get multiple warrants. The Patriot Act allows for FISC warrants on a specific person, rather than a single specific phone line as under the old law. This means that the FBI could get one warrant, and tap whatever line the suspect happens to be using at the time.<ref name="206derosa" />

===Sneak and Peek Warrants===
Another tool provided by the Patriot Act is delayed-notification search warrants, or [[sneak and peek]] warrants.<ref name="213derosa" >DeRosa, Mary. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref>These are warrants which allow for the execution of a [[search and seizure]] of a property in a federal crime without notification of the subject. The government must show the court “reasonable cause” to believe that notifying the suspect would lead to an “adverse result” such as destruction of [[evidence]], [[intimidation]] of a [[witness]], or jeopardizing the investigation. "Reasonable cause" is not defined in the act. Sneak and peek warrants, like roving wiretaps, have been used in the past under other circumstances, but they had never before been allowed to retrieve physical evidence, only information or photographs of a scene.<ref name="213derosa" />

===Libraries Provision===
A third tool provided by the Patriot Act is the so-called “libraries provision,” sometimes just called Section 215. Section 215 broadens the FBI’s power to seize records of terrorist activities, specifically business records. Before the Act, the FBI could only subpoena “hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities,” but these powers were expanded through the act to include records from any place of business.<ref name="215derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Section 215 also expands the items the FBI can obtain to include “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items).”<ref name="215derosa" /> The Act also loosens the requirements to procure a warrant. Whereas before the FBI had to show evidence that the subject under surveillance was a foreign power or agent thereof, after the act, the FBI simply has to assert that the seizure is for a foreign intelligence investigation, clandestine intelligence activities or to protect against international terrorism. There is no requirement for an [[evidentiary hearing]]. Section 215 is called the libraries provision because it could potentially be used to subpoena a list of books checked out from a library, or a list of websites visited at a library computer, all without notifying the suspect.<ref name="215derosa" />

===Intelligence Sharing===
The Patriot Act also has several provisions which allow for information and intelligence to be better shared among the investigative and intelligence agencies. The Act allowed information about terrorist activities to be shared between federal, state and local governments, as it was previously allowed for other types of crimes. It also allowed for adding [[DNA]] samples of terrorists and other violent offenders to the national database which already includes DNA samples of other certain crimes.<ref name="leahy" />

===Money Laundering===
Another way the Patriot Act fights terrorism is by cutting off sources of illegal funding, which it does by attempting to curtail money laundering. The act requires all monetary institutions (the definition of which is very broad; it includes [[pawn broker]]s, [[insurance]] agencies, and [[diamond]] dealers) to enact a four part program.<ref name="serino">Serino, Robert. “Anti-Laundering Concerns Not Just for Banks Anymore.” American Banker, November 30th, 2001, vol. 167, iss. 229, p. 9</ref> The institution must appoint a compliance officer, establish a training program to recognize money laundering, establish a testing or auditing program to evaluate the accuracy of laundering detection and establish policies to avoid being used to launder money.<ref name="serino" />

===Definition of Terrorism===
Finally, the Patriot Act expands upon the definition of terrorism to include acts which were previously not part of [[federal law]]. It makes illegal terrorist acts against [[mass transportation]] systems as well as harboring terrorists or persons one knows or should know to be terrorists. The Act also expands the definition of [[conspiracy]] to allow for conspiracies in other types of crime, such as [[arson]], and creates a definition of [[domestic terrorist]] (someone who commits an offence which is “(1) dangerous to human life and violate[s] the criminal laws of the United States or any state; and (2) appear[s] to be intended (or have the effect) – to intimidate a [[civilian]] population; influence government policy by intimidation or [[coercion]]; or affect government conduct by mass destruction, [[assassination]], or [[kidnapping]] (or a threat of)”). <ref name="leahy" />

==Controversy==
[[Image:Costoffreedom2.gif|right|250px‎]]

Much of the Patriot Act is controversial. The largest criticisms come from [[civil libertarians]] and others who believe that the Act gives too much power to the [[executive branch]] and infringes on [[civil liberties]]. Some claim that these problems arose from the rushed nature of the passage of the bill. “The richest and most powerful government in world history was portrayed as a weakling vis-à-vis Al Qaeda terrorists. Until that legislative package was enacted, America was supposedly at a grave disadvantage.”<ref name="cato">Cato Handbook on Policy (6th edition). Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 199 (Cato Institute, 2005)</ref> They also claim that Ashcroft and the Bush administration pressured congressmen to vote for the package as a whole, instead of piece by piece, which lead to even more measures which would not have been passed had appropriate procedures taken place.<ref name="cato" /> Votes were scheduled to pass the bill before members of congress could get a copy, and in the days right after the terrorist attacks nobody wanted to be seen as unpatriotic by voting against the USA PATRIOT Act.

One point of contention with opponents of the Patriot Act is with the roving wiretaps provision. Some claim that the since the FBI does not have to determine the location of their suspect before they start collecting intelligence, the privacy of innocent citizens could accidentally be intruded upon.<ref name="dempsey">Dempsey, James X. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> They also claim that, due to changes within FISA outside of the realm of the Patriot Act, it is not necessary to know the identity of the person upon whom the warrant is being issued. This could lead to “John Doe” warrants, in which the government does not specify a suspect or a place of interception.<ref name="dempsey" />

Another problem opponents have with the Patriot act is with the sneak and peek search warrants. They claim that the standards are too low, and the definitions are too vague, such that warrants could be executed non-terror related crimes or even non-violent crimes like [[health care]] fraud.<ref>Dempsey, James X. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> These opponents argue that the weak definition of a “reasonable” time to notify the suspect that he had been searched could lead to situations where the suspect is denied his constitutional rights.<ref>Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress. Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 118-9 (Cato Institute, 2003)</ref> If, for example, the FBI got a search warrant to search a suspect’s garbage but found evidence by searching the subject’s desk, by the time the suspect was notified it is likely he will have no legal recourse.

A lot of criticisms have been aimed towards the libraries provision of the Patriot Act. As with other criticisms, those for the libraries provision rest largely in the broad and vague language in the bill. These types of searches had existed before in criminal law, but not with such loose and broad terms. The new law could be used to gain access to records usually subject to privacy protections, such as medical records.<ref name="swire">Swire, Peter P. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Opponents also dislike the [[gag rule]], which makes it illegal for the business which has been subpoenaed to even reveal that they have received a FISA request. Gag rules have been in place for such things as ongoing wiretaps, where informing the suspect would result in negating the usefulness of the tap, but never before have they been used to keep a subject in the dark about completed searches (even sneak and peek suspects eventually discover that they were searched).<ref name="swire" />

Eight states ([[Alaska]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho]], [[Maine]], [[Montana]] and [[Vermont]]) and 396 cities and counties (including [[New York City]]; [[Los Angeles]]; [[Dallas]]; [[Chicago]]; [[Philadelphia]]; and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.{{fact}} Despite these claims, however, the FBI reports that there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm</ref> nor any terrorist incidents causing loss of life on American soil since its passage.

==Expiration==
Sixteen sections of the original bill were set to expire on December 31st, 2001, unless Congress decided to extend them or make them permanent. These sections were all from Title II of the act, the title which contained surveillance procedures, including the controversial ones mentioned above. After months of wrangling, negotiation, and debate (and two deadline extensions) Congress finally on March 2nd, 2006 passed a bill which renewed the Patriot Act but implemented additional safeguards for civil liberties.<ref>Diamond, John. “Senate Passes Patriot Act Changes; Civil liberties protections added to anti-terror law clear way for renewal” USA Today. March 2nd, 2006, p A.8</ref> Most of the measures were permanent, but the roving wiretap provision was extended only until 2009. Section 215, the libraries provision, was also extended to 2009, but now recipients of the FISA warrant may petition the government after one year to remove the gag order.

==Success==
The Department of Justice, now headed by Attorney General [[Alberto R. Gonzales]], says that the Patriot Act has been a useful tool in finding and dismantling terrorist organizations and plots. It has disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells, incapacitated over 3,000 terrorists, broken up five terror cells within U.S. borders, charged 401 individuals on terror charges and convicted 212,<ref>U.S. Department of Justice. “Waging the War On Terror,” http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/a_terr.htm (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> though the department does not differentiate between those captured through the new provisions of the Patriot Act, and those who were discovered by other means.

==External Links==
*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html Text of Patriot act]
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162: LIbrary of Congress info on Patriot Act]
*[http://www.ala.org/cfapps/archive.cfm?path=washoff/Patriotres.html view of American Library Association]
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/patriot-games-terrorism-law-and.php view of the Jurist]
*[http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm Department of Justice Official Website]
*[http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm FBI Official Website]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:United States law]]

Dungeons and Dragons

2007-09-04T13:20:14Z

Jazzman831: Undo revision 285842 by Special:Contributions/XxPrODiGalxx (User talk:XxPrODiGalxx) vandalism

[[Image:WotC Dungeons Dragons.jpg|thumb|right|The 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons logo.]]
'''Dungeons and Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a role-playing game which takes place in [[magic]]al [[fantasy]] world of [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elves]], [[dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragons]]. Players undertake a series of heroic adventures or quests, following a plot controlled by one player called
the ''dungeon master'' (DM).

The game was originally published in 1974 by [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] and is now published by [[Wizards of the Coast]].<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

==Game play==

Dice of various types are used to determine outcomes. As players' characters accomplish more, they gain experience points (XP) which allow their characters to gain levels, which in turn make them more powerful and have more abilities. The DM may use a commercially-produced adventure, or may create one of his own.

The game allows players to play characters who follow one of nine different alignments; lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil. The character's alignment gives a guideline for how he or she would react in some situations. Paladins, for example, are required to be of the lawful good alignment. Most DMs forbid evil characters as they are often disruptive to the game.

The game may include [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]s which the characters may fight, use or aid as they see fit. Although the game is open-ended and allows players the freedom to choose their own actions, players are typically more likely to fight creatures they encounter than ally with them, especially if these are evil creatures.

The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) also expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. That being said, there is nothing to stop a DM from coming up with a monotheistic world in which to run his adventures. In fact, there is an unofficial published setting, ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'', that is about roleplaying in the Biblical Era. Most characters in the game worship fictional deities both as lay persons and as "clerics", a profession than any character may choose to undertake assuming their alignment matches or is close to a match with their chosen god. Clerics of these deities are granted magical powers by their chosen deity by means of which they can defeat their enemies, or heal their party members.

The game has been steadily modified and expanded since the original first edition and is now in edition 3.5. Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition was officially announced at Gen Con on August 16, 2007; the first of the new edition's core rulebooks, the ''Player's Handbook'', is scheduled to release in May 2008.

There is now a Dungeons and Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting.

== The Magic System ==

The magic system used in Dungeons and Dragons was adopted very roughly from the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. In the Vancian system, magic-users such as wizards must prepare all of their spells in advance for that day by memorizing them and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. To cast the spell again, the magic-user must once again memorize the spell. The Vancian system was chosen for a variety of reasons such as its originality compared to pre-existing magical systems, its avoidance any connection with systems of magic described in any religion or occult theory, and it being the creation one of Gygax's favorite authors.<ref>Forum discussion: [http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/printthread.php?t=182603 "Is D&D magic purely Vancian?"]</ref><ref>RPGnet: [http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10222.phtml Review of "The Primer of Practical Magic"]</ref>

== The Combat System ==
[[Image:dnddice.jpg|thumb|right|Some of the unusual dice required to play Dungeons and Dragons.]]
Players fight by throwing [[dice]] having 20, 12, 10, 8, 6, and 4 sides. These dice are properly called polyhedral dice. This is important to distinguish these dice from standard six sided dice.
Rolling two 10-sided dice creates a two-digit random number for percentages, which the rules will sometimes refer to as rolling a 100-sided die.

In combat there are three different ways that a character can damage another character: melee, ranged, or magical. Attacking another Player Character (PC) is often an evil act that will get you tossed out that group, but PC-vs-PC combat is sometimes entered by mutual agreement of the players as part of a plot.

== Relationship with Christianity ==

Although Dungeons & Dragons does not present itself as either pro-Christian or anti-Christian, the game features many elements which can be considered to agree with or go against the teachings of Christ.

Former [[United Methodist Church]] minister James Wyatt wrote an essay comparing the freedom of a Dungeons & Dragons player to choose his own actions, to the Christian concept of Free Will. As in real life, a player may, when presented with a moral choice, decide for himself whether to do good or evil. If the player was not able to do evil, he would be forced to do good, removing his freedom. Similarly, God allows human beings to choose between good and evil in real life, and people must accept the consequences of their choice.

The game includes fictional depictions of supernatural abilities called magic, evil monsters called demons and devils, and fictional deities along with their followers. Christians are divided on how this interacts with their faith. Some Christians believe that such fictional depictions of practices forbidden by Scripture and mythological deities do not conflict with the player's faith provided that he does not truly believe that these things are part of real life or that their real-world equivalents should be condoned. These Christians compare the game to reading or writing a work of fiction containing these elements, such as reading about Greek mythology or writing stories involving devils as C.S. Lewis wrote [[The Screwtape Letters]]. However, other Christians disagree with this viewpoint, citing references in Scripture which prohibit witchcraft (Lev. 20:27) or the worship of false gods (Deut. 5:7).

Since the primary action of the game involves the slaying of monsters and the accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding [[pacifism]] (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of [[wealth]] (Matthew 19:24).

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some conservative Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. Its dangers were summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by controversial fundamentalist Christian author [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, who claims that D&D players whose characters reach a high enough level can learn to cast real magic spells.

One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon. Many Christian players get around this by altering the world so that it better fits their personal beliefs.

The game has drawn criticism for allowing players to undertake un-Christian activities: the rules allow a player to have their character perform evil acts, including the summoning or worshiping of demons and devils.

Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for Dungeons and Dragons often contain images of immodestly dressed women, and, in fact, in the first edition Monster Manual a number of pencil drawings were topless (such as harpy and succubus).

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons and Dragons DragonLance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons and Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". In response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons and Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthluhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players acted the roles of undead blood-suckers.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://aquela.com/roleplaying/r&r/index.html Religion and Roleplaying]

[[Category:Games]]

Compact Clause

2007-09-04T13:16:06Z

Jazzman831: Undo revision 285839 by Special:Contributions/XxPrODiGalxx (User talk:XxPrODiGalxx) most creative vandal ever. not.

The Compact Clause in the U.S. Constitution requires approval by Congress of any agreement among states to increase their power at the expense of federal power. A comparable prohibition had been in the Articles of Confederation, but the Framers chose even stronger language for the U.S. Constitution:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such iminent Danger as will not admit of delay." (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3)

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this clause narrowly by allowing state compacts as long as they do not "encroach on the supremacy of the United States," which is protected anyway by the [[Supremacy Clause]]. ''United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission'' (1978).

[[Category:Constitution]]

Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.

2007-09-04T13:15:37Z

Jazzman831: Undo revision 285836 by Special:Contributions/XxPrODiGalxx (User talk:XxPrODiGalxx) dumb vandalism

'''Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Sr.''' (September 6, 1888 – November 18, 1969) was an American politician, and the father of [[President]] [[John F. Kennedy]] and [[Senator]]s [[Robert F. Kennedy]] and [[Ted Kennedy]]. At the outbreak of the [[Second World War]] he was the United States Ambassador to the Court of St. James's in [[Britain]], and a supporter of a policy of appeasement towards [[Hitler]]. Noted for his [[Anti-Semitism]], Kennedy believed that Hitler was a welcome solution to the "problem" of world-Jewry.

[[category:political figures]]

Soup

2007-09-04T13:12:06Z

Jazzman831: revert vandalism by User:XxPrODiGalxx

'''Soup''' (sometimes called broth) is a [[liquid]] [[food]]stuff created by [[boiling]] ingredients in [[water]], [[stock]] or [[broth]]. Soup, particularly of the [[vegetable]] variety was originally a good way of reusing left over vegetables from a previous meal. Soup is customarily served in a bowl and eaten with a soup [[spoon]] and is mostly served as a hot meal.

Soup is usually served as a quick meal along with a [[bread]] [[roll]], often as a hot lunch for busy workers. An alternative is to serve it as a starter before a main meal. Soup rarely constitutes a complete meal in itself.{{fact}}

==Canned Soup==

With the advent of the [[canning]] process as a method of [[preservation (food)|preserving]] foods, canned soup has become exceedingly popular the world over. Popular canned soup varieties include [[Campbell's]] (as immortalised by [[Andy Warhol]]) and the [[Heinz]] varieties. These simply require heating in a [[pan]] or [[microwave]] before serving.

==Packet Soups==

In addition to fresh and canned soups, [[dehydrated]] or "packet" soups are available in dried form. These can be made into soup with the simple addition of boiling water. These are often eaten as part of a weight loss [[diet]] and are sometimes referred to as "instant" soups. These are often made in a cup or mug instead of a bowl.

==Cold Soups==

The [[Spanish]] soup, [[gazpacho]] is famous for being served cold, sometimes with [[ice]].

==Soup Legends==

The "[[stone soup]]" [[fable]], a popular children's tale is about a pedlar who is able to cheat a landowner out of a meal by claming he can make soup from a stone. In the popular version, he keeps tasting the soup and claiming "it would be better if you added more ingredients" until the landowner has added enough ingredients to make a nourishing meal.

== Popular and Traditional Soups==

*Pea and Ham Soup - A popular [[London]] soup made with cured [[pork]] and marrowfat [[pea]]s.
*Chicken Noodle Soup - A popular packet variety.
*Onion Soup - A [[French]] speciality often served with [[bread]] and [[cheese]].
*[[Tomato]] Soup - The Heinz canned variety is popular the world over.
*Minestrone Soup - Available in canned and packet varieties as well as being a classic soup.
*[[Chicken]] Soup - Popular in many cultures and often given to the sick as a simple nourishing repast.
*[[Lard]] Soup - A traditional [[British]] dish made from [[lard]] (sometimes called "dripping"). Traditionally served with a bread roll (a "[[cob]]" or "[[bampot]]").
*Miso Soup - A staple [[Japanese]] dish made from [[soya]].

==Links==

==References==

[[Category:Food and drink]]

Conservative links

2007-09-04T02:50:12Z

Jazzman831: I think this is supposed to be possessive?

<center>
Conservapedian's world

 ''' '''Conservative Links''' ''' 

A Guide for Conservative Knowledge
</center>
----
[[Image:Conservative women.jpg|right|Conservative Women]]

== Arts ==
[[Image:Infantry.jpg|right|Infantry]]
*[http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/ Prints & Photographs] The Library of Congress.

News

*[http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/welcome.asp Cartoons] CNSNews.

== Biographies ==
[[Image:Washington painting at the Oval Office.JPG|thumb|right|George Washington painting at the Oval Office and president Bush]]
*[[George Washington]]
*[[James Monroe]]
*[[James K. Polk]]
*[[Abraham Lincoln]]
*[[Grover Cleveland]]
*[[William Howard Taft]]
*[[Warren G. Harding]]
*[[Ronald Reagan]]
*[[George W. Bush]]

News
*[[Previous Breaking News/George W. Bush|Articles about '''George W. Bush''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== Blogs ==
*[[Conservative blogs]]

== Countries ==
*[[Conservative Party of Canada]]
*[http://www.irlgov.ie/ Ireland] Government.
*[http://www.presidencia.gob.mx/en/ Mexico] Government.
*[http://www.sectur.gob.mx/wb2/secturing/sect_2_home Mexico] The Ministry of Tourism.

News
*http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/ [[Herald Sun]] ([[Australia]])

== Entertainment ==

*[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html Rush Limbaugh]
*[[Bill O'Reilly]]

News
*[http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.multimedia.page Conservatives.tv] United Kingdom.
*[http://blogs.nypost.com/tv/ NEW YORK POST] The TV Blog.
*[http://www.amconmag.com/ The American Conservative] Biweekly magazine.

== Kids ==
*[http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/billsbooks/toffk.jsp The O'Reilly Factor For Kids]

== Politics ==
[[Image:Paul Clement.jpg|thumb|100px|[[Paul Clement]]]]
*[http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/powers_of_persuasion/four_freedoms/images_html/save_freedom_speech.html Freedom of Speech] Norman Rockwell poster.
*[http://www.conservatives.com/ The Conservative Party] United Kingdom.

== News ==

*http://foxnews.com [[Fox News Channel]]
*http://www.cnsnews.com/ [[Cybercast News Service]]
*http://www.drudgereport.com/ [[Drudge Report]]
*http://www.factcheck.org/ [[FactCheck]]
*http://www.humanevents.com/ [[Human Events]]
*http://www.newsbusters.org/ [[NewsBusters]]
*http://www.newsmax.com/ [[NewsMax]]
*http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ [[PolitiFact]]
*http://www.theconservativevoice.com/ [[The Conservative Voice]]
*http://www.politico.com/ [[The Politico]]
*http://www.townhall.com/ [[Townhall.com]]
*http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ [[WorldNetDaily]]

== Religion ==
[[Image:Educ director 2007.jpg|thumb|Congregation Or Shalom.]]
*[http://orthodoxwiki.org/Main_Page ORTHODOX WIKI]
*[http://www.orshalom.com/ Congregation Or Shalom] The Conservative Synagogue.
*[http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8029_1.html What Conservative Protestants Believe]

News
*[http://www.vatican.va/news_services/index.htm Vatican News]

== Schools ==
News
*[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/21st.htm The Avalon Project at Yale Law School]

== Sexuality ==
[[Image:Conservapedians2.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Conservapedians world]]
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/lev18.html#22 Leviticus 18:22]
*[http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~tomshoemaker/StudentPapers/JewishSexuality.html Sexuality in Judaism]
*[[Sexual continence]]

== Writers ==
*http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi [[Ann Coulter]]
*http://www.lauraingraham.com/ [[Laura Ingraham]]
*http://michellemalkin.com/ [[Michelle Malkin]]
*[http://www.billoreilly.com/ BillOReilly] Official Home on the Web.
*[http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/ Michael Savage]

News
*[[Previous Breaking News/Ann Coulter|Articles about '''Ann Coulter''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

<gallery>
Image:Coulter2006.jpg|Coulter on the ''Tonight Show with Jay Leno''
Image:Laura-Ingraham.jpg|Laura Ingraham
Image:Mm7.jpg|Michelle Malkin
</gallery>

[[Category:Conservative]]
[[Category:Conservative media]]
[[Category:Conservapedians]]

Conservative links

2007-09-03T14:21:22Z

Jazzman831: formatting

<center>
Conservapedians world

 ''' '''Conservative Links''' ''' 

A Guide for Conservative Knowledge
</center>
----
[[Image:Conservative women.jpg|right|Conservative Women]]

== Arts ==
[[Image:Infantry.jpg|right|Infantry]]
*[http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/ Prints & Photographs] The Library of Congress.

== Biographies ==
[[Image:Washington painting at the Oval Office.JPG|thumb|right|George Washington painting at the Oval Office and president Bush]]
*[[George Washington]]
*[[James Monroe]]
*[[James K. Polk]]
*[[Abraham Lincoln]]
*[[Grover Cleveland]]
*[[William Howard Taft]]
*[[Warren G. Harding]]
*[[Ronald Reagan]]
*[[George W. Bush]]

News
*[[Previous Breaking News/George W. Bush|Articles about '''George W. Bush''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== Blogs ==
*[[Conservative blogs]]

== Countries ==
*[http://www.irlgov.ie/ Ireland] Government.
*[http://www.presidencia.gob.mx/en/ Mexico] Government.
*[http://www.sectur.gob.mx/wb2/secturing/sect_2_home Mexico] The Ministry of Tourism.

News
*http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/ [[Herald Sun]] ([[Australia]])

== Entertainment ==
*[[Fox News Channel]]
*[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html Rush Limbaugh]
*[[Bill O'Reilly]]

News
*[http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.multimedia.page Conservatives.tv] United Kingdom.
*[http://blogs.nypost.com/tv/ NEW YORK POST] The TV Blog.

== Kids ==
*[http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/billsbooks/toffk.jsp The O'Reilly Factor For Kids]

== Politics ==
[[Image:Paul Clement.jpg|thumb|100px|[[Paul Clement]]]]
*[http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/powers_of_persuasion/four_freedoms/images_html/save_freedom_speech.html Freedom of Speech] Norman Rockwell poster.
*[http://www.conservatives.com/ The Conservative Party] United Kingdom.

News
*http://www.cnsnews.com/ [[Cybercast News Service]]
*http://www.drudgereport.com/ [[Drudge Report]]
*http://www.factcheck.org/ [[FactCheck]]
*http://www.foxnews.com/ [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]
*http://www.humanevents.com/ [[Human Events]]
*http://www.newsbusters.org/ [[NewsBusters]]
*http://www.newsmax.com/ [[NewsMax]]
*http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ [[PolitiFact]]
*http://www.theconservativevoice.com/ [[The Conservative Voice]]
*http://www.politico.com/ [[The Politico]]
*http://www.townhall.com/ [[Townhall.com]]
*http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ [[WorldNetDaily]]

== Religion ==
[[Image:Educ director 2007.jpg|thumb|Congregation Or Shalom.]]
*[http://orthodoxwiki.org/Main_Page ORTHODOX WIKI]
*[http://www.orshalom.com/ Congregation Or Shalom] The Conservative Synagogue.
*[http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8029_1.html What Conservative Protestants Believe]

News
*[http://www.vatican.va/news_services/index.htm Vatican News]

== Schools ==
News
*[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/21st.htm The Avalon Project at Yale Law School]

== Sexuality ==
[[Image:Conservapedians2.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Conservapedians world]]
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/lev18.html#22 Leviticus 18:22]

== Writers ==
*http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi [[Ann Coulter]]
*http://www.lauraingraham.com/ [[Laura Ingraham]]
*http://michellemalkin.com/ [[Michelle Malkin]]
*[http://www.billoreilly.com/ BillOReilly] Official Home on the Web.
*[http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/ Michael Savage]

News
*[[Previous Breaking News/Ann Coulter|Articles about '''Ann Coulter''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

<gallery>
Image:Coulter2006.jpg|Coulter on the ''Tonight Show with Jay Leno''
Image:Laura-Ingraham.jpg|Laura Ingraham
Image:Mm7.jpg|Michelle Malkin
</gallery>

[[Category:Conservative]]
[[Category:Conservative media]]
[[Category:Conservapedians]]

Patriot Act

2007-09-03T03:19:29Z

Jazzman831: /* Sneak and Peek Warrants */ fix tag

[[Image:Gwbushsigningpatriotact.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President George Bush signing Patriot Act before Bi-Partisan gathering of Members of Congress]]‎
The '''Patriot Act''' -- The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (more commonly known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 or simply the Patriot Act) -- is an antiterrorism bill written in response to the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]. It was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on October 26th, only 45 days after the terrorist attacks. The primary purpose of the bill was to provide [[law enforcement]] with the tools it needs to fight the domestic war on terror. The bill expanded the definitions of other crime-fighting bills to include [[terrorist]]s, it provided funds to the [[Justice Department]] for fighting terrorism, and, made broad changes to [[surveillance]] and intelligence procedures.

==Passage of the Act==
[[United States|Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]] formally proposed the increases in law enforcement powers on September 19th, requesting that they be considered immediately. Ashcroft and the Bush administration, along with the overwhelming majority of members of Congress, felt these provisions were necessary to find and apprehend the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as well as prevent any more imminent or future attacks. Many of the proposed powers had been sought by the Justice Department for years (the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] administration, for example, sought but was denied so-called [[roving wiretap]]s – a power that was included in Ashcroft’s bill), but the new and real threat of terrorism on American soil gave the Justice Department a more agreeable atmosphere in which to propose the measures again. <ref name="CQ">"USA PATRIOT Act, 2001-2002 Legislative Chronology." Congress and the Nation, 2001-2004, vol. 11, pp. 187-8 (Washington: CQ Press, 2006)</ref>

The [[House Judiciary Committee]] debated the proposal for weeks and reached an agreement on October 2nd. It made mostly minor changes, with one exception: the committee added [[sunset clause]]s to most of the surveillance and investigative powers, against the wishes of the administration.<ref name="CQ" /> These clauses would cause certain provisions of the bill to expire in 2003 unless Congress agreed to extend the date. The committee said that it understood the need for expediency, so it would add the sunset clauses to allow debate on the issue when time was not as much of an issue. The administration, however, was worried that the United States would still be fighting the war on terror when the clause came into effect.<ref>Bridis, Ted and Jess Bravin. “White House Seeks to Remove Time Limit On Surveillance Part of Antiterrorism Bill.” The Wall Street Journal, October 5th, 2001, p. A.18</ref>

The Democratically controlled [[United States Senate|Senate]] version of the bill went more in favor of the White House. While the bill was never considered by the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], the committee’s chair [[Patrick J. Leahy]], a [[Democrat]] from [[Vermont]], along with members from both parties met with the Bush administration to negotiate a bill that the Senate and [[White House]] could agree on. This version (finalized on October 4th) did not include a sunset provision, and it allowed lower barriers to allowing [[search warrant]]s. Additionally it gave the [[federal]] government new tools to fight [[money laundering]]. <ref name="CQ" />

The Senate passed its version of the bill with a 96-1 vote (only Senator [[Russ D. Feingold]], a Democrat from Wisconsin voted nay) after just three hours of debate on October 11th. The House revised its version of the bill to make it a little more to the Administration’s liking than that from the House Judiciary Committee, including moving the date of the sunset back three years, to 2006. This version passed a day after the Senate’s version 337-79 vote. The House and Senate negotiated an agreement between the two versions (including changing the sunset date to December 31st, 2005) and sent the bill, now officially known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, back to their respective chambers, where it passed 357-66 in the House on October 24th and 98-1 in the Senate (with Senator Feingold again voting against) a day later. It was signed into law by President Bush on the following day, only 37 days after the original proposal to Congress.<ref name="CQ" />

==How the Act Fights Terrorism==
The Patriot Act Fights Terrorism in three main ways: disrupting terrorist’s funding, improving methods of prosecuting terrorists, and expanding surveillance procedures and intelligence sharing. There were other minor parts, such as setting up a fund in the Treasury Department to reimburse the Department of Justice for fighting terrorism and a section which condemns discrimination against Muslims and Arab Americans.<ref name="leahy">Leahy, Patrick. “USA PATRIOT Act – Section by Section Analysis.” http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200110/102401a.html (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Most of the provisions deal directly with terrorism, but some have broader applicability, and some are not related to terrorism at all.

===Roving Wiretaps===
The first step in disrupting terrorism is finding the terrorists before they can successfully act on a plot to attack the United States. The Patriot Act provides the means for the federal government to gather intelligence on these plots, primarily through wiretaps and search warrants. One such provision is the so-called [[roving wiretaps]] provision. Roving wiretaps themselves are not new, they have been use investigating crime since 1986; the Patriot act simply extends this tool to gathering intelligence of terrorists.<ref name="206derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Before roving wiretaps, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] would need to get a separate FISC ([[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]) warrant for each method of communication used by a terrorist. This means that if the suspect switched phones or used public [[computer]]s the FBI would need to get multiple warrants. The Patriot Act allows for FISC warrants on a specific person, rather than a single specific phone line as under the old law. This means that the FBI could get one warrant, and tap whatever line the suspect happens to be using at the time.<ref name="206derosa" />

===Sneak and Peek Warrants===
Another tool provided by the Patriot Act is delayed-notification search warrants, or [[sneak and peek]] warrants.<ref name="213derosa" >DeRosa, Mary. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref>These are warrants which allow for the execution of a [[search and seizure]] of a property in a federal crime without notification of the subject. The government must show the court “reasonable cause” to believe that notifying the suspect would lead to an “adverse result” such as destruction of [[evidence]], [[intimidation]] of a [[witness]], or jeopardizing the investigation. "Reasonable cause" is not defined in the act. Sneak and peek warrants, like roving wiretaps, have been used in the past under other circumstances, but they had never before been allowed to retrieve physical evidence, only information or photographs of a scene.<ref name="213derosa" />

===Libraries Provision===
A third tool provided by the Patriot Act is the so-called “libraries provision,” sometimes just called Section 215. Section 215 broadens the FBI’s power to seize records of terrorist activities, specifically business records. Before the Act, the FBI could only subpoena “hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities,” but these powers were expanded through the act to include records from any place of business.<ref name="215derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Section 215 also expands the items the FBI can obtain to include “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items).”<ref name="215derosa" /> The Act also loosens the requirements to procure a warrant. Whereas before the FBI had to show evidence that the subject under surveillance was a foreign power or agent thereof, after the act, the FBI simply has to assert that the seizure is for a foreign intelligence investigation, clandestine intelligence activities or to protect against international terrorism. There is no requirement for an [[evidentiary hearing]]. Section 215 is called the libraries provision because it could potentially be used to subpoena a list of books checked out from a library, or a list of websites visited at a library computer, all without notifying the suspect.<ref name="215derosa" />

===Intelligence Sharing===
The Patriot Act also has several provisions which allow for information and intelligence to be better shared among the investigative and intelligence agencies. The Act allowed information about terrorist activities to be shared between federal, state and local governments, as it was previously allowed for other types of crimes. It also allowed for adding [[DNA]] samples of terrorists and other violent offenders to the national database which already includes DNA samples of other certain crimes.<ref name="leahy" />

===Money Laundering===
Another way the Patriot Act fights terrorism is by cutting off sources of illegal funding, which it does by attempting to curtail money laundering. The act requires all monetary institutions (the definition of which is very broad; it includes [[pawn broker]]s, [[insurance]] agencies, and [[diamond]] dealers) to enact a four part program.<ref name="serino">Serino, Robert. “Anti-Laundering Concerns Not Just for Banks Anymore.” American Banker, November 30th, 2001, vol. 167, iss. 229, p. 9</ref> The institution must appoint a compliance officer, establish a training program to recognize money laundering, establish a testing or auditing program to evaluate the accuracy of laundering detection and establish policies to avoid being used to launder money.<ref name="serino" />

===Definition of Terrorism===
Finally, the Patriot Act expands upon the definition of terrorism to include acts which were previously not part of [[federal law]]. It makes illegal terrorist acts against [[mass transportation]] systems as well as harboring terrorists or persons one knows or should know to be terrorists. The Act also expands the definition of [[conspiracy]] to allow for conspiracies in other types of crime, such as [[arson]], and creates a definition of [[domestic terrorist]] (someone who commits an offence which is “(1) dangerous to human life and violate[s] the criminal laws of the United States or any state; and (2) appear[s] to be intended (or have the effect) – to intimidate a [[civilian]] population; influence government policy by intimidation or [[coercion]]; or affect government conduct by mass destruction, [[assassination]], or [[kidnapping]] (or a threat of)”). <ref name="leahy" />

==Controversy==
[[Image:Costoffreedom2.gif|right|250px‎]]

Much of the Patriot Act is controversial. The largest criticisms come from [[civil libertarians]] and others who believe that the Act gives too much power to the [[executive branch]] and infringes on [[civil liberties]]. Some claim that these problems arose from the rushed nature of the passage of the bill. “The richest and most powerful government in world history was portrayed as a weakling vis-à-vis Al Qaeda terrorists. Until that legislative package was enacted, America was supposedly at a grave disadvantage.”<ref name="cato">Cato Handbook on Policy (6th edition). Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 199 (Cato Institute, 2005)</ref> They also claim that Ashcroft and the Bush administration pressured congressmen to vote for the package as a whole, instead of piece by piece, which lead to even more measures which would not have been passed had appropriate procedures taken place.<ref name="cato" /> Votes were scheduled to pass the bill before members of congress could get a copy, and in the days right after the terrorist attacks nobody wanted to be seen as unpatriotic by voting against the USA PATRIOT Act.

One point of contention with opponents of the Patriot Act is with the roving wiretaps provision. Some claim that the since the FBI does not have to determine the location of their suspect before they start collecting intelligence, the privacy of innocent citizens could accidentally be intruded upon.<ref name="dempsey">Dempsey, James X. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> They also claim that, due to changes within FISA outside of the realm of the Patriot Act, it is not necessary to know the identity of the person upon whom the warrant is being issued. This could lead to “John Doe” warrants, in which the government does not specify a suspect or a place of interception.<ref name="dempsey" />

Another problem opponents have with the Patriot act is with the sneak and peek search warrants. They claim that the standards are too low, and the definitions are too vague, such that warrants could be executed non-terror related crimes or even non-violent crimes like [[health care]] fraud.<ref>Dempsey, James X. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> These opponents argue that the weak definition of a “reasonable” time to notify the suspect that he had been searched could lead to situations where the suspect is denied his constitutional rights.<ref>Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress. Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 118-9 (Cato Institute, 2003)</ref> If, for example, the FBI got a search warrant to search a suspect’s garbage but found evidence by searching the subject’s desk, by the time the suspect was notified it is likely he will have no legal recourse.

A lot of criticisms have been aimed towards the libraries provision of the Patriot Act. As with other criticisms, those for the libraries provision rest largely in the broad and vague language in the bill. These types of searches had existed before in criminal law, but not with such loose and broad terms. The new law could be used to gain access to records usually subject to privacy protections, such as medical records.<ref name="swire">Swire, Peter P. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Opponents also dislike the [[gag rule]], which makes it illegal for the business which has been subpoenaed to even reveal that they have received a FISA request. Gag rules have been in place for such things as ongoing wiretaps, where informing the suspect would result in negating the usefulness of the tap, but never before have they been used to keep a subject in the dark about completed searches (even sneak and peek suspects eventually discover that they were searched).<ref name="swire" />

Eight states ([[Alaska]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho]], [[Maine]], [[Montana]] and [[Vermont]]) and 396 cities and counties (including [[New York City]]; [[Los Angeles]]; [[Dallas]]; [[Chicago]]; [[Philadelphia]]; and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.{{fact}} Despite these claims, however, the FBI reports that there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm</ref> nor any terrorist incidents causing loss of life on American soil since its passage.

==Expiration==
Sixteen sections of the original bill were set to expire on December 31st, 2001, unless Congress decided to extend them or make them permanent. These sections were all from Title II of the act, the title which contained surveillance procedures, including the controversial ones mentioned above. After months of wrangling, negotiation, and debate (and two deadline extensions) Congress finally on March 2nd, 2006 passed a bill which renewed the Patriot Act but implemented safeguards for civil liberties.<ref>Diamond, John. “Senate Passes Patriot Act Changes; Civil liberties protections added to anti-terror law clear way for renewal” USA Today. March 2nd, 2006, p A.8</ref> Most of the measures were permanent, but the roving wiretap provision was extended only until 2009. Section 215, the libraries provision, was also extended to 2009, but now recipients of the FISA warrant may petition the government after one year to remove the gag order.

==Success==
The Department of Justice, now headed by Attorney General [[Alberto R. Gonzales]], claims that the Patriot Act has been a useful tool in finding and dismantling terrorist organizations and plots. It claims to have disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells, incapacitated over 3,000 terrorists, broken up five terror cells within U.S. borders, charged 401 individuals on terror charges and convicted 212,<ref>U.S. Department of Justice. “Waging the War On Terror,” http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/a_terr.htm (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> though the department does not differentiate between those captured through the new provisions of the Patriot Act, and those who were discovered by other means.

==External Links==
*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html Text of Patriot act]
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162: LIbrary of Congress info on Patriot Act]
*[http://www.ala.org/cfapps/archive.cfm?path=washoff/Patriotres.html view of American Library Association]
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/patriot-games-terrorism-law-and.php view of the Jurist]
*[http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm Department of Justice Official Website]
*[http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm FBI Official Website]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:United States law]]

Roving wiretap

2007-09-03T03:12:22Z

Jazzman831: New page: A '''roving wiretap''' is a warrant for a wiretap placed not on a specific phone, but on an individual. They are very useful for law enforcement when a suspect has easy access to v...

A '''roving wiretap''' is a warrant for a [[wiretap]] placed not on a specific phone, but on an individual. They are very useful for [[law enforcement]] when a suspect has easy access to various [[cell phone]]s, [[computer]]s, [[pay phone]]s, and private land lines. Before roving wiretaps, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] would need to get a separate FISC ([[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]) warrant for each method of communication used by a terrorist. With roving wiretaps, the FBI only needs to get one warrant, and tap whatever line the suspect happens to be using at the time.<ref name="206derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005).

The [[Patriot Act]] extended the use of roving wiretaps to include the investigation of [[terrorist]] activities.

==References==
<references />

[[category:law]]

Arson

2007-09-03T03:00:38Z

Jazzman831: New page: '''Arson''' is the crime of burning another's property. Category:Law

'''Arson''' is the [[crime]] of [[burn]]ing another's [[property]].

[[Category:Law]]

Mass transit

2007-09-03T02:58:24Z

Jazzman831: redirect to full name

#REDIRECT [[mass transportation]]

Mass transportation

2007-09-03T02:57:47Z

Jazzman831: New page: '''Mass transportation''' (sometimes shortened to '''mass transit''') is any form of transportation which can move large numbers of people at once. Subways, buses, trains and [...

'''Mass transportation''' (sometimes shortened to '''mass transit''') is any form of transportation which can move large numbers of people at once. [[Subway]]s, [[bus]]es, [[train]]s and [[monorail]]s are all examples of mass transportation components. Mass transit systems are usually government-subsidized (in which case they are called ''public transportation'') but not always.

[[category:transportation]]

Transportation Security Administration

2007-09-03T02:53:56Z

Jazzman831: wikilink

The '''Transportation Security Administration''' was formed immediately following the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]. The agency is a component of the [[Department of Homeland Security]] (DHS) and is responsible for security of the nation's transportation systems.

With state, local and regional partners, TSA oversees security for the [[highway]]s, [[railroad]]s, [[bus]]es, [[mass transit]] systems, ports and the 450 U.S. [[airport]]s. TSA employs approximately 50,000 people from [[Alaska]] to [[Puerto Rico]] to ensure your travels – by plane, train, automobile or ferry – are safe and secure.

== Sources ==
*[http://www.tsa.gov/ TSA website]

[[category:United States Government]]

Transportation Security Administration

2007-09-03T02:53:36Z

Jazzman831: bold, fix wikilinks

The '''Transportation Security Administration''' was formed immediately following the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]. The agency is a component of the [[Department of Homeland Security]] (DHS) and is responsible for security of the nation's transportation systems.

With state, local and regional partners, TSA oversees security for the [[highway]]s, [[railroad]]s, [[bus]]es, [[mass transit]] systems, ports and the 450 U.S. [[airports]]. TSA employs approximately 50,000 people from [[Alaska]] to [[Puerto Rico]] to ensure your travels – by plane, train, automobile or ferry – are safe and secure.

== Sources ==
*[http://www.tsa.gov/ TSA website]

[[category:United States Government]]

Mutation

2007-09-03T02:38:12Z

Jazzman831: Undo revision 285305 by Special:Contributions/Marsianman (User talk:Marsianman) at least this vandal's creative

In [[biology]]''' mutation''' is any physical change in the [[genetic material]] of an [[organism]]. In most cases this is either the [[DNA]] or [[RNA]] in the cell [[nucleus]]. In multicellular organisms there are two primary classes of mutation, [[germline mutations]] and [[somatic mutations]]. Germline mutations are those changes that can be passed down to offspring, while somatic mutations are mutations that only alter genetic material in the mutated organism. There is some evidence that changes outside of the cell's genetic material, such as the [[cytoplasm]], [[proteins]], or the cell [[membrane]] can also be inherited.

Mutations can be caused by internal or external factors. Common external factors include [[ultraviolet]] radiation, chemical [[mutagens]], or parasitic organisms (such as [[viruses]] or [[bacteria]]). Most internal causes of mutations stem from errors in reproduction of genetic material. Most of these errors are corrected by error-correcting [[ribosomes]].

Some organisms will respond to harsh environments by increasing the rate of mutations. This is known as [[hypermutation]] and is hypothesized to aid organisms by creating wider variation in the [[gene pool]] of the population, increasing the chances that at least some decedents might survive under harsh conditions.

==References==
Biology (7th Edition). Neil A. Campbell,Jane B. Reece. http://www.amazon.com/Biology-7th-Neil-Campbell/dp/080537146X.

[[Category:Biology]]

Nymphs

2007-09-03T02:35:33Z

Jazzman831: Undo revision 285297 by Special:Contributions/Marsianman (User talk:Marsianman)

'''Nymphs''' are nature spirits in [[Greek mythology]]. They are often bound to specific locations, although that is not true in all ancient descriptions.

{{Nb mythology greece}}

Russ D. Feingold

2007-09-02T23:26:47Z

Jazzman831: redirect to version without middle initial

#REDIRECT [[Russ Feingold]]

Patrick J. Leahy

2007-09-02T23:25:10Z

Jazzman831: redirect to version without middle initial

#REDIRECT [[Patrick Leahy]]

Talk:Patriot Act

2007-09-02T23:23:34Z

Jazzman831: /* Wiki links.... */

Patriot Act

2007-09-02T22:22:37Z

Jazzman831: /* Controversy */ ok this makes more sense now. I knew we had to have an article about Idaho!

[[Image:Gwbushsigningpatriotact.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President George Bush signing Patriot Act before Bi-Partisan gathering of Members of Congress]]‎
The '''Patriot Act''' -- The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (more commonly known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 or simply the Patriot Act) -- is an antiterrorism bill written in response to the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]. It was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on October 26th, only 45 days after the terrorist attacks. The primary purpose of the bill was to provide [[law enforcement]] with the tools it needs to fight the domestic war on terror. The bill expanded the definitions of other crime-fighting bills to include [[terrorist]]s, it provided funds to the [[Justice Department]] for fighting terrorism, and, made broad changes to [[surveillance]] and intelligence procedures.

==Passage of the Act==
[[United States|Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]] formally proposed the increases in law enforcement powers on September 19th, requesting that they be considered immediately. Ashcroft and the Bush administration, along with the overwhelming majority of members of Congress, felt these provisions were necessary to find and apprehend the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as well as prevent any more imminent or future attacks. Many of the proposed powers had been sought by the Justice Department for years (the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] administration, for example, sought but was denied so-called [[roving wiretap]]s – a power that was included in Ashcroft’s bill), but the new and real threat of terrorism on American soil gave the Justice Department a more agreeable atmosphere in which to propose the measures again. <ref name="CQ">"USA PATRIOT Act, 2001-2002 Legislative Chronology." Congress and the Nation, 2001-2004, vol. 11, pp. 187-8 (Washington: CQ Press, 2006)</ref>

The [[House Judiciary Committee]] debated the proposal for weeks and reached an agreement on October 2nd. It made mostly minor changes, with one exception: the committee added [[sunset clause]]s to most of the surveillance and investigative powers, against the wishes of the administration.<ref name="CQ" /> These clauses would cause certain provisions of the bill to expire in 2003 unless Congress agreed to extend the date. The committee said that it understood the need for expediency, so it would add the sunset clauses to allow debate on the issue when time was not as much of an issue. The administration, however, was worried that the United States would still be fighting the war on terror when the clause came into effect.<ref>Bridis, Ted and Jess Bravin. “White House Seeks to Remove Time Limit On Surveillance Part of Antiterrorism Bill.” The Wall Street Journal, October 5th, 2001, p. A.18</ref>

The Democratically controlled [[United States Senate|Senate]] version of the bill went more in favor of the White House. While the bill was never considered by the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], the committee’s chair [[Patrick J. Leahy]], a [[Democrat]] from [[Vermont]], along with members from both parties met with the Bush administration to negotiate a bill that the Senate and [[White House]] could agree on. This version (finalized on October 4th) did not include a sunset provision, and it allowed lower barriers to allowing [[search warrant]]s. Additionally it gave the [[federal]] government new tools to fight [[money laundering]]. <ref name="CQ" />

The Senate passed its version of the bill with a 96-1 vote (only Senator [[Russ D. Feingold]], a Democrat from Wisconsin voted nay) after just three hours of debate on October 11th. The House revised its version of the bill to make it a little more to the Administration’s liking than that from the House Judiciary Committee, including moving the date of the sunset back three years, to 2006. This version passed a day after the Senate’s version 337-79 vote. The House and Senate negotiated an agreement between the two versions (including changing the sunset date to December 31st, 2005) and sent the bill, now officially known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, back to their respective chambers, where it passed 357-66 in the House on October 24th and 98-1 in the Senate (with Senator Feingold again voting against) a day later. It was signed into law by President Bush on the following day, only 37 days after the original proposal to Congress.<ref name="CQ" />

==How the Act Fights Terrorism==
The Patriot Act Fights Terrorism in three main ways: disrupting terrorist’s funding, improving methods of prosecuting terrorists, and expanding surveillance procedures and intelligence sharing. There were other minor parts, such as setting up a fund in the Treasury Department to reimburse the Department of Justice for fighting terrorism and a section which condemns discrimination against Muslims and Arab Americans.<ref name="leahy">Leahy, Patrick. “USA PATRIOT Act – Section by Section Analysis.” http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200110/102401a.html (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Most of the provisions deal directly with terrorism, but some have broader applicability, and some are not related to terrorism at all.

===Roving Wiretaps===
The first step in disrupting terrorism is finding the terrorists before they can successfully act on a plot to attack the United States. The Patriot Act provides the means for the federal government to gather intelligence on these plots, primarily through wiretaps and search warrants. One such provision is the so-called [[roving wiretaps]] provision. Roving wiretaps themselves are not new, they have been use investigating crime since 1986; the Patriot act simply extends this tool to gathering intelligence of terrorists.<ref name="206derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Before roving wiretaps, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] would need to get a separate FISC ([[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]) warrant for each method of communication used by a terrorist. This means that if the suspect switched phones or used public [[computer]]s the FBI would need to get multiple warrants. The Patriot Act allows for FISC warrants on a specific person, rather than a single specific phone line as under the old law. This means that the FBI could get one warrant, and tap whatever line the suspect happens to be using at the time.<ref name="206derosa" />

===Sneak and Peek Warrants===
Another tool provided by the Patriot Act is delayed-notification search warrants, or [[sneak and peek]] warrants.<ref name="213derosa" />DeRosa, Mary. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref>These are warrants which allow for the execution of a [[search and seizure]] of a property in a federal crime without notification of the subject. The government must show the court “reasonable cause” to believe that notifying the suspect would lead to an “adverse result” such as destruction of [[evidence]], [[intimidation]] of a [[witness]], or jeopardizing the investigation. "Reasonable cause" is not defined in the act. Sneak and peek warrants, like roving wiretaps, have been used in the past under other circumstances, but they had never before been allowed to retrieve physical evidence, only information or photographs of a scene.<ref name="213derosa" />

===Libraries Provision===
A third tool provided by the Patriot Act is the so-called “libraries provision,” sometimes just called Section 215. Section 215 broadens the FBI’s power to seize records of terrorist activities, specifically business records. Before the Act, the FBI could only subpoena “hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities,” but these powers were expanded through the act to include records from any place of business.<ref name="215derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Section 215 also expands the items the FBI can obtain to include “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items).”<ref name="215derosa" /> The Act also loosens the requirements to procure a warrant. Whereas before the FBI had to show evidence that the subject under surveillance was a foreign power or agent thereof, after the act, the FBI simply has to assert that the seizure is for a foreign intelligence investigation, clandestine intelligence activities or to protect against international terrorism. There is no requirement for an [[evidentiary hearing]]. Section 215 is called the libraries provision because it could potentially be used to subpoena a list of books checked out from a library, or a list of websites visited at a library computer, all without notifying the suspect.<ref name="215derosa" />

===Intelligence Sharing===
The Patriot Act also has several provisions which allow for information and intelligence to be better shared among the investigative and intelligence agencies. The Act allowed information about terrorist activities to be shared between federal, state and local governments, as it was previously allowed for other types of crimes. It also allowed for adding [[DNA]] samples of terrorists and other violent offenders to the national database which already includes DNA samples of other certain crimes.<ref name="leahy" />

===Money Laundering===
Another way the Patriot Act fights terrorism is by cutting off sources of illegal funding, which it does by attempting to curtail money laundering. The act requires all monetary institutions (the definition of which is very broad; it includes [[pawn broker]]s, [[insurance]] agencies, and [[diamond]] dealers) to enact a four part program.<ref name="serino">Serino, Robert. “Anti-Laundering Concerns Not Just for Banks Anymore.” American Banker, November 30th, 2001, vol. 167, iss. 229, p. 9</ref> The institution must appoint a compliance officer, establish a training program to recognize money laundering, establish a testing or auditing program to evaluate the accuracy of laundering detection and establish policies to avoid being used to launder money.<ref name="serino" />

===Definition of Terrorism===
Finally, the Patriot Act expands upon the definition of terrorism to include acts which were previously not part of [[federal law]]. It makes illegal terrorist acts against [[mass transportation]] systems as well as harboring terrorists or persons one knows or should know to be terrorists. The Act also expands the definition of [[conspiracy]] to allow for conspiracies in other types of crime, such as [[arson]], and creates a definition of [[domestic terrorist]] (someone who commits an offence which is “(1) dangerous to human life and violate[s] the criminal laws of the United States or any state; and (2) appear[s] to be intended (or have the effect) – to intimidate a [[civilian]] population; influence government policy by intimidation or [[coercion]]; or affect government conduct by mass destruction, [[assassination]], or [[kidnapping]] (or a threat of)”). <ref name="leahy" />

==Controversy==
[[Image:Costoffreedom2.gif|right|250px‎]]

Much of the Patriot Act is controversial. The largest criticisms come from [[civil libertarians]] and others who believe that the Act gives too much power to the [[executive branch]] and infringes on [[civil liberties]]. Some claim that these problems arose from the rushed nature of the passage of the bill. “The richest and most powerful government in world history was portrayed as a weakling vis-à-vis Al Qaeda terrorists. Until that legislative package was enacted, America was supposedly at a grave disadvantage.”<ref name="cato">Cato Handbook on Policy (6th edition). Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 199 (Cato Institute, 2005)</ref> They also claim that Ashcroft and the Bush administration pressured congressmen to vote for the package as a whole, instead of piece by piece, which lead to even more measures which would not have been passed had appropriate procedures taken place.<ref name="cato" /> Votes were scheduled to pass the bill before members of congress could get a copy, and in the days right after the terrorist attacks nobody wanted to be seen as unpatriotic by voting against the USA PATRIOT Act.

One point of contention with opponents of the Patriot Act is with the roving wiretaps provision. Some claim that the since the FBI does not have to determine the location of their suspect before they start collecting intelligence, the privacy of innocent citizens could accidentally be intruded upon.<ref name="dempsey">Dempsey, James X. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> They also claim that, due to changes within FISA outside of the realm of the Patriot Act, it is not necessary to know the identity of the person upon whom the warrant is being issued. This could lead to “John Doe” warrants, in which the government does not specify a suspect or a place of interception.<ref name="dempsey" />

Another problem opponents have with the Patriot act is with the sneak and peek search warrants. They claim that the standards are too low, and the definitions are too vague, such that warrants could be executed non-terror related crimes or even non-violent crimes like [[health care]] fraud.<ref>Dempsey, James X. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> These opponents argue that the weak definition of a “reasonable” time to notify the suspect that he had been searched could lead to situations where the suspect is denied his constitutional rights.<ref>Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress. Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 118-9 (Cato Institute, 2003)</ref> If, for example, the FBI got a search warrant to search a suspect’s garbage but found evidence by searching the subject’s desk, by the time the suspect was notified it is likely he will have no legal recourse.

A lot of criticisms have been aimed towards the libraries provision of the Patriot Act. As with other criticisms, those for the libraries provision rest largely in the broad and vague language in the bill. These types of searches had existed before in criminal law, but not with such loose and broad terms. The new law could be used to gain access to records usually subject to privacy protections, such as medical records.<ref name="swire">Swire, Peter P. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Opponents also dislike the [[gag rule]], which makes it illegal for the business which has been subpoenaed to even reveal that they have received a FISA request. Gag rules have been in place for such things as ongoing wiretaps, where informing the suspect would result in negating the usefulness of the tap, but never before have they been used to keep a subject in the dark about completed searches (even sneak and peek suspects eventually discover that they were searched).<ref name="swire" />

Eight states ([[Alaska]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho]], [[Maine]], [[Montana]] and [[Vermont]]) and 396 cities and counties (including [[New York City]]; [[Los Angeles]]; [[Dallas]]; [[Chicago]]; [[Philadelphia]]; and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.{{fact}} Despite these claims, however, the FBI reports that there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm</ref> nor any terrorist incidents causing loss of life on American soil since its passage.

==Expiration==
Sixteen sections of the original bill were set to expire on December 31st, 2001, unless Congress decided to extend them or make them permanent. These sections were all from Title II of the act, the title which contained surveillance procedures, including the controversial ones mentioned above. After months of wrangling, negotiation, and debate (and two deadline extensions) Congress finally on March 2nd, 2006 passed a bill which renewed the Patriot Act but implemented safeguards for civil liberties.<ref>Diamond, John. “Senate Passes Patriot Act Changes; Civil liberties protections added to anti-terror law clear way for renewal” USA Today. March 2nd, 2006, p A.8</ref> Most of the measures were permanent, but the roving wiretap provision was extended only until 2009. Section 215, the libraries provision, was also extended to 2009, but now recipients of the FISA warrant may petition the government after one year to remove the gag order.

==Success==
The Department of Justice, now headed by Attorney General [[Alberto R. Gonzales]], claims that the Patriot Act has been a useful tool in finding and dismantling terrorist organizations and plots. It claims to have disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells, incapacitated over 3,000 terrorists, broken up five terror cells within U.S. borders, charged 401 individuals on terror charges and convicted 212,<ref>U.S. Department of Justice. “Waging the War On Terror,” http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/a_terr.htm (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> though the department does not differentiate between those captured through the new provisions of the Patriot Act, and those who were discovered by other means.

==External Links==
*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html Text of Patriot act]
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162: LIbrary of Congress info on Patriot Act]
*[http://www.ala.org/cfapps/archive.cfm?path=washoff/Patriotres.html view of American Library Association]
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/patriot-games-terrorism-law-and.php view of the Jurist]
*[http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm Department of Justice Official Website]
*[http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm FBI Official Website]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:United States law]]

Talk:Patriot Act

2007-09-02T22:21:46Z

Jazzman831: /* Wiki links.... */

Talk:Patriot Act

2007-09-02T22:20:18Z

Jazzman831: /* Wiki links.... */

[[Image:Costoffreedom2.gif|center|300px]]
 
Not only was the following obviously a direct uncited quotation, a Yahoo! search revealed it to be from wikipedia! You'd think the Patriot Act page would be as closely followed as the page on [[Theory of Evolution|evolution]] or [[unicorn]]s!!

<blockquote>
On March 9, 2007, a Justice Department audit found that the FBI had "improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA Patriot Act to secretly obtain personal information" about United States citizens. [1]

On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused a Patriot Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.[2]

On April 6, 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the FBI over the USA PATRIOT Act's authority to demand that a business hand over records that may contain private financial or business information that is not pertinent to an ongoing investigation. The specific action in question was the request of the FBI for the account information for users of an Internet service provider.

Citing possible secrecy provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Department of Justice prevented the ACLU from releasing the text of a countersuit for three weeks. [4] After judicial and congressional oversight, sections of the countersuit that did not violate secrecy rules of the USA PATRIOT Act were released.

The lawsuit filed by the ACLU was dropped on October 27, 2006. ACLU stated it is withdrawing the lawsuit because of improvements to the law. "While the reauthorized Patriot Act is far from perfect, we succeeded in stemming the damage from some of the Bush administration's most reckless policies," Ann Beeson, associate legal director of the ACLU.

In June 2005, the United States House of Representatives voted to repeal the Patriot Act provision that allows federal agents to examine people's book-reading habits at public libraries and bookstores as part of terrorism investigations.[5]
</blockquote>
[[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:58, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:Can you specifiy what the difference is between "the Bush administration's most reckless policies," and a Law past by the Legislative Branch. The above appears to be little more than twisted, veiled, and distorted criticism of the Bush administration. If the Bush administration were not enforcing a law passed by the Congress, that would be grounds for legitimate criticism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:53, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

::I take no responsibility for the content in the above statement. It was copied from Wikipedia onto this article and all I did was remove it from our page. I believe that part about the Bush administration has also since been removed from the Wikipedia article. Even so, I wouldn't get too riled up about the comment; it's so non specific Ms. Beeson really could have been talking about anything. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 15:24, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Good job. If it wasn't so subtle, this would probably be a good example for [[Bias in Wikipedia]], but it would take more words to explain the subtlelty than the subtlelty itself. 16:16, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

==Entering homes==

Cut from article:

:The act took away civil liberties law enforcement may enter a persons place of business or home without a warrant. We all know without a warrent it is unconstitutional to enter someones private property. Also the owner doesnt have to know about the search or invasion of his/her home or business

This needs references. What is your source? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:As much as I dislike the Patriot Act, that quotation is either vandalism or a misunderstanding of how the act works. The Act allows, under very specific circumstances, so-called "sneak and peek" warrants, which are exactly as they sound. Law enforcement ''does'' need a warrant, but the suspect doesn't know about the search (until a certain time after the fact). These are performed when notifying the subject of the warrant could seriously hamper the investigation.

:Later tonight (too burnt out from school right this moment) I will integrate the research paper I did on the Patriot Act last semester into this article. For now, the above explanation should suffice. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::Done and done. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:20, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Correct name==
I think this should this be moved to [[Patriot Act]] (for capitalization purposes) or [[USA PATRIOT Act]] (for complete name purposes). To me it makes more sense to have the full article at its correct name and then make [[Patriot act]] a redirect. Opinions? [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 16:47, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*I'm confused.....didn't you feel the movement? :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::Smooth work, TK my man. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 16:51, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:<edit conflict> I vote for '''USA PATRIOT Act of 2001''', which is technically it's full name. However, this link is really ugly, and most people won't know to use it. I'm not sure what our priorities are (or what theys should be). If we want clarity, we should stick with what we have; if we want technical correctness, we should move it to the most correct form. (Well technically '''Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001''' is the most correct, but that just breaches some boundaries of sensible practicality!!) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:55, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*Usually the guideline would be accuracy coupled with common usage of the subject used for searching. "Patriot Act" would seem to me to be the common use. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:15, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Gotcha. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:20, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

Rob, it's clear you aren't reading my sources before you change my work. The Patriot Act was one of the fastest bills passed through Congress. Period. Other people have in the past proposed measures which were included in the bill, but those have no bearing on how fast ''this act'' was passed. Additionally, Ashcroft wanted the bill "passed by the end of the week" not "considered immediately". You are being overly hostile to my edits for not having actually read their source. Additionally, you are assuming bad faith on all my edits.

I know Ed Poor or TK will pop up and tell me I shouldn't edit if I don't want them reviewed relentlessly, but it's clear you have a vendetta against me and it's also clear you haven't read the source material. If you want to push away a good faith editor you are doing a great job (here and on other articles). Here's a quotation for you:

:"When Attorney General ''John Ashcroft asked for the new law enforcement powers Sept. 19 — calling on Congress to clear a bill by the end of that week'' — Republicans and Democrats alike balked. The proposal ''included'' powers that the Justice Department had sought ''unsuccessfully for years''." (Emphasis added).

Ashcroft pushed these measures, and asked it to be passed in less than a week. He still today takes credit for the Patriot Act; I saw him speak last year.

I'm not sure why you think it's such a bad thing that Bush might have written part of the Patriot Act (Conservapedia is in favor of GWB, correct?) but I don't remember which source I pulled that from right now. I'll leave that but correct the parts supported above. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:46, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
:Nice try JazzMan, but the quote above is absolutlely meaningless without authorship. Now, let's start from the beginning, give the identity of authors and the source language for any reversion I make that you wish to argue over. Thank you.

:P.S.: I'd advise against throwing around personal references such as you do above, (terms like "vendetta", or accusing people of lack of good faith; frankly, it is a waste of time, and does not address the issues under consideration whatsoever). Thank you again. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:57, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

::There's a reference right on the page!! It's the little [1] that links down to the bottom of the page. If I understand correctly, it's the same thing we do on every single page of this website.

::P.S.: I wouldn't have to throw around personal references if I didn't truely believe that you are trying as hard as you can to prove I'm a Marxist who's been indocrinated by Marxist professors (which you have insinuated several times on [[talk:liberal]]). The coincidence is simply too large to be credible. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:10, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, I saw that. Unfortunely it is the Congressional Quarterly. And unfortunely I have too much first hand knowledge and direct experience with Kathryn Wolfe [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=Kathryn+Wolfe%2BCongressional+Quarterly&btnG=Search] and her anonymous editing and conflict of interest as Wikipedia Admin User:Katefan0. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=katefan0%2BKathryn+Wolfe%2BCongressional+Quarterly&btnG=Search] So I'm not impressed at all with Congressional Quarterly. It ''still'' needs an authors name attached to it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:15, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

::::It's hard to keep track of who you guys don't like around here. There are no listed authors for the source; that's the full reference. Feel free to use your own (references, that is, not memories) if mine aren't good enough. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:13, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::It is and remains a questionable source; don't be surprised if portions are disallowed. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:05, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::So you get to decide what sources are questionable, and you don't have to explain yourself or present any evidence contrary to my assertions? That's the way to foster a productive atmosphere. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:29, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*Here is what actually happened:

Before and just immediately after 9/11, there were many measures before Congress, many at the White House and Justice (some of them remainders from the Clinton Administration) that were intended to deal with improving intelligence gathering, and increase national security. There were hundreds in Congress and the Executive who were already worried about the terrorists before 9/11, you know. In the aftermath of the World Trade Center, Pentagon and the airplane crash in PA, the big guns in Congress, Ashcroft and the people at the White House conducted lots of public and private meetings. Some of what are considered the most draconian components of the final act were included against the wishes of Justice and the White House, and vice-versa. That is how our government and legislative process works, like it or not. To claim Bush or Ashcroft (or even Rove) were the principle authors of the act is utter nonsense. Ashcroft was not alone in asking for the things he did, and had remarkable bi-partisan support in the Congress, mainly because his requests mirrored what was already in introduced or proposed legislation! I was there, and I can tell you there were dozens of really draconian ideas that the Administration and some Congressional leaders insisted be canned, mainly because they would have been hell to implement or administer, or were thought to be ultimately held un-Constitutional. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:34, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

:Amen to this. I heard with my own two ears Newt Gingrich discuss these reforms in 1993, to say it was "rushed through" without much debate and consideration is balderdash. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:05, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
:Also, Ashcroft was doing his job as Attorney General and fiduciary of the public trust; he'd be crtiticized if failed to act in the wake of 9/11. I am rapidly tiring of this approach, that User:Jazzman (and yes, I named Jazzman by name) is using to suggest or imply Ashcroft is the reincarnation of Heinrich Himmler. I am rapidly loosing patience with this garbage. IOW, don't even attempt this crap. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:10, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

::Wow! So I guess when you said personal attacks weren't ok you were being a little [[deceit|dishonest]]? And when you said I shouldn't accuse you of assuming bad faith... it was because you didn't want me to know that you are secretly think that when I said "Ashcroft wrote the Patriot Act" (which he still takes credit for, by the way; I've heard the words out of his own mouth!! I might even have a recording of it somewhere) you thought I ''actually'' meant "Ashcroft is a dirty little neocon fascist"? Or is it that people with power get to make personal remarks, but lowly editors just have to sit there and take it like a fraternity pledge? I mean, I know I'm a Marxist and all (you know, because my user page says I'm the exact opposite, and I've made major contributions to anti-marxists pages, and I've never indicated any Marxist traits whatsoever, and of course, I've made over 1,000 edits to the mainspace and haven't managed to be permabanned -- I've got to be a Marxist!!), but gee, I thought I was still able to make serious edits to the site. Thank you, Rob, for helping me see the light! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:29, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*Even more hilarious is their notion that the POTUS was personally taking pen to paper and writing up the "legislation". Does anyone actually have any idea at all of a President's day, let alone their week, or the way our government works? They really want people to ignore the fact that Pelosi, Boxer, Kennedy and the usual cast couldn't insert enough abridgments to civil rights! Of course they would later claim they didn't want them, so long as they were allowed on the bandwagon when it was expedient to ride it. And later planned on removing the most helpful provisions, the better to appeal to the Internet Liberal nut jobs they count on to spread their filth. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:01, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:TK, I never meant that Bush or Ashcroft *literally* wrote the PA. I'm sorry if it wasn't clear enough, but I thought it was common usage to refer to the head of a government body as the decision-maker. Bush hardly makes any decisions all by himself, and we all know that, but we still say "Bush decided X" because it's more convenient. Feel free to change my wording to be more precise, but I was trying to be more concise. (Heh, I rhymed!). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:29, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
::*Yep, the President who was outdone by Dan Quayle who may actually have been able to spell "potato" given a third chance, now we are to believe can read and write above "My Pet Goat" level. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:36, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*LOL....I almost deleted our "Goat" entry...let's leave the goat references to the moron brigade! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:47, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wiki links.... ==

I haven't looked to see who..but ''whoever'' is, please refrain from just adding linked phrases unless you plan to speedily create articles for them, okay? This article creates way too many red links, and no one is adding the pages for them. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:13, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:It was me. I do plan to create articles for them (see [[User:Jazzman831/redlinks|here]]). But in the meantime, creating a redlink encourages other people to create articles, so I don't have to do it all myself! :p [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:20, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

Patriot Act

2007-09-02T22:18:05Z

Jazzman831: typo

[[Image:Gwbushsigningpatriotact.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President George Bush signing Patriot Act before Bi-Partisan gathering of Members of Congress]]‎
The '''Patriot Act''' -- The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (more commonly known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 or simply the Patriot Act) -- is an antiterrorism bill written in response to the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]. It was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on October 26th, only 45 days after the terrorist attacks. The primary purpose of the bill was to provide [[law enforcement]] with the tools it needs to fight the domestic war on terror. The bill expanded the definitions of other crime-fighting bills to include [[terrorist]]s, it provided funds to the [[Justice Department]] for fighting terrorism, and, made broad changes to [[surveillance]] and intelligence procedures.

==Passage of the Act==
[[United States|Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]] formally proposed the increases in law enforcement powers on September 19th, requesting that they be considered immediately. Ashcroft and the Bush administration, along with the overwhelming majority of members of Congress, felt these provisions were necessary to find and apprehend the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as well as prevent any more imminent or future attacks. Many of the proposed powers had been sought by the Justice Department for years (the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] administration, for example, sought but was denied so-called [[roving wiretap]]s – a power that was included in Ashcroft’s bill), but the new and real threat of terrorism on American soil gave the Justice Department a more agreeable atmosphere in which to propose the measures again. <ref name="CQ">"USA PATRIOT Act, 2001-2002 Legislative Chronology." Congress and the Nation, 2001-2004, vol. 11, pp. 187-8 (Washington: CQ Press, 2006)</ref>

The [[House Judiciary Committee]] debated the proposal for weeks and reached an agreement on October 2nd. It made mostly minor changes, with one exception: the committee added [[sunset clause]]s to most of the surveillance and investigative powers, against the wishes of the administration.<ref name="CQ" /> These clauses would cause certain provisions of the bill to expire in 2003 unless Congress agreed to extend the date. The committee said that it understood the need for expediency, so it would add the sunset clauses to allow debate on the issue when time was not as much of an issue. The administration, however, was worried that the United States would still be fighting the war on terror when the clause came into effect.<ref>Bridis, Ted and Jess Bravin. “White House Seeks to Remove Time Limit On Surveillance Part of Antiterrorism Bill.” The Wall Street Journal, October 5th, 2001, p. A.18</ref>

The Democratically controlled [[United States Senate|Senate]] version of the bill went more in favor of the White House. While the bill was never considered by the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], the committee’s chair [[Patrick J. Leahy]], a [[Democrat]] from [[Vermont]], along with members from both parties met with the Bush administration to negotiate a bill that the Senate and [[White House]] could agree on. This version (finalized on October 4th) did not include a sunset provision, and it allowed lower barriers to allowing [[search warrant]]s. Additionally it gave the [[federal]] government new tools to fight [[money laundering]]. <ref name="CQ" />

The Senate passed its version of the bill with a 96-1 vote (only Senator [[Russ D. Feingold]], a Democrat from Wisconsin voted nay) after just three hours of debate on October 11th. The House revised its version of the bill to make it a little more to the Administration’s liking than that from the House Judiciary Committee, including moving the date of the sunset back three years, to 2006. This version passed a day after the Senate’s version 337-79 vote. The House and Senate negotiated an agreement between the two versions (including changing the sunset date to December 31st, 2005) and sent the bill, now officially known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, back to their respective chambers, where it passed 357-66 in the House on October 24th and 98-1 in the Senate (with Senator Feingold again voting against) a day later. It was signed into law by President Bush on the following day, only 37 days after the original proposal to Congress.<ref name="CQ" />

==How the Act Fights Terrorism==
The Patriot Act Fights Terrorism in three main ways: disrupting terrorist’s funding, improving methods of prosecuting terrorists, and expanding surveillance procedures and intelligence sharing. There were other minor parts, such as setting up a fund in the Treasury Department to reimburse the Department of Justice for fighting terrorism and a section which condemns discrimination against Muslims and Arab Americans.<ref name="leahy">Leahy, Patrick. “USA PATRIOT Act – Section by Section Analysis.” http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200110/102401a.html (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Most of the provisions deal directly with terrorism, but some have broader applicability, and some are not related to terrorism at all.

===Roving Wiretaps===
The first step in disrupting terrorism is finding the terrorists before they can successfully act on a plot to attack the United States. The Patriot Act provides the means for the federal government to gather intelligence on these plots, primarily through wiretaps and search warrants. One such provision is the so-called [[roving wiretaps]] provision. Roving wiretaps themselves are not new, they have been use investigating crime since 1986; the Patriot act simply extends this tool to gathering intelligence of terrorists.<ref name="206derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Before roving wiretaps, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] would need to get a separate FISC ([[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]) warrant for each method of communication used by a terrorist. This means that if the suspect switched phones or used public [[computer]]s the FBI would need to get multiple warrants. The Patriot Act allows for FISC warrants on a specific person, rather than a single specific phone line as under the old law. This means that the FBI could get one warrant, and tap whatever line the suspect happens to be using at the time.<ref name="206derosa" />

===Sneak and Peek Warrants===
Another tool provided by the Patriot Act is delayed-notification search warrants, or [[sneak and peek]] warrants.<ref name="213derosa" />DeRosa, Mary. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref>These are warrants which allow for the execution of a [[search and seizure]] of a property in a federal crime without notification of the subject. The government must show the court “reasonable cause” to believe that notifying the suspect would lead to an “adverse result” such as destruction of [[evidence]], [[intimidation]] of a [[witness]], or jeopardizing the investigation. "Reasonable cause" is not defined in the act. Sneak and peek warrants, like roving wiretaps, have been used in the past under other circumstances, but they had never before been allowed to retrieve physical evidence, only information or photographs of a scene.<ref name="213derosa" />

===Libraries Provision===
A third tool provided by the Patriot Act is the so-called “libraries provision,” sometimes just called Section 215. Section 215 broadens the FBI’s power to seize records of terrorist activities, specifically business records. Before the Act, the FBI could only subpoena “hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities,” but these powers were expanded through the act to include records from any place of business.<ref name="215derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Section 215 also expands the items the FBI can obtain to include “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items).”<ref name="215derosa" /> The Act also loosens the requirements to procure a warrant. Whereas before the FBI had to show evidence that the subject under surveillance was a foreign power or agent thereof, after the act, the FBI simply has to assert that the seizure is for a foreign intelligence investigation, clandestine intelligence activities or to protect against international terrorism. There is no requirement for an [[evidentiary hearing]]. Section 215 is called the libraries provision because it could potentially be used to subpoena a list of books checked out from a library, or a list of websites visited at a library computer, all without notifying the suspect.<ref name="215derosa" />

===Intelligence Sharing===
The Patriot Act also has several provisions which allow for information and intelligence to be better shared among the investigative and intelligence agencies. The Act allowed information about terrorist activities to be shared between federal, state and local governments, as it was previously allowed for other types of crimes. It also allowed for adding [[DNA]] samples of terrorists and other violent offenders to the national database which already includes DNA samples of other certain crimes.<ref name="leahy" />

===Money Laundering===
Another way the Patriot Act fights terrorism is by cutting off sources of illegal funding, which it does by attempting to curtail money laundering. The act requires all monetary institutions (the definition of which is very broad; it includes [[pawn broker]]s, [[insurance]] agencies, and [[diamond]] dealers) to enact a four part program.<ref name="serino">Serino, Robert. “Anti-Laundering Concerns Not Just for Banks Anymore.” American Banker, November 30th, 2001, vol. 167, iss. 229, p. 9</ref> The institution must appoint a compliance officer, establish a training program to recognize money laundering, establish a testing or auditing program to evaluate the accuracy of laundering detection and establish policies to avoid being used to launder money.<ref name="serino" />

===Definition of Terrorism===
Finally, the Patriot Act expands upon the definition of terrorism to include acts which were previously not part of [[federal law]]. It makes illegal terrorist acts against [[mass transportation]] systems as well as harboring terrorists or persons one knows or should know to be terrorists. The Act also expands the definition of [[conspiracy]] to allow for conspiracies in other types of crime, such as [[arson]], and creates a definition of [[domestic terrorist]] (someone who commits an offence which is “(1) dangerous to human life and violate[s] the criminal laws of the United States or any state; and (2) appear[s] to be intended (or have the effect) – to intimidate a [[civilian]] population; influence government policy by intimidation or [[coercion]]; or affect government conduct by mass destruction, [[assassination]], or [[kidnapping]] (or a threat of)”). <ref name="leahy" />

==Controversy==
[[Image:Costoffreedom2.gif|right|250px‎]]

Much of the Patriot Act is controversial. The largest criticisms come from [[civil libertarians]] and others who believe that the Act gives too much power to the [[executive branch]] and infringes on [[civil liberties]]. Some claim that these problems arose from the rushed nature of the passage of the bill. “The richest and most powerful government in world history was portrayed as a weakling vis-à-vis Al Qaeda terrorists. Until that legislative package was enacted, America was supposedly at a grave disadvantage.”<ref name="cato">Cato Handbook on Policy (6th edition). Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 199 (Cato Institute, 2005)</ref> They also claim that Ashcroft and the Bush administration pressured congressmen to vote for the package as a whole, instead of piece by piece, which lead to even more measures which would not have been passed had appropriate procedures taken place.<ref name="cato" /> Votes were scheduled to pass the bill before members of congress could get a copy, and in the days right after the terrorist attacks nobody wanted to be seen as unpatriotic by voting against the USA PATRIOT Act.

One point of contention with opponents of the Patriot Act is with the roving wiretaps provision. Some claim that the since the FBI does not have to determine the location of their suspect before they start collecting intelligence, the privacy of innocent citizens could accidentally be intruded upon.<ref name="dempsey">Dempsey, James X. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> They also claim that, due to changes within FISA outside of the realm of the Patriot Act, it is not necessary to know the identity of the person upon whom the warrant is being issued. This could lead to “John Doe” warrants, in which the government does not specify a suspect or a place of interception.<ref name="dempsey" />

Another problem opponents have with the Patriot act is with the sneak and peek search warrants. They claim that the standards are too low, and the definitions are too vague, such that warrants could be executed non-terror related crimes or even non-violent crimes like [[health care]] fraud.<ref>Dempsey, James X. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> These opponents argue that the weak definition of a “reasonable” time to notify the suspect that he had been searched could lead to situations where the suspect is denied his constitutional rights.<ref>Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress. Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 118-9 (Cato Institute, 2003)</ref> If, for example, the FBI got a search warrant to search a suspect’s garbage but found evidence by searching the subject’s desk, by the time the suspect was notified it is likely he will have no legal recourse.

A lot of criticisms have been aimed towards the libraries provision of the Patriot Act. As with other criticisms, those for the libraries provision rest largely in the broad and vague language in the bill. These types of searches had existed before in criminal law, but not with such loose and broad terms. The new law could be used to gain access to records usually subject to privacy protections, such as medical records.<ref name="swire">Swire, Peter P. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Opponents also dislike the [[gag rule]], which makes it illegal for the business which has been subpoenaed to even reveal that they have received a FISA request. Gag rules have been in place for such things as ongoing wiretaps, where informing the suspect would result in negating the usefulness of the tap, but never before have they been used to keep a subject in the dark about completed searches (even sneak and peek suspects eventually discover that they were searched).<ref name="swire" />

Eight states ([[Alaska]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho, Maine]], [[Montana]] and [[Vermont]]) and 396 cities and counties (including [[New York City]]; [[Los Angeles]]; [[Dallas]]; [[Chicago]]; [[Philadelphia]]; and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.{{fact}} Despite these claims, however, the FBI reports that there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm</ref> nor any terrorist incidents causing loss of life on American soil since its passage.

==Expiration==
Sixteen sections of the original bill were set to expire on December 31st, 2001, unless Congress decided to extend them or make them permanent. These sections were all from Title II of the act, the title which contained surveillance procedures, including the controversial ones mentioned above. After months of wrangling, negotiation, and debate (and two deadline extensions) Congress finally on March 2nd, 2006 passed a bill which renewed the Patriot Act but implemented safeguards for civil liberties.<ref>Diamond, John. “Senate Passes Patriot Act Changes; Civil liberties protections added to anti-terror law clear way for renewal” USA Today. March 2nd, 2006, p A.8</ref> Most of the measures were permanent, but the roving wiretap provision was extended only until 2009. Section 215, the libraries provision, was also extended to 2009, but now recipients of the FISA warrant may petition the government after one year to remove the gag order.

==Success==
The Department of Justice, now headed by Attorney General [[Alberto R. Gonzales]], claims that the Patriot Act has been a useful tool in finding and dismantling terrorist organizations and plots. It claims to have disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells, incapacitated over 3,000 terrorists, broken up five terror cells within U.S. borders, charged 401 individuals on terror charges and convicted 212,<ref>U.S. Department of Justice. “Waging the War On Terror,” http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/a_terr.htm (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> though the department does not differentiate between those captured through the new provisions of the Patriot Act, and those who were discovered by other means.

==External Links==
*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html Text of Patriot act]
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162: LIbrary of Congress info on Patriot Act]
*[http://www.ala.org/cfapps/archive.cfm?path=washoff/Patriotres.html view of American Library Association]
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/patriot-games-terrorism-law-and.php view of the Jurist]
*[http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm Department of Justice Official Website]
*[http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm FBI Official Website]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:United States law]]

Patriot Act

2007-09-02T22:14:59Z

Jazzman831: /* Money Laundering */ wikilink

[[Image:Gwbushsigningpatriotact.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President George Bush signing Patriot Act before Bi-Partisan gathering of Members of Congress]]‎
The '''Patriot Act''' -- The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (more commonly known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 or simply the Patriot Act) -- is an antiterrorism bill written in response to the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]. It was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on October 26th, only 45 days after the terrorist attacks. The primary purpose of the bill was to provide [[law enforcement]] with the tools it needs to fight the domestic war on terror. The bill expanded the definitions of other crime-fighting bills to include [[terrorist]]s, it provided funds to the [[Justice Department]] for fighting terrorism, and, made broad changes to [[surveillance]] and intelligence procedures.

==Passage of the Act==
[[United States|Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]] formally proposed the increases in law enforcement powers on September 19th, requesting that they be considered immediately. Ashcrof and the Bush administration, along with many members of Congress felt these provisions were necessary to find and apprehend the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as well as prevent any more imminent or future attacks. Many of the proposed powers had been sought by the Justice Department for years (the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] administration, for example, sought but was denied so-called [[roving wiretap]]s – a power that was included in Ashcroft’s bill), but the new and real threat of terrorism on American soil gave the Justice Department a more agreeable atmosphere in which to propose the measures again. <ref name="CQ">"USA PATRIOT Act, 2001-2002 Legislative Chronology." Congress and the Nation, 2001-2004, vol. 11, pp. 187-8 (Washington: CQ Press, 2006)</ref>

The [[House Judiciary Committee]] debated the proposal for weeks and reached an agreement on October 2nd. It made mostly minor changes, with one exception: the committee added [[sunset clause]]s to most of the surveillance and investigative powers, against the wishes of the administration.<ref name="CQ" /> These clauses would cause certain provisions of the bill to expire in 2003 unless Congress agreed to extend the date. The committee said that it understood the need for expediency, so it would add the sunset clauses to allow debate on the issue when time was not as much of an issue. The administration, however, was worried that the United States would still be fighting the war on terror when the clause came into effect.<ref>Bridis, Ted and Jess Bravin. “White House Seeks to Remove Time Limit On Surveillance Part of Antiterrorism Bill.” The Wall Street Journal, October 5th, 2001, p. A.18</ref>

The Democratically controlled [[United States Senate|Senate]] version of the bill went more in favor of the White House. While the bill was never considered by the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], the committee’s chair [[Patrick J. Leahy]], a [[Democrat]] from [[Vermont]], along with members from both parties met with the Bush administration to negotiate a bill that the Senate and [[White House]] could agree on. This version (finalized on October 4th) did not include a sunset provision, and it allowed lower barriers to allowing [[search warrant]]s. Additionally it gave the [[federal]] government new tools to fight [[money laundering]]. <ref name="CQ" />

The Senate passed its version of the bill with a 96-1 vote (only Senator [[Russ D. Feingold]], a Democrat from Wisconsin voted nay) after just three hours of debate on October 11th. The House revised its version of the bill to make it a little more to the Administration’s liking than that from the House Judiciary Committee, including moving the date of the sunset back three years, to 2006. This version passed a day after the Senate’s version 337-79 vote. The House and Senate negotiated an agreement between the two versions (including changing the sunset date to December 31st, 2005) and sent the bill, now officially known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, back to their respective chambers, where it passed 357-66 in the House on October 24th and 98-1 in the Senate (with Senator Feingold again voting against) a day later. It was signed into law by President Bush on the following day, only 37 days after the original proposal to Congress.<ref name="CQ" />

==How the Act Fights Terrorism==
The Patriot Act Fights Terrorism in three main ways: disrupting terrorist’s funding, improving methods of prosecuting terrorists, and expanding surveillance procedures and intelligence sharing. There were other minor parts, such as setting up a fund in the Treasury Department to reimburse the Department of Justice for fighting terrorism and a section which condemns discrimination against Muslims and Arab Americans.<ref name="leahy">Leahy, Patrick. “USA PATRIOT Act – Section by Section Analysis.” http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200110/102401a.html (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Most of the provisions deal directly with terrorism, but some have broader applicability, and some are not related to terrorism at all.

===Roving Wiretaps===
The first step in disrupting terrorism is finding the terrorists before they can successfully act on a plot to attack the United States. The Patriot Act provides the means for the federal government to gather intelligence on these plots, primarily through wiretaps and search warrants. One such provision is the so-called [[roving wiretaps]] provision. Roving wiretaps themselves are not new, they have been use investigating crime since 1986; the Patriot act simply extends this tool to gathering intelligence of terrorists.<ref name="206derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Before roving wiretaps, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] would need to get a separate FISC ([[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]) warrant for each method of communication used by a terrorist. This means that if the suspect switched phones or used public [[computer]]s the FBI would need to get multiple warrants. The Patriot Act allows for FISC warrants on a specific person, rather than a single specific phone line as under the old law. This means that the FBI could get one warrant, and tap whatever line the suspect happens to be using at the time.<ref name="206derosa" />

===Sneak and Peek Warrants===
Another tool provided by the Patriot Act is delayed-notification search warrants, or [[sneak and peek]] warrants.<ref name="213derosa" />DeRosa, Mary. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref>These are warrants which allow for the execution of a [[search and seizure]] of a property in a federal crime without notification of the subject. The government must show the court “reasonable cause” to believe that notifying the suspect would lead to an “adverse result” such as destruction of [[evidence]], [[intimidation]] of a [[witness]], or jeopardizing the investigation. "Reasonable cause" is not defined in the act. Sneak and peek warrants, like roving wiretaps, have been used in the past under other circumstances, but they had never before been allowed to retrieve physical evidence, only information or photographs of a scene.<ref name="213derosa" />

===Libraries Provision===
A third tool provided by the Patriot Act is the so-called “libraries provision,” sometimes just called Section 215. Section 215 broadens the FBI’s power to seize records of terrorist activities, specifically business records. Before the Act, the FBI could only subpoena “hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities,” but these powers were expanded through the act to include records from any place of business.<ref name="215derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Section 215 also expands the items the FBI can obtain to include “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items).”<ref name="215derosa" /> The Act also loosens the requirements to procure a warrant. Whereas before the FBI had to show evidence that the subject under surveillance was a foreign power or agent thereof, after the act, the FBI simply has to assert that the seizure is for a foreign intelligence investigation, clandestine intelligence activities or to protect against international terrorism. There is no requirement for an [[evidentiary hearing]]. Section 215 is called the libraries provision because it could potentially be used to subpoena a list of books checked out from a library, or a list of websites visited at a library computer, all without notifying the suspect.<ref name="215derosa" />

===Intelligence Sharing===
The Patriot Act also has several provisions which allow for information and intelligence to be better shared among the investigative and intelligence agencies. The Act allowed information about terrorist activities to be shared between federal, state and local governments, as it was previously allowed for other types of crimes. It also allowed for adding [[DNA]] samples of terrorists and other violent offenders to the national database which already includes DNA samples of other certain crimes.<ref name="leahy" />

===Money Laundering===
Another way the Patriot Act fights terrorism is by cutting off sources of illegal funding, which it does by attempting to curtail money laundering. The act requires all monetary institutions (the definition of which is very broad; it includes [[pawn broker]]s, [[insurance]] agencies, and [[diamond]] dealers) to enact a four part program.<ref name="serino">Serino, Robert. “Anti-Laundering Concerns Not Just for Banks Anymore.” American Banker, November 30th, 2001, vol. 167, iss. 229, p. 9</ref> The institution must appoint a compliance officer, establish a training program to recognize money laundering, establish a testing or auditing program to evaluate the accuracy of laundering detection and establish policies to avoid being used to launder money.<ref name="serino" />

===Definition of Terrorism===
Finally, the Patriot Act expands upon the definition of terrorism to include acts which were previously not part of [[federal law]]. It makes illegal terrorist acts against [[mass transportation]] systems as well as harboring terrorists or persons one knows or should know to be terrorists. The Act also expands the definition of [[conspiracy]] to allow for conspiracies in other types of crime, such as [[arson]], and creates a definition of [[domestic terrorist]] (someone who commits an offence which is “(1) dangerous to human life and violate[s] the criminal laws of the United States or any state; and (2) appear[s] to be intended (or have the effect) – to intimidate a [[civilian]] population; influence government policy by intimidation or [[coercion]]; or affect government conduct by mass destruction, [[assassination]], or [[kidnapping]] (or a threat of)”). <ref name="leahy" />

==Controversy==
[[Image:Costoffreedom2.gif|right|250px‎]]

Much of the Patriot Act is controversial. The largest criticisms come from [[civil libertarians]] and others who believe that the Act gives too much power to the [[executive branch]] and infringes on [[civil liberties]]. Some claim that these problems arose from the rushed nature of the passage of the bill. “The richest and most powerful government in world history was portrayed as a weakling vis-à-vis Al Qaeda terrorists. Until that legislative package was enacted, America was supposedly at a grave disadvantage.”<ref name="cato">Cato Handbook on Policy (6th edition). Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 199 (Cato Institute, 2005)</ref> They also claim that Ashcroft and the Bush administration pressured congressmen to vote for the package as a whole, instead of piece by piece, which lead to even more measures which would not have been passed had appropriate procedures taken place.<ref name="cato" /> Votes were scheduled to pass the bill before members of congress could get a copy, and in the days right after the terrorist attacks nobody wanted to be seen as unpatriotic by voting against the USA PATRIOT Act.

One point of contention with opponents of the Patriot Act is with the roving wiretaps provision. Some claim that the since the FBI does not have to determine the location of their suspect before they start collecting intelligence, the privacy of innocent citizens could accidentally be intruded upon.<ref name="dempsey">Dempsey, James X. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> They also claim that, due to changes within FISA outside of the realm of the Patriot Act, it is not necessary to know the identity of the person upon whom the warrant is being issued. This could lead to “John Doe” warrants, in which the government does not specify a suspect or a place of interception.<ref name="dempsey" />

Another problem opponents have with the Patriot act is with the sneak and peek search warrants. They claim that the standards are too low, and the definitions are too vague, such that warrants could be executed non-terror related crimes or even non-violent crimes like [[health care]] fraud.<ref>Dempsey, James X. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> These opponents argue that the weak definition of a “reasonable” time to notify the suspect that he had been searched could lead to situations where the suspect is denied his constitutional rights.<ref>Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress. Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 118-9 (Cato Institute, 2003)</ref> If, for example, the FBI got a search warrant to search a suspect’s garbage but found evidence by searching the subject’s desk, by the time the suspect was notified it is likely he will have no legal recourse.

A lot of criticisms have been aimed towards the libraries provision of the Patriot Act. As with other criticisms, those for the libraries provision rest largely in the broad and vague language in the bill. These types of searches had existed before in criminal law, but not with such loose and broad terms. The new law could be used to gain access to records usually subject to privacy protections, such as medical records.<ref name="swire">Swire, Peter P. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Opponents also dislike the [[gag rule]], which makes it illegal for the business which has been subpoenaed to even reveal that they have received a FISA request. Gag rules have been in place for such things as ongoing wiretaps, where informing the suspect would result in negating the usefulness of the tap, but never before have they been used to keep a subject in the dark about completed searches (even sneak and peek suspects eventually discover that they were searched).<ref name="swire" />

Eight states ([[Alaska]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho, Maine]], [[Montana]] and [[Vermont]]) and 396 cities and counties (including [[New York City]]; [[Los Angeles]]; [[Dallas]]; [[Chicago]]; [[Philadelphia]]; and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.{{fact}} Despite these claims, however, the FBI reports that there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm</ref> nor any terrorist incidents causing loss of life on American soil since its passage.

==Expiration==
Sixteen sections of the original bill were set to expire on December 31st, 2001, unless Congress decided to extend them or make them permanent. These sections were all from Title II of the act, the title which contained surveillance procedures, including the controversial ones mentioned above. After months of wrangling, negotiation, and debate (and two deadline extensions) Congress finally on March 2nd, 2006 passed a bill which renewed the Patriot Act but implemented safeguards for civil liberties.<ref>Diamond, John. “Senate Passes Patriot Act Changes; Civil liberties protections added to anti-terror law clear way for renewal” USA Today. March 2nd, 2006, p A.8</ref> Most of the measures were permanent, but the roving wiretap provision was extended only until 2009. Section 215, the libraries provision, was also extended to 2009, but now recipients of the FISA warrant may petition the government after one year to remove the gag order.

==Success==
The Department of Justice, now headed by Attorney General [[Alberto R. Gonzales]], claims that the Patriot Act has been a useful tool in finding and dismantling terrorist organizations and plots. It claims to have disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells, incapacitated over 3,000 terrorists, broken up five terror cells within U.S. borders, charged 401 individuals on terror charges and convicted 212,<ref>U.S. Department of Justice. “Waging the War On Terror,” http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/a_terr.htm (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> though the department does not differentiate between those captured through the new provisions of the Patriot Act, and those who were discovered by other means.

==External Links==
*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html Text of Patriot act]
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162: LIbrary of Congress info on Patriot Act]
*[http://www.ala.org/cfapps/archive.cfm?path=washoff/Patriotres.html view of American Library Association]
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/patriot-games-terrorism-law-and.php view of the Jurist]
*[http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm Department of Justice Official Website]
*[http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm FBI Official Website]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:United States law]]

Patriot Act

2007-09-02T22:11:30Z

Jazzman831: /* Passage of the Act */ wikilink

[[Image:Gwbushsigningpatriotact.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President George Bush signing Patriot Act before Bi-Partisan gathering of Members of Congress]]‎
The '''Patriot Act''' -- The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (more commonly known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 or simply the Patriot Act) -- is an antiterrorism bill written in response to the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]. It was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on October 26th, only 45 days after the terrorist attacks. The primary purpose of the bill was to provide [[law enforcement]] with the tools it needs to fight the domestic war on terror. The bill expanded the definitions of other crime-fighting bills to include [[terrorist]]s, it provided funds to the [[Justice Department]] for fighting terrorism, and, made broad changes to [[surveillance]] and intelligence procedures.

==Passage of the Act==
[[United States|Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]] formally proposed the increases in law enforcement powers on September 19th, requesting that they be considered immediately. Ashcrof and the Bush administration, along with many members of Congress felt these provisions were necessary to find and apprehend the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as well as prevent any more imminent or future attacks. Many of the proposed powers had been sought by the Justice Department for years (the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] administration, for example, sought but was denied so-called [[roving wiretap]]s – a power that was included in Ashcroft’s bill), but the new and real threat of terrorism on American soil gave the Justice Department a more agreeable atmosphere in which to propose the measures again. <ref name="CQ">"USA PATRIOT Act, 2001-2002 Legislative Chronology." Congress and the Nation, 2001-2004, vol. 11, pp. 187-8 (Washington: CQ Press, 2006)</ref>

The [[House Judiciary Committee]] debated the proposal for weeks and reached an agreement on October 2nd. It made mostly minor changes, with one exception: the committee added [[sunset clause]]s to most of the surveillance and investigative powers, against the wishes of the administration.<ref name="CQ" /> These clauses would cause certain provisions of the bill to expire in 2003 unless Congress agreed to extend the date. The committee said that it understood the need for expediency, so it would add the sunset clauses to allow debate on the issue when time was not as much of an issue. The administration, however, was worried that the United States would still be fighting the war on terror when the clause came into effect.<ref>Bridis, Ted and Jess Bravin. “White House Seeks to Remove Time Limit On Surveillance Part of Antiterrorism Bill.” The Wall Street Journal, October 5th, 2001, p. A.18</ref>

The Democratically controlled [[United States Senate|Senate]] version of the bill went more in favor of the White House. While the bill was never considered by the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], the committee’s chair [[Patrick J. Leahy]], a [[Democrat]] from [[Vermont]], along with members from both parties met with the Bush administration to negotiate a bill that the Senate and [[White House]] could agree on. This version (finalized on October 4th) did not include a sunset provision, and it allowed lower barriers to allowing [[search warrant]]s. Additionally it gave the [[federal]] government new tools to fight [[money laundering]]. <ref name="CQ" />

The Senate passed its version of the bill with a 96-1 vote (only Senator [[Russ D. Feingold]], a Democrat from Wisconsin voted nay) after just three hours of debate on October 11th. The House revised its version of the bill to make it a little more to the Administration’s liking than that from the House Judiciary Committee, including moving the date of the sunset back three years, to 2006. This version passed a day after the Senate’s version 337-79 vote. The House and Senate negotiated an agreement between the two versions (including changing the sunset date to December 31st, 2005) and sent the bill, now officially known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, back to their respective chambers, where it passed 357-66 in the House on October 24th and 98-1 in the Senate (with Senator Feingold again voting against) a day later. It was signed into law by President Bush on the following day, only 37 days after the original proposal to Congress.<ref name="CQ" />

==How the Act Fights Terrorism==
The Patriot Act Fights Terrorism in three main ways: disrupting terrorist’s funding, improving methods of prosecuting terrorists, and expanding surveillance procedures and intelligence sharing. There were other minor parts, such as setting up a fund in the Treasury Department to reimburse the Department of Justice for fighting terrorism and a section which condemns discrimination against Muslims and Arab Americans.<ref name="leahy">Leahy, Patrick. “USA PATRIOT Act – Section by Section Analysis.” http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200110/102401a.html (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Most of the provisions deal directly with terrorism, but some have broader applicability, and some are not related to terrorism at all.

===Roving Wiretaps===
The first step in disrupting terrorism is finding the terrorists before they can successfully act on a plot to attack the United States. The Patriot Act provides the means for the federal government to gather intelligence on these plots, primarily through wiretaps and search warrants. One such provision is the so-called [[roving wiretaps]] provision. Roving wiretaps themselves are not new, they have been use investigating crime since 1986; the Patriot act simply extends this tool to gathering intelligence of terrorists.<ref name="206derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Before roving wiretaps, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] would need to get a separate FISC ([[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]) warrant for each method of communication used by a terrorist. This means that if the suspect switched phones or used public [[computer]]s the FBI would need to get multiple warrants. The Patriot Act allows for FISC warrants on a specific person, rather than a single specific phone line as under the old law. This means that the FBI could get one warrant, and tap whatever line the suspect happens to be using at the time.<ref name="206derosa" />

===Sneak and Peek Warrants===
Another tool provided by the Patriot Act is delayed-notification search warrants, or [[sneak and peek]] warrants.<ref name="213derosa" />DeRosa, Mary. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref>These are warrants which allow for the execution of a [[search and seizure]] of a property in a federal crime without notification of the subject. The government must show the court “reasonable cause” to believe that notifying the suspect would lead to an “adverse result” such as destruction of [[evidence]], [[intimidation]] of a [[witness]], or jeopardizing the investigation. "Reasonable cause" is not defined in the act. Sneak and peek warrants, like roving wiretaps, have been used in the past under other circumstances, but they had never before been allowed to retrieve physical evidence, only information or photographs of a scene.<ref name="213derosa" />

===Libraries Provision===
A third tool provided by the Patriot Act is the so-called “libraries provision,” sometimes just called Section 215. Section 215 broadens the FBI’s power to seize records of terrorist activities, specifically business records. Before the Act, the FBI could only subpoena “hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities,” but these powers were expanded through the act to include records from any place of business.<ref name="215derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Section 215 also expands the items the FBI can obtain to include “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items).”<ref name="215derosa" /> The Act also loosens the requirements to procure a warrant. Whereas before the FBI had to show evidence that the subject under surveillance was a foreign power or agent thereof, after the act, the FBI simply has to assert that the seizure is for a foreign intelligence investigation, clandestine intelligence activities or to protect against international terrorism. There is no requirement for an [[evidentiary hearing]]. Section 215 is called the libraries provision because it could potentially be used to subpoena a list of books checked out from a library, or a list of websites visited at a library computer, all without notifying the suspect.<ref name="215derosa" />

===Intelligence Sharing===
The Patriot Act also has several provisions which allow for information and intelligence to be better shared among the investigative and intelligence agencies. The Act allowed information about terrorist activities to be shared between federal, state and local governments, as it was previously allowed for other types of crimes. It also allowed for adding [[DNA]] samples of terrorists and other violent offenders to the national database which already includes DNA samples of other certain crimes.<ref name="leahy" />

===Money Laundering===
Another way the Patriot Act fights terrorism is by cutting off sources of illegal funding, which it does by attempting to curtail money laundering. The act requires all monetary institutions (the definition of which is very broad; it includes [[pawn brokers]], [[insurance]] agencies, and [[diamond]] dealers) to enact a four part program.<ref name="serino">Serino, Robert. “Anti-Laundering Concerns Not Just for Banks Anymore.” American Banker, November 30th, 2001, vol. 167, iss. 229, p. 9</ref> The institution must appoint a compliance officer, establish a training program to recognize money laundering, establish a testing or auditing program to evaluate the accuracy of laundering detection and establish policies to avoid being used to launder money.<ref name="serino" />

===Definition of Terrorism===
Finally, the Patriot Act expands upon the definition of terrorism to include acts which were previously not part of [[federal law]]. It makes illegal terrorist acts against [[mass transportation]] systems as well as harboring terrorists or persons one knows or should know to be terrorists. The Act also expands the definition of [[conspiracy]] to allow for conspiracies in other types of crime, such as [[arson]], and creates a definition of [[domestic terrorist]] (someone who commits an offence which is “(1) dangerous to human life and violate[s] the criminal laws of the United States or any state; and (2) appear[s] to be intended (or have the effect) – to intimidate a [[civilian]] population; influence government policy by intimidation or [[coercion]]; or affect government conduct by mass destruction, [[assassination]], or [[kidnapping]] (or a threat of)”). <ref name="leahy" />

==Controversy==
[[Image:Costoffreedom2.gif|right|250px‎]]

Much of the Patriot Act is controversial. The largest criticisms come from [[civil libertarians]] and others who believe that the Act gives too much power to the [[executive branch]] and infringes on [[civil liberties]]. Some claim that these problems arose from the rushed nature of the passage of the bill. “The richest and most powerful government in world history was portrayed as a weakling vis-à-vis Al Qaeda terrorists. Until that legislative package was enacted, America was supposedly at a grave disadvantage.”<ref name="cato">Cato Handbook on Policy (6th edition). Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 199 (Cato Institute, 2005)</ref> They also claim that Ashcroft and the Bush administration pressured congressmen to vote for the package as a whole, instead of piece by piece, which lead to even more measures which would not have been passed had appropriate procedures taken place.<ref name="cato" /> Votes were scheduled to pass the bill before members of congress could get a copy, and in the days right after the terrorist attacks nobody wanted to be seen as unpatriotic by voting against the USA PATRIOT Act.

One point of contention with opponents of the Patriot Act is with the roving wiretaps provision. Some claim that the since the FBI does not have to determine the location of their suspect before they start collecting intelligence, the privacy of innocent citizens could accidentally be intruded upon.<ref name="dempsey">Dempsey, James X. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> They also claim that, due to changes within FISA outside of the realm of the Patriot Act, it is not necessary to know the identity of the person upon whom the warrant is being issued. This could lead to “John Doe” warrants, in which the government does not specify a suspect or a place of interception.<ref name="dempsey" />

Another problem opponents have with the Patriot act is with the sneak and peek search warrants. They claim that the standards are too low, and the definitions are too vague, such that warrants could be executed non-terror related crimes or even non-violent crimes like [[health care]] fraud.<ref>Dempsey, James X. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> These opponents argue that the weak definition of a “reasonable” time to notify the suspect that he had been searched could lead to situations where the suspect is denied his constitutional rights.<ref>Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress. Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 118-9 (Cato Institute, 2003)</ref> If, for example, the FBI got a search warrant to search a suspect’s garbage but found evidence by searching the subject’s desk, by the time the suspect was notified it is likely he will have no legal recourse.

A lot of criticisms have been aimed towards the libraries provision of the Patriot Act. As with other criticisms, those for the libraries provision rest largely in the broad and vague language in the bill. These types of searches had existed before in criminal law, but not with such loose and broad terms. The new law could be used to gain access to records usually subject to privacy protections, such as medical records.<ref name="swire">Swire, Peter P. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Opponents also dislike the [[gag rule]], which makes it illegal for the business which has been subpoenaed to even reveal that they have received a FISA request. Gag rules have been in place for such things as ongoing wiretaps, where informing the suspect would result in negating the usefulness of the tap, but never before have they been used to keep a subject in the dark about completed searches (even sneak and peek suspects eventually discover that they were searched).<ref name="swire" />

Eight states ([[Alaska]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho, Maine]], [[Montana]] and [[Vermont]]) and 396 cities and counties (including [[New York City]]; [[Los Angeles]]; [[Dallas]]; [[Chicago]]; [[Philadelphia]]; and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.{{fact}} Despite these claims, however, the FBI reports that there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm</ref> nor any terrorist incidents causing loss of life on American soil since its passage.

==Expiration==
Sixteen sections of the original bill were set to expire on December 31st, 2001, unless Congress decided to extend them or make them permanent. These sections were all from Title II of the act, the title which contained surveillance procedures, including the controversial ones mentioned above. After months of wrangling, negotiation, and debate (and two deadline extensions) Congress finally on March 2nd, 2006 passed a bill which renewed the Patriot Act but implemented safeguards for civil liberties.<ref>Diamond, John. “Senate Passes Patriot Act Changes; Civil liberties protections added to anti-terror law clear way for renewal” USA Today. March 2nd, 2006, p A.8</ref> Most of the measures were permanent, but the roving wiretap provision was extended only until 2009. Section 215, the libraries provision, was also extended to 2009, but now recipients of the FISA warrant may petition the government after one year to remove the gag order.

==Success==
The Department of Justice, now headed by Attorney General [[Alberto R. Gonzales]], claims that the Patriot Act has been a useful tool in finding and dismantling terrorist organizations and plots. It claims to have disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells, incapacitated over 3,000 terrorists, broken up five terror cells within U.S. borders, charged 401 individuals on terror charges and convicted 212,<ref>U.S. Department of Justice. “Waging the War On Terror,” http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/a_terr.htm (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> though the department does not differentiate between those captured through the new provisions of the Patriot Act, and those who were discovered by other means.

==External Links==
*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html Text of Patriot act]
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162: LIbrary of Congress info on Patriot Act]
*[http://www.ala.org/cfapps/archive.cfm?path=washoff/Patriotres.html view of American Library Association]
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/patriot-games-terrorism-law-and.php view of the Jurist]
*[http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm Department of Justice Official Website]
*[http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm FBI Official Website]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:United States law]]

Patriot Act

2007-09-02T22:09:46Z

Jazzman831: add wikilink (again!); remove citation since that's not what the source says

[[Image:Gwbushsigningpatriotact.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President George Bush signing Patriot Act before Bi-Partisan gathering of Members of Congress]]‎
The '''Patriot Act''' -- The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (more commonly known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 or simply the Patriot Act) -- is an antiterrorism bill written in response to the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]. It was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on October 26th, only 45 days after the terrorist attacks. The primary purpose of the bill was to provide [[law enforcement]] with the tools it needs to fight the domestic war on terror. The bill expanded the definitions of other crime-fighting bills to include [[terrorist]]s, it provided funds to the [[Justice Department]] for fighting terrorism, and, made broad changes to [[surveillance]] and intelligence procedures.

==Passage of the Act==
[[United States|Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]] formally proposed the increases in law enforcement powers on September 19th, requesting that they be considered immediately. Ashcrof and the Bush administration, along with many members of Congress felt these provisions were necessary to find and apprehend the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as well as prevent any more imminent or future attacks. Many of the proposed powers had been sought by the Justice Department for years (the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] administration, for example, sought but was denied so-called [[roving wiretaps]] – a power that was included in Ashcroft’s bill), but the new and real threat of terrorism on American soil gave the Justice Department a more agreeable atmosphere in which to propose the measures again. <ref name="CQ">"USA PATRIOT Act, 2001-2002 Legislative Chronology." Congress and the Nation, 2001-2004, vol. 11, pp. 187-8 (Washington: CQ Press, 2006)</ref>

The [[House Judiciary Committee]] debated the proposal for weeks and reached an agreement on October 2nd. It made mostly minor changes, with one exception: the committee added [[sunset clause]]s to most of the surveillance and investigative powers, against the wishes of the administration.<ref name="CQ" /> These clauses would cause certain provisions of the bill to expire in 2003 unless Congress agreed to extend the date. The committee said that it understood the need for expediency, so it would add the sunset clauses to allow debate on the issue when time was not as much of an issue. The administration, however, was worried that the United States would still be fighting the war on terror when the clause came into effect.<ref>Bridis, Ted and Jess Bravin. “White House Seeks to Remove Time Limit On Surveillance Part of Antiterrorism Bill.” The Wall Street Journal, October 5th, 2001, p. A.18</ref>

The Democratically controlled [[United States Senate|Senate]] version of the bill went more in favor of the White House. While the bill was never considered by the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], the committee’s chair [[Patrick J. Leahy]], a [[Democrat]] from [[Vermont]], along with members from both parties met with the Bush administration to negotiate a bill that the Senate and [[White House]] could agree on. This version (finalized on October 4th) did not include a sunset provision, and it allowed lower barriers to allowing [[search warrant]]s. Additionally it gave the [[federal]] government new tools to fight [[money laundering]]. <ref name="CQ" />

The Senate passed its version of the bill with a 96-1 vote (only Senator [[Russ D. Feingold]], a Democrat from Wisconsin voted nay) after just three hours of debate on October 11th. The House revised its version of the bill to make it a little more to the Administration’s liking than that from the House Judiciary Committee, including moving the date of the sunset back three years, to 2006. This version passed a day after the Senate’s version 337-79 vote. The House and Senate negotiated an agreement between the two versions (including changing the sunset date to December 31st, 2005) and sent the bill, now officially known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, back to their respective chambers, where it passed 357-66 in the House on October 24th and 98-1 in the Senate (with Senator Feingold again voting against) a day later. It was signed into law by President Bush on the following day, only 37 days after the original proposal to Congress.<ref name="CQ" />

==How the Act Fights Terrorism==
The Patriot Act Fights Terrorism in three main ways: disrupting terrorist’s funding, improving methods of prosecuting terrorists, and expanding surveillance procedures and intelligence sharing. There were other minor parts, such as setting up a fund in the Treasury Department to reimburse the Department of Justice for fighting terrorism and a section which condemns discrimination against Muslims and Arab Americans.<ref name="leahy">Leahy, Patrick. “USA PATRIOT Act – Section by Section Analysis.” http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200110/102401a.html (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Most of the provisions deal directly with terrorism, but some have broader applicability, and some are not related to terrorism at all.

===Roving Wiretaps===
The first step in disrupting terrorism is finding the terrorists before they can successfully act on a plot to attack the United States. The Patriot Act provides the means for the federal government to gather intelligence on these plots, primarily through wiretaps and search warrants. One such provision is the so-called [[roving wiretaps]] provision. Roving wiretaps themselves are not new, they have been use investigating crime since 1986; the Patriot act simply extends this tool to gathering intelligence of terrorists.<ref name="206derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Before roving wiretaps, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] would need to get a separate FISC ([[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]) warrant for each method of communication used by a terrorist. This means that if the suspect switched phones or used public [[computer]]s the FBI would need to get multiple warrants. The Patriot Act allows for FISC warrants on a specific person, rather than a single specific phone line as under the old law. This means that the FBI could get one warrant, and tap whatever line the suspect happens to be using at the time.<ref name="206derosa" />

===Sneak and Peek Warrants===
Another tool provided by the Patriot Act is delayed-notification search warrants, or [[sneak and peek]] warrants.<ref name="213derosa" />DeRosa, Mary. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref>These are warrants which allow for the execution of a [[search and seizure]] of a property in a federal crime without notification of the subject. The government must show the court “reasonable cause” to believe that notifying the suspect would lead to an “adverse result” such as destruction of [[evidence]], [[intimidation]] of a [[witness]], or jeopardizing the investigation. "Reasonable cause" is not defined in the act. Sneak and peek warrants, like roving wiretaps, have been used in the past under other circumstances, but they had never before been allowed to retrieve physical evidence, only information or photographs of a scene.<ref name="213derosa" />

===Libraries Provision===
A third tool provided by the Patriot Act is the so-called “libraries provision,” sometimes just called Section 215. Section 215 broadens the FBI’s power to seize records of terrorist activities, specifically business records. Before the Act, the FBI could only subpoena “hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities,” but these powers were expanded through the act to include records from any place of business.<ref name="215derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Section 215 also expands the items the FBI can obtain to include “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items).”<ref name="215derosa" /> The Act also loosens the requirements to procure a warrant. Whereas before the FBI had to show evidence that the subject under surveillance was a foreign power or agent thereof, after the act, the FBI simply has to assert that the seizure is for a foreign intelligence investigation, clandestine intelligence activities or to protect against international terrorism. There is no requirement for an [[evidentiary hearing]]. Section 215 is called the libraries provision because it could potentially be used to subpoena a list of books checked out from a library, or a list of websites visited at a library computer, all without notifying the suspect.<ref name="215derosa" />

===Intelligence Sharing===
The Patriot Act also has several provisions which allow for information and intelligence to be better shared among the investigative and intelligence agencies. The Act allowed information about terrorist activities to be shared between federal, state and local governments, as it was previously allowed for other types of crimes. It also allowed for adding [[DNA]] samples of terrorists and other violent offenders to the national database which already includes DNA samples of other certain crimes.<ref name="leahy" />

===Money Laundering===
Another way the Patriot Act fights terrorism is by cutting off sources of illegal funding, which it does by attempting to curtail money laundering. The act requires all monetary institutions (the definition of which is very broad; it includes [[pawn brokers]], [[insurance]] agencies, and [[diamond]] dealers) to enact a four part program.<ref name="serino">Serino, Robert. “Anti-Laundering Concerns Not Just for Banks Anymore.” American Banker, November 30th, 2001, vol. 167, iss. 229, p. 9</ref> The institution must appoint a compliance officer, establish a training program to recognize money laundering, establish a testing or auditing program to evaluate the accuracy of laundering detection and establish policies to avoid being used to launder money.<ref name="serino" />

===Definition of Terrorism===
Finally, the Patriot Act expands upon the definition of terrorism to include acts which were previously not part of [[federal law]]. It makes illegal terrorist acts against [[mass transportation]] systems as well as harboring terrorists or persons one knows or should know to be terrorists. The Act also expands the definition of [[conspiracy]] to allow for conspiracies in other types of crime, such as [[arson]], and creates a definition of [[domestic terrorist]] (someone who commits an offence which is “(1) dangerous to human life and violate[s] the criminal laws of the United States or any state; and (2) appear[s] to be intended (or have the effect) – to intimidate a [[civilian]] population; influence government policy by intimidation or [[coercion]]; or affect government conduct by mass destruction, [[assassination]], or [[kidnapping]] (or a threat of)”). <ref name="leahy" />

==Controversy==
[[Image:Costoffreedom2.gif|right|250px‎]]

Much of the Patriot Act is controversial. The largest criticisms come from [[civil libertarians]] and others who believe that the Act gives too much power to the [[executive branch]] and infringes on [[civil liberties]]. Some claim that these problems arose from the rushed nature of the passage of the bill. “The richest and most powerful government in world history was portrayed as a weakling vis-à-vis Al Qaeda terrorists. Until that legislative package was enacted, America was supposedly at a grave disadvantage.”<ref name="cato">Cato Handbook on Policy (6th edition). Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 199 (Cato Institute, 2005)</ref> They also claim that Ashcroft and the Bush administration pressured congressmen to vote for the package as a whole, instead of piece by piece, which lead to even more measures which would not have been passed had appropriate procedures taken place.<ref name="cato" /> Votes were scheduled to pass the bill before members of congress could get a copy, and in the days right after the terrorist attacks nobody wanted to be seen as unpatriotic by voting against the USA PATRIOT Act.

One point of contention with opponents of the Patriot Act is with the roving wiretaps provision. Some claim that the since the FBI does not have to determine the location of their suspect before they start collecting intelligence, the privacy of innocent citizens could accidentally be intruded upon.<ref name="dempsey">Dempsey, James X. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> They also claim that, due to changes within FISA outside of the realm of the Patriot Act, it is not necessary to know the identity of the person upon whom the warrant is being issued. This could lead to “John Doe” warrants, in which the government does not specify a suspect or a place of interception.<ref name="dempsey" />

Another problem opponents have with the Patriot act is with the sneak and peek search warrants. They claim that the standards are too low, and the definitions are too vague, such that warrants could be executed non-terror related crimes or even non-violent crimes like [[health care]] fraud.<ref>Dempsey, James X. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> These opponents argue that the weak definition of a “reasonable” time to notify the suspect that he had been searched could lead to situations where the suspect is denied his constitutional rights.<ref>Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress. Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 118-9 (Cato Institute, 2003)</ref> If, for example, the FBI got a search warrant to search a suspect’s garbage but found evidence by searching the subject’s desk, by the time the suspect was notified it is likely he will have no legal recourse.

A lot of criticisms have been aimed towards the libraries provision of the Patriot Act. As with other criticisms, those for the libraries provision rest largely in the broad and vague language in the bill. These types of searches had existed before in criminal law, but not with such loose and broad terms. The new law could be used to gain access to records usually subject to privacy protections, such as medical records.<ref name="swire">Swire, Peter P. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Opponents also dislike the [[gag rule]], which makes it illegal for the business which has been subpoenaed to even reveal that they have received a FISA request. Gag rules have been in place for such things as ongoing wiretaps, where informing the suspect would result in negating the usefulness of the tap, but never before have they been used to keep a subject in the dark about completed searches (even sneak and peek suspects eventually discover that they were searched).<ref name="swire" />

Eight states ([[Alaska]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho, Maine]], [[Montana]] and [[Vermont]]) and 396 cities and counties (including [[New York City]]; [[Los Angeles]]; [[Dallas]]; [[Chicago]]; [[Philadelphia]]; and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.{{fact}} Despite these claims, however, the FBI reports that there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm</ref> nor any terrorist incidents causing loss of life on American soil since its passage.

==Expiration==
Sixteen sections of the original bill were set to expire on December 31st, 2001, unless Congress decided to extend them or make them permanent. These sections were all from Title II of the act, the title which contained surveillance procedures, including the controversial ones mentioned above. After months of wrangling, negotiation, and debate (and two deadline extensions) Congress finally on March 2nd, 2006 passed a bill which renewed the Patriot Act but implemented safeguards for civil liberties.<ref>Diamond, John. “Senate Passes Patriot Act Changes; Civil liberties protections added to anti-terror law clear way for renewal” USA Today. March 2nd, 2006, p A.8</ref> Most of the measures were permanent, but the roving wiretap provision was extended only until 2009. Section 215, the libraries provision, was also extended to 2009, but now recipients of the FISA warrant may petition the government after one year to remove the gag order.

==Success==
The Department of Justice, now headed by Attorney General [[Alberto R. Gonzales]], claims that the Patriot Act has been a useful tool in finding and dismantling terrorist organizations and plots. It claims to have disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells, incapacitated over 3,000 terrorists, broken up five terror cells within U.S. borders, charged 401 individuals on terror charges and convicted 212,<ref>U.S. Department of Justice. “Waging the War On Terror,” http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/a_terr.htm (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> though the department does not differentiate between those captured through the new provisions of the Patriot Act, and those who were discovered by other means.

==External Links==
*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html Text of Patriot act]
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162: LIbrary of Congress info on Patriot Act]
*[http://www.ala.org/cfapps/archive.cfm?path=washoff/Patriotres.html view of American Library Association]
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/patriot-games-terrorism-law-and.php view of the Jurist]
*[http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm Department of Justice Official Website]
*[http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm FBI Official Website]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:United States law]]

New England Patriots

2007-09-02T21:36:26Z

Jazzman831: Undo revision 285099 by Special:Contributions/HueyCominTogetcha (User talk:HueyCominTogetcha) vandal

[[Image:Ptc.jpg|thumb|300px|The New England players at the 2005 [[Patriots Training Camp]].]]
The '''New England Patriots''' are a [[National Football League]] franchise team. The Patriots, also known to their fans as the "Pats", are based in [[Foxboro (Massachusetts)|Foxboro]], [[Massachusetts]]. Since they are located in the eastern region of the United States the Patriots belong to the Eastern Division of [[American Football Conference]] (AFC). Originally known as the Boston Patriots the franchise changed its name in 1971 to the New England Patriots to better reflect its representation of the entire [[New England]] region.

The Patriots have gone to five Super Bowls and have won three. Their first [[Super Bowl]] trip was in 1985 against the [[Chicago Bears]], which they lost 42 - 10. In 1995 the Patriots made their second Super Bowl trip but fell short against the [[Green Bay Packers]] in a 35 - 21 loss. However, the Patriots' 2001 season ended in a [[Super Bowl]] triumph, where they defeated the heavily favored [[St. Louis Rams]] in a thrilling 21-17 victory. The Patriots won two more Super Bowls in 2004 over the [[Carolina Panthers]] and 2005 over the [[Philadelphia Eagles]].

== Team ==
{| class="toccolours" style="text-align: left;"
|-
!colspan="7" style="background-color: #0d254c;"| New England Patriots Roster

|-
| style="font-size: 95%;" valign="top" | '''Quarterbacks'''
* 12 [[Tom Brady]]
* 16 [[Matt Cassel]]
* 7 ''[[Matt Gutierrez]]''

'''Running Backs'''
* 44 [[Heath Evans]] FB
* 33 [[Kevin Faulk]]
* 39 [[Laurence Maroney]]
* 34 [[Sammy Morris]]

'''Wide Receivers'''
* 87 [[Reche Caldwell]]
* 80 [[Troy Brown]]
* 10 [[Jabar Gaffney]]
* 17 [[Chad Jackson]]
* 81 [[Randy Moss]]
* 18 [[Donte Stallworth]]
* 15 [[Kelley Washington]]
* 83 [[Wes Welker]] WR/KR

'''Tight Ends'''
* 88 [[Kyle Brady]]
* 86 [[David Thomas (football player)|David Thomas]]
* 84 [[Benjamin Watson]]
| style="width: 25px;" |
| style="font-size: 95%;" valign="top" | '''Offensive Linemen'''
* 65 [[Wesley Britt]] T
* 71 [[Russ Hochstein]] C/G
* 77 [[Nick Kaczur]] T
* 67 [[Dan Koppen]] C
* 72 [[Matt Light]] T
* 70 [[Logan Mankins]] G
* 61 [[Stephen Neal]] G
* 68 [[Ryan O'Callaghan]] T
* 74 [[Billy Yates (football player)|Billy Yates]] G

'''Defensive Linemen'''
* 95 ''[[Kareem Brown]]'' DE/DT
* 97 [[Jarvis Green]] DE
* 93 [[Richard Seymour]] DE
* 90 [[Kevin Smith (Football Player)|Kevin Smith]] NT
* 94 [[Ty Warren]] DE
* 75 [[Vince Wilfork]] NT
* 99 [[Mike Wright]] NT

| style="width: 25px;" |
| style="font-size: 95%;" valign="top" | '''Linebackers'''
* 52 [[Eric Alexander (football player)|Eric Alexander]] ILB
* 54 [[Tedy Bruschi]] ILB
* 59 [[Rosevelt Colvin]] OLB
* 53 [[Larry Izzo]] ILB
* 55 [[Junior Seau]] ILB
* 96 [[Adalius Thomas]] OLB
* 50 [[Mike Vrabel]] ILB/OLB
* 58 [[Pierre Woods]] OLB

'''Defensive Backs'''
* 23 [[Willie Andrews]] CB
* 32 [[Rashad Baker]] FS
* 21 [[Randall Gay]] CB
* 37 [[Rodney Harrison]] SS
* 27 [[Ellis Hobbs]] CB
* 29 [[Eddie Jackson]] CB
* 28 [[Tory James]] CB
* 31 ''[[Brandon Meriweather]]'' FS
* 24 [[Mel Mitchell]] FS
* 22 [[Asante Samuel]] CB
* 36 [[James Sanders (American football player)|James Sanders]] SS
* 26 [[Eugene Wilson (American football player)|Eugene Wilson]] FS
'''Special Teams'''
*  3 [[Stephen Gostkowski]] K
*  6[[Chris Hanson]] P
* 66 [[Lonie Paxton]] LS

| style="width: 25px;" |
| style="font-size: 95%;" valign="top" |'''Coaches'''
*[[Bill Belichick]] Head Coach
*[[Nick Caserio]] Wide Receivers
*[[Joel Collier]] Secondary
*[[Ivan Fears]] Running Backs
*[[Pepper Johnson]] Defensive Line
*[[Pete Mangurian]] Tight Ends
*[[Josh McDaniels]] Offensive Coordinator/Quarterbacks
*[[Harold Nash]] Assistant Strength and Conditioning
*[[Bill O'Brien]] Offensive Assistant
*[[Matt Patricia]] Linebackers
*[[Dean Pees]] Defensive Coordinator
*[[Dante Scarnecchia]] Assistant Head Coach/Offensive Line
*[[Brad Seely]] Special Teams
*[[Mike Woicik]] Strength and Conditioning

[http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=Rosters&Print=yes Roster] 
[http://www.patriots.com/depthchart.cfm Depth Chart] 

'''Players on the Patriots Injury Reserve List (IR)'''
* 35 ''[[Mike Richardson]]'' CB
* 30 [[Chad Scott]] CB
* 49 ''[[Oscar Lua]]'' ILB
* 43 ''[[Justise Hairston]]''

'''Practice Squad'''
* 13 [[Bam Childress]] WR
* 76 ''[[Clint Oldenburg]]'' OL
* 2 [[C.J. Jones (football player)|C.J. Jones]] OL

 
 
''Rookies in italics''

|-
|}

==Team History==
[[Image:Pats2006RunningBacks.jpg|thumb|300px|The Running Backs.]]
[[Image:Threetimesuperbowlwinners.gif|thumb|300px|The Patriots have won three [[Super Bowls]] in the last six years.]]
[[Image:Patsteam1.gif|thumb|300px|Patriots offense coordinator [[Josh McDainels]] is one of the youngest coaches in the NFL.]]
In the Patriots history as a team they have experienced both sides of being an [[National Football League]] team - the losing - and the winning. In their early history as a team, the Patriots struggled just to get a winning record. Between the years 1960 and 1984 the team only made the playoffs four of those years; and only won one playoff game. The winds of fortunes seemed to be turning for the Patriots in 1985 though when for the first time in the teams history the Patriots won a AFC Championship Game and played in [[Super Bowl XX]] vs the [[Chicago Bears]]. The Patriots lost the game though and for the next eight years without a solid reliable quarterback, the team regressed into their pre-1985 form. In 1993, the Patriots drafted with the first pick of the [[1993 NFL Draft]], [[University of Washington]] star quarterback, [[Drew Bledsoe]]. With Bledsoe now leading the team, the Patriots improved significantly and in 1996 the Patriots returned to the Super Bowl ([[Super Bowl XXXI]] vs the [[Green Bay Packers]]). Once again the Patriots lost but they didn't fall apart as a team and they continued to be a playoff contender throughout the late 1990's. In 2000, the history of the Patriots quietly changed forever when [[Bill Belichick]] was appointed as the head coach and the Patriots drafted [[University of Michigan]] quarterback [[Tom Brady]] in the 6th round of the NFL Draft. The following year, 2001, Tom Brady became the Patriots starting quarterback and led the Patriots to their first [[Super Bowl]] victory. Since 2001, the Patriots have been in the playoffs all but one year (2002, 9-7 record) and have won two more Super Bowls. The 2004-2005 Patriots teams also set a NFL record for most consecutive game won with 26 in a row.

=== New England Patriots seasons record ===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Wins
! Loss's
! Ties
! Playoffs
! Notes
|-
| 1960
| 5
| 9
|
|
| The [[Boston Patriots]] become one of eight teams to join the [[American Football League]] (AFL).
|-
| 1961
| 9
| 4
| 1
|
|
|-
| 1962
| 9
| 4
| 1
|
|
|-
| 1963
| 7
| 6
| 1
| 1-1
| Patriots got beat in the AFL Championship game vs the [[San Diego Chargers]] 51-10.
|-
| 1964
| 10
| 3
| 1
|
|
|-
| 1965
| 4
| 8
| 2
|
|
|-
| 1966
| 8
| 4
| 2
|
| Patriots running back [[Jim Nance]] rushes for 1,458 yards.
|-
| 1967
| 3
| 10
| 1
|
|
|-
| 1968
| 4
| 10
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1969
| 4
| 10
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1970
| 2
| 12
| 0
|
| Team moves from playing at [[Fenway Park]] to Boston College's Alumni Stadium.
|-
| 1971
| 6
| 8
| 0
|
|Team moves to [[Foxboro]] and changes its name from [[Boston Patriots]] to the New England Patriots.
|-
| 1972
| 3
| 11
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1973
| 5
| 9
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1974
| 7
| 7
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1975
| 3
| 11
| 0
|
| [[Steve Grogan]] becomes the starting quarterback for the Patriots.
|-
| 1976
| 11
| 3
| 0
|
|Patriots cornerback [[Mike Haynes]] wins the [[Defensive Rookie of the Year]] award.
|-
| 1977
| 9
| 5
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1978
| 11
| 5
| 0
| 0-1
| Patriots wide receiver [[Darryl Stingley]] paralyzed in a preseason game vs the [[Oakland Raiders]].
|-
| 1979
| 9
| 7
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1980
| 10
| 6
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1981
| 2
| 14
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1982
| 5
| 4
| 0
|
| Season was cut short by players strike
|-
| 1983
| 8
| 8
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1984
| 9
| 7
| 0
|
| [[Raymond Berry]] named as the Patriots coach.
|-
| 1985
| 11
| 5
| 0
| 3-1
| Lost in [[Super Bowl XX]] vs the [[Chicago Bears]].
|-
| 1986
| 11
| 5
| 0
| 0-1
| Patriots Hall of Fame guard [[John Hannah]] retires.
|-
| 1987
| 8
| 7
| 0
|
| [[Victor Kiam]] buys the team from original owner [[Billy Sullivan]].
|-
| 1988
| 9
| 7
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1989
| 5
| 11
| 0
|
|Head coach [[Raymond Berry]] fired.
|-
| 1990
| 1
| 15
| 0
|
| Worst season in Patriots history.
|-
| 1991
| 6
| 10
| 0
|
|60 year old [[Dick MacPherson]] becomes head coach.
|-
| 1992
| 2
| 14
| 0
|
|Businessman [[James Orthwein]] become the sole owner of the Patriots.
|-
| 1993
| 5
| 11
| 0
|
| Quarterback [[Drew Bledsoe]] is drafted by the Patriots
|-
| 1994
| 10
| 6
| 0
| 0-1
| [[Robert Kraft]] buys the Patriots
|-
| 1995
| 6
| 10
| 0
|
| Patriots third round pick [[Curtis Martin]] wins [[Offensive Rookie of the Year]].
|-
| 1996
| 11
| 5
| 0
| 2-1
| Lost [[Super Bowl XXXI]] vs the [[Green Bay Packers]]
|-
| 1997
| 10
| 6
| 0
| 1-1
| Patriots lose 7-6 in the Division Round of the playoffs vs the [[Pittsburgh Steelers]]
|-
| 1998
| 9
| 7
| 0
| 0-1
| Patriots draft [[University of Georgia]] running back [[Robert Edwards]].
|-
| 1999
| 8
| 8
| 0
|
| [[Pete Carroll]]'s last year as Patriots head coach
|-
| 2000
| 5
| 11
|
|
| First season with [[Bill Belichick]] as head coach
|-
| 2001
| 11
| 5
| 0
| 3-0
| Beat the [[St. Louis Rams]] in [[Super Bowl XXXVI]]
|-
| 2002
| 9
| 7
| 0
|
| Could have made the playoffs with a [[New York Jets]] loss, First season in [[Gillette Stadium]]
|-
| 2003
| 14
| 2
| 0
| 3-0
| Won [[Super Bowl XXXVIII]] vs the [[Carolina Panthers]]
|-
| 2004
| 14
| 2
| 0
| 3-0
| Beat [[Philadelphia Eagles]] in [[Super Bowl XXXIX]]
|-
| 2005
| 11
| 5
| 0
| 1-1
| Backup quarterback [[Doug Flutie]] dropped kicks an
extra point in the last game season of the regular season
|-
| 2006
| 12
| 4
| 0
| 2-1
| First 12-4 record in Patriots history
|-
|}
----

== Related Sites ==

* [http://www.patriots.com/homepage/ Patriots Official Website]

'''''Patriots News Websites'''''

* [http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/ Boston Globe]

* [http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots.bg Boston Herald]

* [http://www.projo.com/patriots/?tn Providence Journal]

* [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/patriots/index.html Sports Illustrated]

* [http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/team?statsId=17 Fox Sports]

* [http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/teams/patriots/index.html Sporting News]

== Source Material ==

* [http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nfl/nengalnd/patriots.html SportsEcyclopedia.com - Patriots History]

* [http://www.patriots.com/history/ Patriots.com - History Page]

* [http://www.searchboston.com/patriots.html SearchBoston.com - Patriots History Page]

* [http://nflhistory.net/patriots/ NFLHistory.net - Patriots Histoy]

* [http://www.nfl-history.com/patriots.php NFL-History.com - Patriots History]

* [http://football.about.com/cs/2003nflplayoffs/a/playoffhistnewe.htm AboutFootball.com - Patriots Playoff Record]

[[Category:New England Patriots]]

[[category:National Football League]]

Talk:Patriot Act

2007-09-02T20:29:51Z

Jazzman831:

Art movements

2007-09-02T03:31:42Z

Jazzman831: undo vandalism by User:BibleFan1346

[[Impressionism]]

[[Post-Impressionism]]

[[Pointillism]]

[[Early Expressionism]]

[[Symbolism]]

[[Fauvism]]

[[Cubism]]

[[Futurism]]

[[Constructivism]]

[[Precisionism]]

[[Expressionism]]

[[DeStijl]]

[[Dada]]

[[Surrealism]]

[[Ashcan School]]

[[American Scene School]]

[[Abstract Expressionism]]

[[Figural Expressionism]]

[[Color Field]]

[[Hard Edge]]

[[Pre-Pop]]

[[Pop Art]]

[[Op Art]]

[[Sculpture]]

[[Photography]]

[[Architecture]]

[[Minimalism]]

[[Conceptual]]

[[Photo-Realism]]

[[Neo-expressionism]]

[[Post-Modern]]

[[Category:Art]]

Talk:Patriot Act

2007-09-02T00:13:11Z

Jazzman831: /* Sources */

Anarchism

2007-09-01T19:32:19Z

Jazzman831: category

'''Anarchism''' is a political philosophy advocating the removal of the State and the establishment of a society without government. The term is of [[Greek]] origin, meaning "without rulers".

Old anarchist thought is similar to traditional [[Communist]] thought (though not practice) in that it rejects all authority. However, [[individualism|individualist]] anarchists and [[anarcho-capitalist]]s are ideologically closer to [[libertarianism]] than Communism, however most anarchists of the communist type reject these as anarchists, as they consider them to be capitalists, and not anarchists. Some anarchists have been known to employ violent means in their endeavors, though many anarchists are non-violent. Some anarchist groups have been labeled by the U.S. government as [[terrorism|terrorist]] organizations.

==Other uses==
In addition to being a philosophy, anarchy can also be a description of a system in which there is no higher governmental authority. The world level of political interaction is considered anarchical, because there is no power over the sovereign states (i.e. there is no world government).

==See Also==
*[[Anarcho-capitalism]]
*[[Nihilism]]

[[category:International Politics]]
[[category:Political Theory]]
[[category:Politics]]

Security dilemma

2007-09-01T19:31:14Z

Jazzman831: category

A '''security delema''' is a [[paradox]]ical problem in [[international politics]] typically arising from the existence of two powerful [[realist]] states. Realists believe in using or displaying force in order to ensure their security, but another realist state may see a buildup of force as a security threat and raise its own force capabilities. This then causes the first power to raise its force capabilities yet again and a vicious circle of competitive power accumulation can occur.<ref>Bruce Russett, Harvey Starr and David Kinsella. ''World Politics: The Menu for Choice''. 2006</ref> A real world example of a security dilemma is the [[arms race]] between the [[United States of America]] and the [[Soviet Union]] during the [[Cold War]].

==References==
<references />

[[category:International Politics]]
[[category:Political Theory]]

Category:International Politics

2007-09-01T19:30:24Z

Jazzman831: New page:

Realist

2007-09-01T19:30:05Z

Jazzman831: category

'''Realist''' is an [[international politics]] term which is used to describe an actor whose [[foreign policy]] methods focus on [[political power]], rather than institutions and [[international law]]. A realist prefers policies which keep, increase, or demonstrate their power. In a [[bipolar]] power organization (only two main world powers), this can lead to a [[security dilemma]].

[[category:International Politics]]
[[category:Political Theory]]

Category:Political Theory

2007-09-01T19:29:30Z

Jazzman831: New page:

Deterrence theory

2007-09-01T19:28:29Z

Jazzman831: category

'''Deterrence theory''' is [[nuclear weapon]] utilization strategy first used during the [[Cold War]]. It was derived from the basis that it is all but impossible to physically protect a country from a large-scale nuclear attack; it is much more effective to prevent the attact entirely. Deterrence theory uses a country's nuclear arsenal to deter an enemy from attacking.

==Assumptions==
There are five assumptions of deterrence theory:
# Decision making regarding nuclear weapons must be rational: all actors must behave in a way that maximizes their interests.
# Decision making is highly centralized: each actor has top-level control over nuclear weapons.
# Each actor must make similar calculations about what can be gained or lost through use of nuclear weapons.
# Each actor must believe their opponent possesses nuclear weapons to inhibit hostile action, not undertake it.
# Each actor must believe there is a chance their opponent will use nuclear weapons if provoked (where their credibility is a function of nuclear capability and national resolve).

==Two modes of deterrence==
There are two general modes of deterrence: [[assured destruction]] (AD) and [[damage limitation]] (DL).

The assured destruction mode of deterrence is where each actor says they will completely destroy the other if attacked. In this mode, nuclear weapons are only used for deterrence, and their use will escalate into total ruination of both actors. AD attacks are aimed at [[countervalue]] targets, such as population centers and places of government. Targetting these places will ensure that as many people are killed as possible, thus reducing the will and capacity to attack again.

The damage limitation mode of deterrence is where both actors target their opponents nuclear and conventional weapons capability ([[counterforce]] targeting). An attack under this mode will not result in the total destruction of either or both sides, rather it will result in [[limited nuclear warfare]].

==Problems with deterrence theory==
As in any discipline, if any of the assumptions of deterrence theory prove false, the expected outcome of the theory is no longer valid. Most political scientists agree that assured destruction works better with assumptions 1 through 4, but damage limitation works better with assumption 5.

# Rational decision making would be difficult during the course of nuclear war. This is not a problem with AD, because all weapons are launched at once, and there is no further decision making.
# [[Tactical nuclear weapon]]s require decentralization. For DL to work, commanders on the ground would have to have some control over the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
# Warfare would be chaotic; pressures could compel one side to use nuclear weapons and not the other.
# If an actor sees his opponent building up an arsenal, he can not tell whether the opponent is preparing for war or preparing in case deterrence breaks down.
# Annihilation for ''any'' transgression is not credible. If the threat of attack is no longer credible, AD deterrence breaks down.

There are also other destabilizing factors unrelated to which method is used. For example, [[rogue state]]s and [[terrorist]] organizations are not limited to being rational actors, so deterrence theory breaks down against these groups. [[Missile defence]] systems also destabalize deterrence, because they remove the fear of retaliation; which could lead to a possibility of a [[first strike]] attack for a small provocation. Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle missiles (MIRVed missiles) are also destabalizing, because they make it difficult for an actor to calculate the capability of his opponent.

[[category:Diplomacy]]
[[category:Political Science]]
[[category:Political Theory]]
[[category:Cold War]]

International politics

2007-09-01T19:27:17Z

Jazzman831: New page: '''International politics''' is the social scientific study and analysis of political decision making on the world level of politics. [[category:International Polit...

'''International politics''' is the [[social science|social scientific]] study and [[analysis]] of political decision making on the world level of politics.

[[category:International Politics]]
[[category:Political Theory]]

Talk:Patriot Act

2007-09-01T19:10:46Z

Jazzman831: /* Sources */

Burglary

2007-09-01T18:56:58Z

Jazzman831: bold, wikify

A '''burglary''' is the act of illegal entry with the intent to steal.

Household burglary is the unlawful or forcible entry or attempted entry of a residence. This [[crime]] usually, but not always, involves [[theft]]. The illegal entry may be by [[force]], such as breaking a [[window]] or slashing a screen, or may be without force by entering through an unlocked door or an open window. As long as the person entering has no legal right to be present in the structure a burglary has occurred. Furthermore, the structure need not be the house itself for a burglary to take place; illegal entry of a garage, shed, or any other structure on the premises also constitutes household burglary. If breaking and entering occurs in a [[hotel]] or vacation residence, it is still classified as a burglary for the household whose member or members were staying there at the time the entry occurred.

*Completed burglary is a form of burglary in which a person who has no legal right to be present in the structure successfully gains entry to a residence, by use of force, or without force.
*Forcible entry is a form of completed burglary in which force is used to gain entry to a residence. Some examples include breaking a window or slashing a screen.
*Unlawful entry without force is a form of completed burglary committed by someone having no legal right to be on the premises, even though no force is used.
*Attempted forcible entry is a form of burglary in which force is used in an attempt to gain entry.

[[category:legal terms]]
[[category:crime]]

Patriot Act

2007-09-01T18:50:36Z

Jazzman831: fix link

[[Image:Gwbushsigningpatriotact.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President George Bush signing Patriot Act before Bi-Partisan gathering of Members of Congress]]‎
The '''Patriot Act''' -- The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (more commonly known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 or simply the Patriot Act) -- is an antiterrorism bill written in response to the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]. It was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on October 26th, only 45 days after the terrorist attacks. The primary purpose of the bill was to provide [[law enforcement]] with the tools it needs to fight the domestic war on terror. The bill expanded the definitions of other crime-fighting bills to include [[terrorist]]s, it provided funds to the [[Justice Department]] for fighting terrorism, and, made broad changes to [[surveillance]] and intelligence procedures.

==Passage of the Act==
The Patriot Act was easily one of the fastest bills ever passed through [[United States Congress|Congress]]. Then [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]] proposed the increases in law enforcement powers on September 19th, requesting that they be passed within a week. <ref name="CQ">"USA PATRIOT Act, 2001-2002 Legislative Chronology." Congress and the Nation, 2001-2004, vol. 11, pp. 187-8 (Washington: CQ Press, 2006)</ref> Ashcrof and the Bush administration, along with many members of Congress felt these provisions were necessary to find and apprehend the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as well as prevent any more imminent or future attacks. Many of the proposed powers had been sought by the Justice Department for years (the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] administration, for example, sought but was denied so-called [[roving wiretaps]] – a power that was included in Ashcroft’s bill), but the new and real threat of terrorism on American soil gave the Justice Department a more agreeable atmosphere in which to propose the measures again. <ref name="CQ" />

The [[House Judiciary Committee]] debated the proposal for weeks and reached an agreement on October 2nd. It made mostly minor changes, with one exception: the committee added [[sunset clause]]s to most of the surveillance and investigative powers, against the wishes of the administration.<ref name="CQ" /> These clauses would cause certain provisions of the bill to expire in 2003 unless Congress agreed to extend the date. The committee said that it understood the need for expediency, so it would add the sunset clauses to allow debate on the issue when time was not as much of an issue. The administration, however, was worried that the United States would still be fighting the war on terror when the clause came into effect.<ref>Bridis, Ted and Jess Bravin. “White House Seeks to Remove Time Limit On Surveillance Part of Antiterrorism Bill.” The Wall Street Journal, October 5th, 2001, p. A.18</ref>

The Democratically controlled [[United States Senate|Senate]] version of the bill went more in favor of the White House. While the bill was never considered by the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], the committee’s chair [[Patrick J. Leahy]], a [[Democrat]] from [[Vermont]], along with members from both parties met with the Bush administration to negotiate a bill that the Senate and [[White House]] could agree on. This version (finalized on October 4th) did not include a sunset provision, and it allowed lower barriers to allowing [[search warrant]]s. Additionally it gave the [[federal]] government new tools to fight [[money laundering]]. <ref name="CQ" />

The Senate passed its version of the bill with a 96-1 vote (only Senator [[Russ D. Feingold]], a Democrat from Wisconsin voted nay) after just three hours of debate on October 11th. The House revised its version of the bill to make it a little more to the Administration’s liking than that from the House Judiciary Committee, including moving the date of the sunset back three years, to 2006. This version passed a day after the Senate’s version 337-79 vote. The House and Senate negotiated an agreement between the two versions (including changing the sunset date to December 31st, 2005) and sent the bill, now officially known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, back to their respective chambers, where it passed 357-66 in the House on October 24th and 98-1 in the Senate (with Senator Feingold again voting against) a day later. It was signed into law by President Bush on the following day, only 37 days after the original proposal to Congress.<ref name="CQ" />

==How the Act Fights Terrorism==
The Patriot Act Fights Terrorism in three main ways: disrupting terrorist’s funding, improving methods of prosecuting terrorists, and expanding surveillance procedures and intelligence sharing. There were other minor parts, such as setting up a fund in the Treasury Department to reimburse the Department of Justice for fighting terrorism and a section which condemns discrimination against Muslims and Arab Americans.<ref name="leahy">Leahy, Patrick. “USA PATRIOT Act – Section by Section Analysis.” http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200110/102401a.html (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Most of the provisions deal directly with terrorism, but some have broader applicability, and some are not related to terrorism at all.

===Roving Wiretaps===
The first step in disrupting terrorism is finding the terrorists before they can successfully act on a plot to attack the United States. The Patriot Act provides the means for the federal government to gather intelligence on these plots, primarily through wiretaps and search warrants. One such provision is the so-called [[roving wiretaps]] provision. Roving wiretaps themselves are not new, they have been use investigating crime since 1986; the Patriot act simply extends this tool to gathering intelligence of terrorists.<ref name="206derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Before roving wiretaps, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] would need to get a separate FISC ([[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]) warrant for each method of communication used by a terrorist. This means that if the suspect switched phones or used public [[computer]]s the FBI would need to get multiple warrants. The Patriot Act allows for FISC warrants on a specific person, rather than a single specific phone line as under the old law. This means that the FBI could get one warrant, and tap whatever line the suspect happens to be using at the time.<ref name="206derosa" />

===Sneak and Peek Warrants===
Another tool provided by the Patriot Act is delayed-notification search warrants, or [[sneak and peek]] warrants.<ref name="213derosa" />DeRosa, Mary. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref>These are warrants which allow for the execution of a [[search and seizure]] of a property in a federal crime without notification of the subject. The government must show the court “reasonable cause” to believe that notifying the suspect would lead to an “adverse result” such as destruction of [[evidence]], [[intimidation]] of a [[witness]], or jeopardizing the investigation. "Reasonable cause" is not defined in the act. Sneak and peek warrants, like roving wiretaps, have been used in the past under other circumstances, but they had never before been allowed to retrieve physical evidence, only information or photographs of a scene.<ref name="213derosa" />

===Libraries Provision===
A third tool provided by the Patriot Act is the so-called “libraries provision,” sometimes just called Section 215. Section 215 broadens the FBI’s power to seize records of terrorist activities, specifically business records. Before the Act, the FBI could only subpoena “hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities,” but these powers were expanded through the act to include records from any place of business.<ref name="215derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Section 215 also expands the items the FBI can obtain to include “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items).”<ref name="215derosa" /> The Act also loosens the requirements to procure a warrant. Whereas before the FBI had to show evidence that the subject under surveillance was a foreign power or agent thereof, after the act, the FBI simply has to assert that the seizure is for a foreign intelligence investigation, clandestine intelligence activities or to protect against international terrorism. There is no requirement for an [[evidentiary hearing]]. Section 215 is called the libraries provision because it could potentially be used to subpoena a list of books checked out from a library, or a list of websites visited at a library computer, all without notifying the suspect.<ref name="215derosa" />

===Intelligence Sharing===
The Patriot Act also has several provisions which allow for information and intelligence to be better shared among the investigative and intelligence agencies. The Act allowed information about terrorist activities to be shared between federal, state and local governments, as it was previously allowed for other types of crimes. It also allowed for adding [[DNA]] samples of terrorists and other violent offenders to the national database which already includes DNA samples of other certain crimes.<ref name="leahy" />

===Money Laundering===
Another way the Patriot Act fights terrorism is by cutting off sources of illegal funding, which it does by attempting to curtail money laundering. The act requires all monetary institutions (the definition of which is very broad; it includes [[pawn brokers]], [[insurance]] agencies, and [[diamond]] dealers) to enact a four part program.<ref name="serino">Serino, Robert. “Anti-Laundering Concerns Not Just for Banks Anymore.” American Banker, November 30th, 2001, vol. 167, iss. 229, p. 9</ref> The institution must appoint a compliance officer, establish a training program to recognize money laundering, establish a testing or auditing program to evaluate the accuracy of laundering detection and establish policies to avoid being used to launder money.<ref name="serino" />

===Definition of Terrorism===
Finally, the Patriot Act expands upon the definition of terrorism to include acts which were previously not part of [[federal law]]. It makes illegal terrorist acts against [[mass transportation]] systems as well as harboring terrorists or persons one knows or should know to be terrorists. The Act also expands the definition of [[conspiracy]] to allow for conspiracies in other types of crime, such as [[arson]], and creates a definition of [[domestic terrorist]] (someone who commits an offence which is “(1) dangerous to human life and violate[s] the criminal laws of the United States or any state; and (2) appear[s] to be intended (or have the effect) – to intimidate a [[civilian]] population; influence government policy by intimidation or [[coercion]]; or affect government conduct by mass destruction, [[assassination]], or [[kidnapping]] (or a threat of)”). <ref name="leahy" />

==Controversy==
[[Image:Costoffreedom2.gif|right|250px‎]]

Much of the Patriot Act is controversial. The largest criticisms come from [[civil libertarians]] and others who believe that the Act gives too much power to the [[executive branch]] and infringes on [[civil liberties]]. Some claim that these problems arose from the rushed nature of the passage of the bill. “The richest and most powerful government in world history was portrayed as a weakling vis-à-vis Al Qaeda terrorists. Until that legislative package was enacted, America was supposedly at a grave disadvantage.”<ref name="cato">Cato Handbook on Policy (6th edition). Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 199 (Cato Institute, 2005)</ref> They also claim that Ashcroft and the Bush administration pressured congressmen to vote for the package as a whole, instead of piece by piece, which lead to even more measures which would not have been passed had appropriate procedures taken place.<ref name="cato" /> Votes were scheduled to pass the bill before members of congress could get a copy, and in the days right after the terrorist attacks nobody wanted to be seen as unpatriotic by voting against the USA PATRIOT Act.

One point of contention with opponents of the Patriot Act is with the roving wiretaps provision. Some claim that the since the FBI does not have to determine the location of their suspect before they start collecting intelligence, the privacy of innocent citizens could accidentally be intruded upon.<ref name="dempsey">Dempsey, James X. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> They also claim that, due to changes within FISA outside of the realm of the Patriot Act, it is not necessary to know the identity of the person upon whom the warrant is being issued. This could lead to “John Doe” warrants, in which the government does not specify a suspect or a place of interception.<ref name="dempsey" />

Another problem opponents have with the Patriot act is with the sneak and peek search warrants. They claim that the standards are too low, and the definitions are too vague, such that warrants could be executed non-terror related crimes or even non-violent crimes like [[health care]] fraud.<ref>Dempsey, James X. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> These opponents argue that the weak definition of a “reasonable” time to notify the suspect that he had been searched could lead to situations where the suspect is denied his constitutional rights.<ref>Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress. Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 118-9 (Cato Institute, 2003)</ref> If, for example, the FBI got a search warrant to search a suspect’s garbage but found evidence by searching the subject’s desk, by the time the suspect was notified it is likely he will have no legal recourse.

A lot of criticisms have been aimed towards the libraries provision of the Patriot Act. As with other criticisms, those for the libraries provision rest largely in the broad and vague language in the bill. These types of searches had existed before in criminal law, but not with such loose and broad terms. The new law could be used to gain access to records usually subject to privacy protections, such as medical records.<ref name="swire">Swire, Peter P. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Opponents also dislike the [[gag rule]], which makes it illegal for the business which has been subpoenaed to even reveal that they have received a FISA request. Gag rules have been in place for such things as ongoing wiretaps, where informing the suspect would result in negating the usefulness of the tap, but never before have they been used to keep a subject in the dark about completed searches (even sneak and peek suspects eventually discover that they were searched).<ref name="swire" />

Eight states ([[Alaska]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho, Maine]], [[Montana]] and [[Vermont]]) and 396 cities and counties (including [[New York City]]; [[Los Angeles]]; [[Dallas]]; [[Chicago]]; [[Philadelphia]]; and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.{{fact}} Despite these claims, however, the FBI reports that there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm</ref> nor any terrorist incidents causing loss of life on American soil since its passage.

==Expiration==
Sixteen sections of the original bill were set to expire on December 31st, 2001, unless Congress decided to extend them or make them permanent. These sections were all from Title II of the act, the title which contained surveillance procedures, including the controversial ones mentioned above. After months of wrangling, negotiation, and debate (and two deadline extensions) Congress finally on March 2nd, 2006 passed a bill which renewed the Patriot Act but implemented safeguards for civil liberties.<ref>Diamond, John. “Senate Passes Patriot Act Changes; Civil liberties protections added to anti-terror law clear way for renewal” USA Today. March 2nd, 2006, p A.8</ref> Most of the measures were permanent, but the roving wiretap provision was extended only until 2009. Section 215, the libraries provision, was also extended to 2009, but now recipients of the FISA warrant may petition the government after one year to remove the gag order.

==Success==
The Department of Justice, now headed by Attorney General [[Alberto R. Gonzales]], claims that the Patriot Act has been a useful tool in finding and dismantling terrorist organizations and plots. It claims to have disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells, incapacitated over 3,000 terrorists, broken up five terror cells within U.S. borders, charged 401 individuals on terror charges and convicted 212,<ref>U.S. Department of Justice. “Waging the War On Terror,” http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/a_terr.htm (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> though the department does not differentiate between those captured through the new provisions of the Patriot Act, and those who were discovered by other means.

==External Links==
*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html Text of Patriot act]
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162: LIbrary of Congress info on Patriot Act]
*[http://www.ala.org/cfapps/archive.cfm?path=washoff/Patriotres.html view of American Library Association]
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/patriot-games-terrorism-law-and.php view of the Jurist]
*[http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm Department of Justice Official Website]
*[http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm FBI Official Website]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:United States law]]

Patriot Act

2007-09-01T18:49:02Z

Jazzman831: lost the wikilink

[[Image:Gwbushsigningpatriotact.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President George Bush signing Patriot Act before Bi-Partisan gathering of Members of Congress]]‎
The '''Patriot Act''' -- The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (more commonly known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 or simply the Patriot Act) -- is an antiterrorism bill written in response to the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]. It was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on October 26th, only 45 days after the terrorist attacks. The primary purpose of the bill was to provide [[law enforcement]] with the tools it needs to fight the domestic war on terror. The bill expanded the definitions of other crime-fighting bills to include [[terrorist]]s, it provided funds to the [[Justice Department]] for fighting terrorism, and, made broad changes to [[surveillance]] and intelligence procedures.

==Passage of the Act==
The Patriot Act was easily one of the fastest bills ever passed through [[United States Congress|Congress]]. Then [[Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]] proposed the increases in law enforcement powers on September 19th, requesting that they be passed within a week. <ref name="CQ">"USA PATRIOT Act, 2001-2002 Legislative Chronology." Congress and the Nation, 2001-2004, vol. 11, pp. 187-8 (Washington: CQ Press, 2006)</ref> Ashcrof and the Bush administration, along with many members of Congress felt these provisions were necessary to find and apprehend the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as well as prevent any more imminent or future attacks. Many of the proposed powers had been sought by the Justice Department for years (the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] administration, for example, sought but was denied so-called [[roving wiretaps]] – a power that was included in Ashcroft’s bill), but the new and real threat of terrorism on American soil gave the Justice Department a more agreeable atmosphere in which to propose the measures again. <ref name="CQ" />

The [[House Judiciary Committee]] debated the proposal for weeks and reached an agreement on October 2nd. It made mostly minor changes, with one exception: the committee added [[sunset clause]]s to most of the surveillance and investigative powers, against the wishes of the administration.<ref name="CQ" /> These clauses would cause certain provisions of the bill to expire in 2003 unless Congress agreed to extend the date. The committee said that it understood the need for expediency, so it would add the sunset clauses to allow debate on the issue when time was not as much of an issue. The administration, however, was worried that the United States would still be fighting the war on terror when the clause came into effect.<ref>Bridis, Ted and Jess Bravin. “White House Seeks to Remove Time Limit On Surveillance Part of Antiterrorism Bill.” The Wall Street Journal, October 5th, 2001, p. A.18</ref>

The Democratically controlled [[United States Senate|Senate]] version of the bill went more in favor of the White House. While the bill was never considered by the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], the committee’s chair [[Patrick J. Leahy]], a [[Democrat]] from [[Vermont]], along with members from both parties met with the Bush administration to negotiate a bill that the Senate and [[White House]] could agree on. This version (finalized on October 4th) did not include a sunset provision, and it allowed lower barriers to allowing [[search warrant]]s. Additionally it gave the [[federal]] government new tools to fight [[money laundering]]. <ref name="CQ" />

The Senate passed its version of the bill with a 96-1 vote (only Senator [[Russ D. Feingold]], a Democrat from Wisconsin voted nay) after just three hours of debate on October 11th. The House revised its version of the bill to make it a little more to the Administration’s liking than that from the House Judiciary Committee, including moving the date of the sunset back three years, to 2006. This version passed a day after the Senate’s version 337-79 vote. The House and Senate negotiated an agreement between the two versions (including changing the sunset date to December 31st, 2005) and sent the bill, now officially known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, back to their respective chambers, where it passed 357-66 in the House on October 24th and 98-1 in the Senate (with Senator Feingold again voting against) a day later. It was signed into law by President Bush on the following day, only 37 days after the original proposal to Congress.<ref name="CQ" />

==How the Act Fights Terrorism==
The Patriot Act Fights Terrorism in three main ways: disrupting terrorist’s funding, improving methods of prosecuting terrorists, and expanding surveillance procedures and intelligence sharing. There were other minor parts, such as setting up a fund in the Treasury Department to reimburse the Department of Justice for fighting terrorism and a section which condemns discrimination against Muslims and Arab Americans.<ref name="leahy">Leahy, Patrick. “USA PATRIOT Act – Section by Section Analysis.” http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200110/102401a.html (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Most of the provisions deal directly with terrorism, but some have broader applicability, and some are not related to terrorism at all.

===Roving Wiretaps===
The first step in disrupting terrorism is finding the terrorists before they can successfully act on a plot to attack the United States. The Patriot Act provides the means for the federal government to gather intelligence on these plots, primarily through wiretaps and search warrants. One such provision is the so-called [[roving wiretaps]] provision. Roving wiretaps themselves are not new, they have been use investigating crime since 1986; the Patriot act simply extends this tool to gathering intelligence of terrorists.<ref name="206derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Before roving wiretaps, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] would need to get a separate FISC ([[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]) warrant for each method of communication used by a terrorist. This means that if the suspect switched phones or used public [[computer]]s the FBI would need to get multiple warrants. The Patriot Act allows for FISC warrants on a specific person, rather than a single specific phone line as under the old law. This means that the FBI could get one warrant, and tap whatever line the suspect happens to be using at the time.<ref name="206derosa" />

===Sneak and Peek Warrants===
Another tool provided by the Patriot Act is delayed-notification search warrants, or [[sneak and peek]] warrants.<ref name="213derosa" />DeRosa, Mary. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref>These are warrants which allow for the execution of a [[search and seizure]] of a property in a federal crime without notification of the subject. The government must show the court “reasonable cause” to believe that notifying the suspect would lead to an “adverse result” such as destruction of [[evidence]], [[intimidation]] of a [[witness]], or jeopardizing the investigation. "Reasonable cause" is not defined in the act. Sneak and peek warrants, like roving wiretaps, have been used in the past under other circumstances, but they had never before been allowed to retrieve physical evidence, only information or photographs of a scene.<ref name="213derosa" />

===Libraries Provision===
A third tool provided by the Patriot Act is the so-called “libraries provision,” sometimes just called Section 215. Section 215 broadens the FBI’s power to seize records of terrorist activities, specifically business records. Before the Act, the FBI could only subpoena “hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities,” but these powers were expanded through the act to include records from any place of business.<ref name="215derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Section 215 also expands the items the FBI can obtain to include “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items).”<ref name="215derosa" /> The Act also loosens the requirements to procure a warrant. Whereas before the FBI had to show evidence that the subject under surveillance was a foreign power or agent thereof, after the act, the FBI simply has to assert that the seizure is for a foreign intelligence investigation, clandestine intelligence activities or to protect against international terrorism. There is no requirement for an [[evidentiary hearing]]. Section 215 is called the libraries provision because it could potentially be used to subpoena a list of books checked out from a library, or a list of websites visited at a library computer, all without notifying the suspect.<ref name="215derosa" />

===Intelligence Sharing===
The Patriot Act also has several provisions which allow for information and intelligence to be better shared among the investigative and intelligence agencies. The Act allowed information about terrorist activities to be shared between federal, state and local governments, as it was previously allowed for other types of crimes. It also allowed for adding [[DNA]] samples of terrorists and other violent offenders to the national database which already includes DNA samples of other certain crimes.<ref name="leahy" />

===Money Laundering===
Another way the Patriot Act fights terrorism is by cutting off sources of illegal funding, which it does by attempting to curtail money laundering. The act requires all monetary institutions (the definition of which is very broad; it includes [[pawn brokers]], [[insurance]] agencies, and [[diamond]] dealers) to enact a four part program.<ref name="serino">Serino, Robert. “Anti-Laundering Concerns Not Just for Banks Anymore.” American Banker, November 30th, 2001, vol. 167, iss. 229, p. 9</ref> The institution must appoint a compliance officer, establish a training program to recognize money laundering, establish a testing or auditing program to evaluate the accuracy of laundering detection and establish policies to avoid being used to launder money.<ref name="serino" />

===Definition of Terrorism===
Finally, the Patriot Act expands upon the definition of terrorism to include acts which were previously not part of [[federal law]]. It makes illegal terrorist acts against [[mass transportation]] systems as well as harboring terrorists or persons one knows or should know to be terrorists. The Act also expands the definition of [[conspiracy]] to allow for conspiracies in other types of crime, such as [[arson]], and creates a definition of [[domestic terrorist]] (someone who commits an offence which is “(1) dangerous to human life and violate[s] the criminal laws of the United States or any state; and (2) appear[s] to be intended (or have the effect) – to intimidate a [[civilian]] population; influence government policy by intimidation or [[coercion]]; or affect government conduct by mass destruction, [[assassination]], or [[kidnapping]] (or a threat of)”). <ref name="leahy" />

==Controversy==
[[Image:Costoffreedom2.gif|right|250px‎]]

Much of the Patriot Act is controversial. The largest criticisms come from [[civil libertarians]] and others who believe that the Act gives too much power to the [[executive branch]] and infringes on [[civil liberties]]. Some claim that these problems arose from the rushed nature of the passage of the bill. “The richest and most powerful government in world history was portrayed as a weakling vis-à-vis Al Qaeda terrorists. Until that legislative package was enacted, America was supposedly at a grave disadvantage.”<ref name="cato">Cato Handbook on Policy (6th edition). Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 199 (Cato Institute, 2005)</ref> They also claim that Ashcroft and the Bush administration pressured congressmen to vote for the package as a whole, instead of piece by piece, which lead to even more measures which would not have been passed had appropriate procedures taken place.<ref name="cato" /> Votes were scheduled to pass the bill before members of congress could get a copy, and in the days right after the terrorist attacks nobody wanted to be seen as unpatriotic by voting against the USA PATRIOT Act.

One point of contention with opponents of the Patriot Act is with the roving wiretaps provision. Some claim that the since the FBI does not have to determine the location of their suspect before they start collecting intelligence, the privacy of innocent citizens could accidentally be intruded upon.<ref name="dempsey">Dempsey, James X. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> They also claim that, due to changes within FISA outside of the realm of the Patriot Act, it is not necessary to know the identity of the person upon whom the warrant is being issued. This could lead to “John Doe” warrants, in which the government does not specify a suspect or a place of interception.<ref name="dempsey" />

Another problem opponents have with the Patriot act is with the sneak and peek search warrants. They claim that the standards are too low, and the definitions are too vague, such that warrants could be executed non-terror related crimes or even non-violent crimes like [[health care]] fraud.<ref>Dempsey, James X. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> These opponents argue that the weak definition of a “reasonable” time to notify the suspect that he had been searched could lead to situations where the suspect is denied his constitutional rights.<ref>Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress. Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 118-9 (Cato Institute, 2003)</ref> If, for example, the FBI got a search warrant to search a suspect’s garbage but found evidence by searching the subject’s desk, by the time the suspect was notified it is likely he will have no legal recourse.

A lot of criticisms have been aimed towards the libraries provision of the Patriot Act. As with other criticisms, those for the libraries provision rest largely in the broad and vague language in the bill. These types of searches had existed before in criminal law, but not with such loose and broad terms. The new law could be used to gain access to records usually subject to privacy protections, such as medical records.<ref name="swire">Swire, Peter P. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Opponents also dislike the [[gag rule]], which makes it illegal for the business which has been subpoenaed to even reveal that they have received a FISA request. Gag rules have been in place for such things as ongoing wiretaps, where informing the suspect would result in negating the usefulness of the tap, but never before have they been used to keep a subject in the dark about completed searches (even sneak and peek suspects eventually discover that they were searched).<ref name="swire" />

Eight states ([[Alaska]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho, Maine]], [[Montana]] and [[Vermont]]) and 396 cities and counties (including [[New York City]]; [[Los Angeles]]; [[Dallas]]; [[Chicago]]; [[Philadelphia]]; and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.{{fact}} Despite these claims, however, the FBI reports that there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm</ref> nor any terrorist incidents causing loss of life on American soil since its passage.

==Expiration==
Sixteen sections of the original bill were set to expire on December 31st, 2001, unless Congress decided to extend them or make them permanent. These sections were all from Title II of the act, the title which contained surveillance procedures, including the controversial ones mentioned above. After months of wrangling, negotiation, and debate (and two deadline extensions) Congress finally on March 2nd, 2006 passed a bill which renewed the Patriot Act but implemented safeguards for civil liberties.<ref>Diamond, John. “Senate Passes Patriot Act Changes; Civil liberties protections added to anti-terror law clear way for renewal” USA Today. March 2nd, 2006, p A.8</ref> Most of the measures were permanent, but the roving wiretap provision was extended only until 2009. Section 215, the libraries provision, was also extended to 2009, but now recipients of the FISA warrant may petition the government after one year to remove the gag order.

==Success==
The Department of Justice, now headed by Attorney General [[Alberto R. Gonzales]], claims that the Patriot Act has been a useful tool in finding and dismantling terrorist organizations and plots. It claims to have disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells, incapacitated over 3,000 terrorists, broken up five terror cells within U.S. borders, charged 401 individuals on terror charges and convicted 212,<ref>U.S. Department of Justice. “Waging the War On Terror,” http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/a_terr.htm (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> though the department does not differentiate between those captured through the new provisions of the Patriot Act, and those who were discovered by other means.

==External Links==
*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html Text of Patriot act]
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162: LIbrary of Congress info on Patriot Act]
*[http://www.ala.org/cfapps/archive.cfm?path=washoff/Patriotres.html view of American Library Association]
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/patriot-games-terrorism-law-and.php view of the Jurist]
*[http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm Department of Justice Official Website]
*[http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm FBI Official Website]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:United States law]]

Patriot Act

2007-09-01T18:48:08Z

Jazzman831: see talk

[[Image:Gwbushsigningpatriotact.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President George Bush signing Patriot Act before Bi-Partisan gathering of Members of Congress]]‎
The '''Patriot Act''' -- The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (more commonly known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 or simply the Patriot Act) -- is an antiterrorism bill written in response to the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]. It was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on October 26th, only 45 days after the terrorist attacks. The primary purpose of the bill was to provide [[law enforcement]] with the tools it needs to fight the domestic war on terror. The bill expanded the definitions of other crime-fighting bills to include [[terrorist]]s, it provided funds to the [[Justice Department]] for fighting terrorism, and, made broad changes to [[surveillance]] and intelligence procedures.

==Passage of the Act==
The Patriot Act was easily one of the fastest bills ever passed through [[United States Congress|Congress]]. John Ashcroft proposed the increases in law enforcement powers on September 19th, requesting that they be passed within a week. <ref name="CQ">"USA PATRIOT Act, 2001-2002 Legislative Chronology." Congress and the Nation, 2001-2004, vol. 11, pp. 187-8 (Washington: CQ Press, 2006)</ref> Ashcrof and the Bush administration, along with many members of Congress felt these provisions were necessary to find and apprehend the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as well as prevent any more imminent or future attacks. Many of the proposed powers had been sought by the Justice Department for years (the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] administration, for example, sought but was denied so-called [[roving wiretaps]] – a power that was included in Ashcroft’s bill), but the new and real threat of terrorism on American soil gave the Justice Department a more agreeable atmosphere in which to propose the measures again. <ref name="CQ" />

The [[House Judiciary Committee]] debated the proposal for weeks and reached an agreement on October 2nd. It made mostly minor changes, with one exception: the committee added [[sunset clause]]s to most of the surveillance and investigative powers, against the wishes of the administration.<ref name="CQ" /> These clauses would cause certain provisions of the bill to expire in 2003 unless Congress agreed to extend the date. The committee said that it understood the need for expediency, so it would add the sunset clauses to allow debate on the issue when time was not as much of an issue. The administration, however, was worried that the United States would still be fighting the war on terror when the clause came into effect.<ref>Bridis, Ted and Jess Bravin. “White House Seeks to Remove Time Limit On Surveillance Part of Antiterrorism Bill.” The Wall Street Journal, October 5th, 2001, p. A.18</ref>

The Democratically controlled [[United States Senate|Senate]] version of the bill went more in favor of the White House. While the bill was never considered by the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], the committee’s chair [[Patrick J. Leahy]], a [[Democrat]] from [[Vermont]], along with members from both parties met with the Bush administration to negotiate a bill that the Senate and [[White House]] could agree on. This version (finalized on October 4th) did not include a sunset provision, and it allowed lower barriers to allowing [[search warrant]]s. Additionally it gave the [[federal]] government new tools to fight [[money laundering]]. <ref name="CQ" />

The Senate passed its version of the bill with a 96-1 vote (only Senator [[Russ D. Feingold]], a Democrat from Wisconsin voted nay) after just three hours of debate on October 11th. The House revised its version of the bill to make it a little more to the Administration’s liking than that from the House Judiciary Committee, including moving the date of the sunset back three years, to 2006. This version passed a day after the Senate’s version 337-79 vote. The House and Senate negotiated an agreement between the two versions (including changing the sunset date to December 31st, 2005) and sent the bill, now officially known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, back to their respective chambers, where it passed 357-66 in the House on October 24th and 98-1 in the Senate (with Senator Feingold again voting against) a day later. It was signed into law by President Bush on the following day, only 37 days after the original proposal to Congress.<ref name="CQ" />

==How the Act Fights Terrorism==
The Patriot Act Fights Terrorism in three main ways: disrupting terrorist’s funding, improving methods of prosecuting terrorists, and expanding surveillance procedures and intelligence sharing. There were other minor parts, such as setting up a fund in the Treasury Department to reimburse the Department of Justice for fighting terrorism and a section which condemns discrimination against Muslims and Arab Americans.<ref name="leahy">Leahy, Patrick. “USA PATRIOT Act – Section by Section Analysis.” http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200110/102401a.html (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Most of the provisions deal directly with terrorism, but some have broader applicability, and some are not related to terrorism at all.

===Roving Wiretaps===
The first step in disrupting terrorism is finding the terrorists before they can successfully act on a plot to attack the United States. The Patriot Act provides the means for the federal government to gather intelligence on these plots, primarily through wiretaps and search warrants. One such provision is the so-called [[roving wiretaps]] provision. Roving wiretaps themselves are not new, they have been use investigating crime since 1986; the Patriot act simply extends this tool to gathering intelligence of terrorists.<ref name="206derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Before roving wiretaps, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] would need to get a separate FISC ([[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]) warrant for each method of communication used by a terrorist. This means that if the suspect switched phones or used public [[computer]]s the FBI would need to get multiple warrants. The Patriot Act allows for FISC warrants on a specific person, rather than a single specific phone line as under the old law. This means that the FBI could get one warrant, and tap whatever line the suspect happens to be using at the time.<ref name="206derosa" />

===Sneak and Peek Warrants===
Another tool provided by the Patriot Act is delayed-notification search warrants, or [[sneak and peek]] warrants.<ref name="213derosa" />DeRosa, Mary. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref>These are warrants which allow for the execution of a [[search and seizure]] of a property in a federal crime without notification of the subject. The government must show the court “reasonable cause” to believe that notifying the suspect would lead to an “adverse result” such as destruction of [[evidence]], [[intimidation]] of a [[witness]], or jeopardizing the investigation. "Reasonable cause" is not defined in the act. Sneak and peek warrants, like roving wiretaps, have been used in the past under other circumstances, but they had never before been allowed to retrieve physical evidence, only information or photographs of a scene.<ref name="213derosa" />

===Libraries Provision===
A third tool provided by the Patriot Act is the so-called “libraries provision,” sometimes just called Section 215. Section 215 broadens the FBI’s power to seize records of terrorist activities, specifically business records. Before the Act, the FBI could only subpoena “hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities,” but these powers were expanded through the act to include records from any place of business.<ref name="215derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Section 215 also expands the items the FBI can obtain to include “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items).”<ref name="215derosa" /> The Act also loosens the requirements to procure a warrant. Whereas before the FBI had to show evidence that the subject under surveillance was a foreign power or agent thereof, after the act, the FBI simply has to assert that the seizure is for a foreign intelligence investigation, clandestine intelligence activities or to protect against international terrorism. There is no requirement for an [[evidentiary hearing]]. Section 215 is called the libraries provision because it could potentially be used to subpoena a list of books checked out from a library, or a list of websites visited at a library computer, all without notifying the suspect.<ref name="215derosa" />

===Intelligence Sharing===
The Patriot Act also has several provisions which allow for information and intelligence to be better shared among the investigative and intelligence agencies. The Act allowed information about terrorist activities to be shared between federal, state and local governments, as it was previously allowed for other types of crimes. It also allowed for adding [[DNA]] samples of terrorists and other violent offenders to the national database which already includes DNA samples of other certain crimes.<ref name="leahy" />

===Money Laundering===
Another way the Patriot Act fights terrorism is by cutting off sources of illegal funding, which it does by attempting to curtail money laundering. The act requires all monetary institutions (the definition of which is very broad; it includes [[pawn brokers]], [[insurance]] agencies, and [[diamond]] dealers) to enact a four part program.<ref name="serino">Serino, Robert. “Anti-Laundering Concerns Not Just for Banks Anymore.” American Banker, November 30th, 2001, vol. 167, iss. 229, p. 9</ref> The institution must appoint a compliance officer, establish a training program to recognize money laundering, establish a testing or auditing program to evaluate the accuracy of laundering detection and establish policies to avoid being used to launder money.<ref name="serino" />

===Definition of Terrorism===
Finally, the Patriot Act expands upon the definition of terrorism to include acts which were previously not part of [[federal law]]. It makes illegal terrorist acts against [[mass transportation]] systems as well as harboring terrorists or persons one knows or should know to be terrorists. The Act also expands the definition of [[conspiracy]] to allow for conspiracies in other types of crime, such as [[arson]], and creates a definition of [[domestic terrorist]] (someone who commits an offence which is “(1) dangerous to human life and violate[s] the criminal laws of the United States or any state; and (2) appear[s] to be intended (or have the effect) – to intimidate a [[civilian]] population; influence government policy by intimidation or [[coercion]]; or affect government conduct by mass destruction, [[assassination]], or [[kidnapping]] (or a threat of)”). <ref name="leahy" />

==Controversy==
[[Image:Costoffreedom2.gif|right|250px‎]]

Much of the Patriot Act is controversial. The largest criticisms come from [[civil libertarians]] and others who believe that the Act gives too much power to the [[executive branch]] and infringes on [[civil liberties]]. Some claim that these problems arose from the rushed nature of the passage of the bill. “The richest and most powerful government in world history was portrayed as a weakling vis-à-vis Al Qaeda terrorists. Until that legislative package was enacted, America was supposedly at a grave disadvantage.”<ref name="cato">Cato Handbook on Policy (6th edition). Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 199 (Cato Institute, 2005)</ref> They also claim that Ashcroft and the Bush administration pressured congressmen to vote for the package as a whole, instead of piece by piece, which lead to even more measures which would not have been passed had appropriate procedures taken place.<ref name="cato" /> Votes were scheduled to pass the bill before members of congress could get a copy, and in the days right after the terrorist attacks nobody wanted to be seen as unpatriotic by voting against the USA PATRIOT Act.

One point of contention with opponents of the Patriot Act is with the roving wiretaps provision. Some claim that the since the FBI does not have to determine the location of their suspect before they start collecting intelligence, the privacy of innocent citizens could accidentally be intruded upon.<ref name="dempsey">Dempsey, James X. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> They also claim that, due to changes within FISA outside of the realm of the Patriot Act, it is not necessary to know the identity of the person upon whom the warrant is being issued. This could lead to “John Doe” warrants, in which the government does not specify a suspect or a place of interception.<ref name="dempsey" />

Another problem opponents have with the Patriot act is with the sneak and peek search warrants. They claim that the standards are too low, and the definitions are too vague, such that warrants could be executed non-terror related crimes or even non-violent crimes like [[health care]] fraud.<ref>Dempsey, James X. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> These opponents argue that the weak definition of a “reasonable” time to notify the suspect that he had been searched could lead to situations where the suspect is denied his constitutional rights.<ref>Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress. Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 118-9 (Cato Institute, 2003)</ref> If, for example, the FBI got a search warrant to search a suspect’s garbage but found evidence by searching the subject’s desk, by the time the suspect was notified it is likely he will have no legal recourse.

A lot of criticisms have been aimed towards the libraries provision of the Patriot Act. As with other criticisms, those for the libraries provision rest largely in the broad and vague language in the bill. These types of searches had existed before in criminal law, but not with such loose and broad terms. The new law could be used to gain access to records usually subject to privacy protections, such as medical records.<ref name="swire">Swire, Peter P. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Opponents also dislike the [[gag rule]], which makes it illegal for the business which has been subpoenaed to even reveal that they have received a FISA request. Gag rules have been in place for such things as ongoing wiretaps, where informing the suspect would result in negating the usefulness of the tap, but never before have they been used to keep a subject in the dark about completed searches (even sneak and peek suspects eventually discover that they were searched).<ref name="swire" />

Eight states ([[Alaska]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho, Maine]], [[Montana]] and [[Vermont]]) and 396 cities and counties (including [[New York City]]; [[Los Angeles]]; [[Dallas]]; [[Chicago]]; [[Philadelphia]]; and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.{{fact}} Despite these claims, however, the FBI reports that there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm</ref> nor any terrorist incidents causing loss of life on American soil since its passage.

==Expiration==
Sixteen sections of the original bill were set to expire on December 31st, 2001, unless Congress decided to extend them or make them permanent. These sections were all from Title II of the act, the title which contained surveillance procedures, including the controversial ones mentioned above. After months of wrangling, negotiation, and debate (and two deadline extensions) Congress finally on March 2nd, 2006 passed a bill which renewed the Patriot Act but implemented safeguards for civil liberties.<ref>Diamond, John. “Senate Passes Patriot Act Changes; Civil liberties protections added to anti-terror law clear way for renewal” USA Today. March 2nd, 2006, p A.8</ref> Most of the measures were permanent, but the roving wiretap provision was extended only until 2009. Section 215, the libraries provision, was also extended to 2009, but now recipients of the FISA warrant may petition the government after one year to remove the gag order.

==Success==
The Department of Justice, now headed by Attorney General [[Alberto R. Gonzales]], claims that the Patriot Act has been a useful tool in finding and dismantling terrorist organizations and plots. It claims to have disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells, incapacitated over 3,000 terrorists, broken up five terror cells within U.S. borders, charged 401 individuals on terror charges and convicted 212,<ref>U.S. Department of Justice. “Waging the War On Terror,” http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/a_terr.htm (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> though the department does not differentiate between those captured through the new provisions of the Patriot Act, and those who were discovered by other means.

==External Links==
*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html Text of Patriot act]
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162: LIbrary of Congress info on Patriot Act]
*[http://www.ala.org/cfapps/archive.cfm?path=washoff/Patriotres.html view of American Library Association]
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/patriot-games-terrorism-law-and.php view of the Jurist]
*[http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm Department of Justice Official Website]
*[http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm FBI Official Website]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:United States law]]

Talk:Patriot Act

2007-09-01T18:46:40Z

Jazzman831: Sources

Patriot Act

2007-09-01T17:44:41Z

Jazzman831: other half of subclause uh thingy

[[Image:Gwbushsigningpatriotact.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President George Bush signing Patriot Act before Bi-Partisan gathering of Members of Congress]]‎
The '''Patriot Act''' -- The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (more commonly known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 or simply the Patriot Act) -- is an antiterrorism bill written in response to the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]. It was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on October 26th, only 45 days after the terrorist attacks. It was formulated from a package of laws written by President Bush<ref name="CQ" /> and then [[Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]]<ref name="CQ" /> and passed with a minimum of debate. The primary purpose of the bill was to provide [[law enforcement]] with the tools it needs to fight the domestic war on terror. The bill expanded the definitions of other crime-fighting bills to include [[terrorist]]s, it provided funds to the [[Justice Department]] for fighting terrorism, and, made broad changes to [[surveillance]] and intelligence procedures.

==Passage of the Act==

The Patriot Act was easily one of the fastest bills ever passed through [[United States Congress|Congress]]. John Ashcroft proposed the increases in law enforcement powers on September 19th, requesting that they be passed within a week. <ref name="CQ">"USA PATRIOT Act, 2001-2002 Legislative Chronology." Congress and the Nation, 2001-2004, vol. 11, pp. 187-8 (Washington: CQ Press, 2006)</ref> Ashcrof and the Bush administration, along with many members of Congress felt these provisions were necessary to find and apprehend the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as well as prevent any more imminent or future attacks. Many of the proposed powers had been sought by the Justice Department for years (the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] administration, for example, sought but was denied so-called [[roving wiretaps]] – a power that was included in Ashcroft’s bill), but the new and real threat of terrorism on American soil gave the Justice Department a more agreeable atmosphere in which to propose the measures again. <ref name="CQ" />

The [[House Judiciary Committee]] debated on Ashcroft’s 21 page proposal for weeks and reached an agreement on October 2nd. It made mostly minor changes, with one exception: the committee added [[sunset clause]]s to most of the surveillance and investigative powers, against the wishes of the administration.<ref name="CQ" /> These clauses would cause certain provisions of the bill to expire in 2003 unless Congress agreed to extend the date. The committee said that it understood the need for expediency, so it would add the sunset clauses to allow debate on the issue when time was not as much of an issue. The administration, however, was worried that the United States would still be fighting the war on terror when the clause came into effect.<ref>Bridis, Ted and Jess Bravin. “White House Seeks to Remove Time Limit On Surveillance Part of Antiterrorism Bill.” The Wall Street Journal, October 5th, 2001, p. A.18</ref>

The Democratically controlled [[United States Senate|Senate]] version of the bill went more in favor of the White House. While the bill was never considered by the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], the committee’s chair [[Patrick J. Leahy]], a [[Democrat]] from [[Vermont]], along with members from both parties met with the Bush administration to negotiate a bill that the Senate and [[White House]] could agree on. This version (finalized on October 4th) did not include a sunset provision, and it allowed lower barriers to allowing [[search warrant]]s. Additionally it gave the [[federal]] government new tools to fight [[money laundering]]. <ref name="CQ" />

The Senate passed its version of the bill with a 96-1 vote (only Senator [[Russ D. Feingold]], a Democrat from Wisconsin voted nay) after just three hours of debate on October 11th. The House revised its version of the bill to make it a little more to the Administration’s liking than that from the House Judiciary Committee, including moving the date of the sunset back three years, to 2006. This version passed a day after the Senate’s version 337-79 vote. The House and Senate negotiated an agreement between the two versions (including changing the sunset date to December 31st, 2005) and sent the bill, now officially known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, back to their respective chambers, where it passed 357-66 in the House on October 24th and 98-1 in the Senate (with Senator Feingold again voting against) a day later. It was signed into law by President Bush on the following day, only 37 days after the original proposal to Congress.<ref name="CQ" />

==How the Act Fights Terrorism==
The Patriot Act Fights Terrorism in three main ways: disrupting terrorist’s funding, improving methods of prosecuting terrorists, and expanding surveillance procedures and intelligence sharing. There were other minor parts, such as setting up a fund in the Treasury Department to reimburse the Department of Justice for fighting terrorism and a section which condemns discrimination against Muslims and Arab Americans.<ref name="leahy">Leahy, Patrick. “USA PATRIOT Act – Section by Section Analysis.” http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200110/102401a.html (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Most of the provisions deal directly with terrorism, but some have broader applicability, and some are not related to terrorism at all.

===Roving Wiretaps===
The first step in disrupting terrorism is finding the terrorists before they can successfully act on a plot to attack the United States. The Patriot Act provides the means for the federal government to gather intelligence on these plots, primarily through wiretaps and search warrants. One such provision is the so-called [[roving wiretaps]] provision. Roving wiretaps themselves are not new, they have been use investigating crime since 1986; the Patriot act simply extends this tool to gathering intelligence of terrorists.<ref name="206derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Before roving wiretaps, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] would need to get a separate FISC ([[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]) warrant for each method of communication used by a terrorist. This means that if the suspect switched phones or used public [[computer]]s the FBI would need to get multiple warrants. The Patriot Act allows for FISC warrants on a specific person, rather than a single specific phone line as under the old law. This means that the FBI could get one warrant, and tap whatever line the suspect happens to be using at the time.<ref name="206derosa" />

===Sneak and Peek Warrants===
Another tool provided by the Patriot Act is delayed-notification search warrants, or [[sneak and peek]] warrants.<ref name="213derosa" />DeRosa, Mary. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref>These are warrants which allow for the execution of a [[search and seizure]] of a property in a federal crime without notification of the subject. The government must show the court “reasonable cause” to believe that notifying the suspect would lead to an “adverse result” such as destruction of [[evidence]], [[intimidation]] of a [[witness]], or jeopardizing the investigation. "Reasonable cause" is not defined in the act. Sneak and peek warrants, like roving wiretaps, have been used in the past under other circumstances, but they had never before been allowed to retrieve physical evidence, only information or photographs of a scene.<ref name="213derosa" />

===Libraries Provision===
A third tool provided by the Patriot Act is the so-called “libraries provision,” sometimes just called Section 215. Section 215 broadens the FBI’s power to seize records of terrorist activities, specifically business records. Before the Act, the FBI could only subpoena “hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities,” but these powers were expanded through the act to include records from any place of business.<ref name="215derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Section 215 also expands the items the FBI can obtain to include “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items).”<ref name="215derosa" /> The Act also loosens the requirements to procure a warrant. Whereas before the FBI had to show evidence that the subject under surveillance was a foreign power or agent thereof, after the act, the FBI simply has to assert that the seizure is for a foreign intelligence investigation, clandestine intelligence activities or to protect against international terrorism. There is no requirement for an [[evidentiary hearing]]. Section 215 is called the libraries provision because it could potentially be used to subpoena a list of books checked out from a library, or a list of websites visited at a library computer, all without notifying the suspect.<ref name="215derosa" />

===Intelligence Sharing===
The Patriot Act also has several provisions which allow for information and intelligence to be better shared among the investigative and intelligence agencies. The Act allowed information about terrorist activities to be shared between federal, state and local governments, as it was previously allowed for other types of crimes. It also allowed for adding [[DNA]] samples of terrorists and other violent offenders to the national database which already includes DNA samples of other certain crimes.<ref name="leahy" />

===Money Laundering===
Another way the Patriot Act fights terrorism is by cutting off sources of illegal funding, which it does by attempting to curtail money laundering. The act requires all monetary institutions (the definition of which is very broad; it includes [[pawn brokers]], [[insurance]] agencies, and [[diamond]] dealers) to enact a four part program.<ref name="serino">Serino, Robert. “Anti-Laundering Concerns Not Just for Banks Anymore.” American Banker, November 30th, 2001, vol. 167, iss. 229, p. 9</ref> The institution must appoint a compliance officer, establish a training program to recognize money laundering, establish a testing or auditing program to evaluate the accuracy of laundering detection and establish policies to avoid being used to launder money.<ref name="serino" />

===Definition of Terrorism===
Finally, the Patriot Act expands upon the definition of terrorism to include acts which were previously not part of [[federal law]]. It makes illegal terrorist acts against [[mass transportation]] systems as well as harboring terrorists or persons one knows or should know to be terrorists. The Act also expands the definition of [[conspiracy]] to allow for conspiracies in other types of crime, such as [[arson]], and creates a definition of [[domestic terrorist]] (someone who commits an offence which is “(1) dangerous to human life and violate[s] the criminal laws of the United States or any state; and (2) appear[s] to be intended (or have the effect) – to intimidate a [[civilian]] population; influence government policy by intimidation or [[coercion]]; or affect government conduct by mass destruction, [[assassination]], or [[kidnapping]] (or a threat of)”). <ref name="leahy" />

==Controversy==
[[Image:Costoffreedom2.gif|right|250px‎]]

Much of the Patriot Act is controversial. The largest criticisms come from [[civil libertarians]] and others who believe that the Act gives too much power to the [[executive branch]] and infringes on [[civil liberties]]. Some claim that these problems arose from the rushed nature of the passage of the bill. “The richest and most powerful government in world history was portrayed as a weakling vis-à-vis Al Qaeda terrorists. Until that legislative package was enacted, America was supposedly at a grave disadvantage.”<ref name="cato">Cato Handbook on Policy (6th edition). Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 199 (Cato Institute, 2005)</ref> They also claim that Ashcroft and the Bush administration pressured congressmen to vote for the package as a whole, instead of piece by piece, which lead to even more measures which would not have been passed had appropriate procedures taken place.<ref name="cato" /> Votes were scheduled to pass the bill before members of congress could get a copy, and in the days right after the terrorist attacks nobody wanted to be seen as unpatriotic by voting against the USA PATRIOT Act.

One point of contention with opponents of the Patriot Act is with the roving wiretaps provision. Some claim that the since the FBI does not have to determine the location of their suspect before they start collecting intelligence, the privacy of innocent citizens could accidentally be intruded upon.<ref name="dempsey">Dempsey, James X. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> They also claim that, due to changes within FISA outside of the realm of the Patriot Act, it is not necessary to know the identity of the person upon whom the warrant is being issued. This could lead to “John Doe” warrants, in which the government does not specify a suspect or a place of interception.<ref name="dempsey" />

Another problem opponents have with the Patriot act is with the sneak and peek search warrants. They claim that the standards are too low, and the definitions are too vague, such that warrants could be executed non-terror related crimes or even non-violent crimes like [[health care]] fraud.<ref>Dempsey, James X. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> These opponents argue that the weak definition of a “reasonable” time to notify the suspect that he had been searched could lead to situations where the suspect is denied his constitutional rights.<ref>Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress. Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 118-9 (Cato Institute, 2003)</ref> If, for example, the FBI got a search warrant to search a suspect’s garbage but found evidence by searching the subject’s desk, by the time the suspect was notified it is likely he will have no legal recourse.

A lot of criticisms have been aimed towards the libraries provision of the Patriot Act. As with other criticisms, those for the libraries provision rest largely in the broad and vague language in the bill. These types of searches had existed before in criminal law, but not with such loose and broad terms. The new law could be used to gain access to records usually subject to privacy protections, such as medical records.<ref name="swire">Swire, Peter P. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Opponents also dislike the [[gag rule]], which makes it illegal for the business which has been subpoenaed to even reveal that they have received a FISA request. Gag rules have been in place for such things as ongoing wiretaps, where informing the suspect would result in negating the usefulness of the tap, but never before have they been used to keep a subject in the dark about completed searches (even sneak and peek suspects eventually discover that they were searched).<ref name="swire" />

Eight states ([[Alaska]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho, Maine]], [[Montana]] and [[Vermont]]) and 396 cities and counties (including [[New York City]]; [[Los Angeles]]; [[Dallas]]; [[Chicago]]; [[Philadelphia]]; and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.{{fact}} Despite these claims, however, the FBI reports that there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm</ref> nor any terrorist incidents causing loss of life on American soil since its passage.

==Expiration==
Sixteen sections of the original bill were set to expire on December 31st, 2001, unless Congress decided to extend them or make them permanent. These sections were all from Title II of the act, the title which contained surveillance procedures, including the controversial ones mentioned above. After months of wrangling, negotiation, and debate (and two deadline extensions) Congress finally on March 2nd, 2006 passed a bill which renewed the Patriot Act but implemented safeguards for civil liberties.<ref>Diamond, John. “Senate Passes Patriot Act Changes; Civil liberties protections added to anti-terror law clear way for renewal” USA Today. March 2nd, 2006, p A.8</ref> Most of the measures were permanent, but the roving wiretap provision was extended only until 2009. Section 215, the libraries provision, was also extended to 2009, but now recipients of the FISA warrant may petition the government after one year to remove the gag order.

==Success==
The Department of Justice, now headed by Attorney General [[Alberto R. Gonzales]], claims that the Patriot Act has been a useful tool in finding and dismantling terrorist organizations and plots. It claims to have disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells, incapacitated over 3,000 terrorists, broken up five terror cells within U.S. borders, charged 401 individuals on terror charges and convicted 212,<ref>U.S. Department of Justice. “Waging the War On Terror,” http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/a_terr.htm (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> though the department does not differentiate between those captured through the new provisions of the Patriot Act, and those who were discovered by other means.

==External Links==
*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html Text of Patriot act]
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162: LIbrary of Congress info on Patriot Act]
*[http://www.ala.org/cfapps/archive.cfm?path=washoff/Patriotres.html view of American Library Association]
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/patriot-games-terrorism-law-and.php view of the Jurist]
*[http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm Department of Justice Official Website]
*[http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm FBI Official Website]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:United States law]]

LexisNexis

2007-09-01T03:29:14Z

Jazzman831: bold subject, wikify, grammar

'''LexisNexis''' is a for profit service that allows customers to search sources from the [[New York Times]] to [[Califronia]] case law.<ref>[http://w3.nexis.com/sources/ Searchable Directory of Online Sources].</ref> [[Ann Coulter]] uses LexisNexis as a research aid while writing books.
==References==
<references/>

Patriot Act

2007-09-01T03:22:37Z

Jazzman831: heh heh, sorry TK -- how's this? (still unbolded, but better grammar)

[[Image:Gwbushsigningpatriotact.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President George Bush signing Patriot Act before Bi-Partisan gathering of Members of Congress]]‎
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (more commonly known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 or simply the '''Patriot Act''') is an antiterrorism bill written in response to the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]. It was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on October 26th, only 45 days after the terrorist attacks. It was formulated from a package of laws written by President Bush<ref name="CQ" /> and then [[Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]]<ref name="CQ" /> and passed with a minimum of debate. The primary purpose of the bill was to provide [[law enforcement]] with the tools it needs to fight the domestic war on terror. The bill expanded the definitions of other crime-fighting bills to include [[terrorist]]s, it provided funds to the [[Justice Department]] for fighting terrorism, and, made broad changes to [[surveillance]] and intelligence procedures.

==Passage of the Act==

The Patriot Act was easily one of the fastest bills ever passed through [[United States Congress|Congress]]. John Ashcroft proposed the increases in law enforcement powers on September 19th, requesting that they be passed within a week. <ref name="CQ">"USA PATRIOT Act, 2001-2002 Legislative Chronology." Congress and the Nation, 2001-2004, vol. 11, pp. 187-8 (Washington: CQ Press, 2006)</ref> Ashcrof and the Bush administration, along with many members of Congress felt these provisions were necessary to find and apprehend the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as well as prevent any more imminent or future attacks. Many of the proposed powers had been sought by the Justice Department for years (the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] administration, for example, sought but was denied so-called [[roving wiretaps]] – a power that was included in Ashcroft’s bill), but the new and real threat of terrorism on American soil gave the Justice Department a more agreeable atmosphere in which to propose the measures again. <ref name="CQ" />

The [[House Judiciary Committee]] debated on Ashcroft’s 21 page proposal for weeks and reached an agreement on October 2nd. It made mostly minor changes, with one exception: the committee added [[sunset clause]]s to most of the surveillance and investigative powers, against the wishes of the administration.<ref name="CQ" /> These clauses would cause certain provisions of the bill to expire in 2003 unless Congress agreed to extend the date. The committee said that it understood the need for expediency, so it would add the sunset clauses to allow debate on the issue when time was not as much of an issue. The administration, however, was worried that the United States would still be fighting the war on terror when the clause came into effect.<ref>Bridis, Ted and Jess Bravin. “White House Seeks to Remove Time Limit On Surveillance Part of Antiterrorism Bill.” The Wall Street Journal, October 5th, 2001, p. A.18</ref>

The Democratically controlled [[United States Senate|Senate]] version of the bill went more in favor of the White House. While the bill was never considered by the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], the committee’s chair [[Patrick J. Leahy]], a [[Democrat]] from [[Vermont]], along with members from both parties met with the Bush administration to negotiate a bill that the Senate and [[White House]] could agree on. This version (finalized on October 4th) did not include a sunset provision, and it allowed lower barriers to allowing [[search warrant]]s. Additionally it gave the [[federal]] government new tools to fight [[money laundering]]. <ref name="CQ" />

The Senate passed its version of the bill with a 96-1 vote (only Senator [[Russ D. Feingold]], a Democrat from Wisconsin voted nay) after just three hours of debate on October 11th. The House revised its version of the bill to make it a little more to the Administration’s liking than that from the House Judiciary Committee, including moving the date of the sunset back three years, to 2006. This version passed a day after the Senate’s version 337-79 vote. The House and Senate negotiated an agreement between the two versions (including changing the sunset date to December 31st, 2005) and sent the bill, now officially known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, back to their respective chambers, where it passed 357-66 in the House on October 24th and 98-1 in the Senate (with Senator Feingold again voting against) a day later. It was signed into law by President Bush on the following day, only 37 days after the original proposal to Congress.<ref name="CQ" />

==How the Act Fights Terrorism==
The Patriot Act Fights Terrorism in three main ways: disrupting terrorist’s funding, improving methods of prosecuting terrorists, and expanding surveillance procedures and intelligence sharing. There were other minor parts, such as setting up a fund in the Treasury Department to reimburse the Department of Justice for fighting terrorism and a section which condemns discrimination against Muslims and Arab Americans.<ref name="leahy">Leahy, Patrick. “USA PATRIOT Act – Section by Section Analysis.” http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200110/102401a.html (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Most of the provisions deal directly with terrorism, but some have broader applicability, and some are not related to terrorism at all.

===Roving Wiretaps===
The first step in disrupting terrorism is finding the terrorists before they can successfully act on a plot to attack the United States. The Patriot Act provides the means for the federal government to gather intelligence on these plots, primarily through wiretaps and search warrants. One such provision is the so-called [[roving wiretaps]] provision. Roving wiretaps themselves are not new, they have been use investigating crime since 1986; the Patriot act simply extends this tool to gathering intelligence of terrorists.<ref name="206derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Before roving wiretaps, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] would need to get a separate FISC ([[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]) warrant for each method of communication used by a terrorist. This means that if the suspect switched phones or used public [[computer]]s the FBI would need to get multiple warrants. The Patriot Act allows for FISC warrants on a specific person, rather than a single specific phone line as under the old law. This means that the FBI could get one warrant, and tap whatever line the suspect happens to be using at the time.<ref name="206derosa" />

===Sneak and Peek Warrants===
Another tool provided by the Patriot Act is delayed-notification search warrants, or [[sneak and peek]] warrants.<ref name="213derosa" />DeRosa, Mary. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref>These are warrants which allow for the execution of a [[search and seizure]] of a property in a federal crime without notification of the subject. The government must show the court “reasonable cause” to believe that notifying the suspect would lead to an “adverse result” such as destruction of [[evidence]], [[intimidation]] of a [[witness]], or jeopardizing the investigation. "Reasonable cause" is not defined in the act. Sneak and peek warrants, like roving wiretaps, have been used in the past under other circumstances, but they had never before been allowed to retrieve physical evidence, only information or photographs of a scene.<ref name="213derosa" />

===Libraries Provision===
A third tool provided by the Patriot Act is the so-called “libraries provision,” sometimes just called Section 215. Section 215 broadens the FBI’s power to seize records of terrorist activities, specifically business records. Before the Act, the FBI could only subpoena “hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities,” but these powers were expanded through the act to include records from any place of business.<ref name="215derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Section 215 also expands the items the FBI can obtain to include “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items).”<ref name="215derosa" /> The Act also loosens the requirements to procure a warrant. Whereas before the FBI had to show evidence that the subject under surveillance was a foreign power or agent thereof, after the act, the FBI simply has to assert that the seizure is for a foreign intelligence investigation, clandestine intelligence activities or to protect against international terrorism. There is no requirement for an [[evidentiary hearing]]. Section 215 is called the libraries provision because it could potentially be used to subpoena a list of books checked out from a library, or a list of websites visited at a library computer, all without notifying the suspect.<ref name="215derosa" />

===Intelligence Sharing===
The Patriot Act also has several provisions which allow for information and intelligence to be better shared among the investigative and intelligence agencies. The Act allowed information about terrorist activities to be shared between federal, state and local governments, as it was previously allowed for other types of crimes. It also allowed for adding [[DNA]] samples of terrorists and other violent offenders to the national database which already includes DNA samples of other certain crimes.<ref name="leahy" />

===Money Laundering===
Another way the Patriot Act fights terrorism is by cutting off sources of illegal funding, which it does by attempting to curtail money laundering. The act requires all monetary institutions (the definition of which is very broad; it includes [[pawn brokers]], [[insurance]] agencies, and [[diamond]] dealers) to enact a four part program.<ref name="serino">Serino, Robert. “Anti-Laundering Concerns Not Just for Banks Anymore.” American Banker, November 30th, 2001, vol. 167, iss. 229, p. 9</ref> The institution must appoint a compliance officer, establish a training program to recognize money laundering, establish a testing or auditing program to evaluate the accuracy of laundering detection and establish policies to avoid being used to launder money.<ref name="serino" />

===Definition of Terrorism===
Finally, the Patriot Act expands upon the definition of terrorism to include acts which were previously not part of [[federal law]]. It makes illegal terrorist acts against [[mass transportation]] systems as well as harboring terrorists or persons one knows or should know to be terrorists. The Act also expands the definition of [[conspiracy]] to allow for conspiracies in other types of crime, such as [[arson]], and creates a definition of [[domestic terrorist]] (someone who commits an offence which is “(1) dangerous to human life and violate[s] the criminal laws of the United States or any state; and (2) appear[s] to be intended (or have the effect) – to intimidate a [[civilian]] population; influence government policy by intimidation or [[coercion]]; or affect government conduct by mass destruction, [[assassination]], or [[kidnapping]] (or a threat of)”). <ref name="leahy" />

==Controversy==
[[Image:Costoffreedom2.gif|right|250px‎]]

Much of the Patriot Act is controversial. The largest criticisms come from [[civil libertarians]] and others who believe that the Act gives too much power to the [[executive branch]] and infringes on [[civil liberties]]. Some claim that these problems arose from the rushed nature of the passage of the bill. “The richest and most powerful government in world history was portrayed as a weakling vis-à-vis Al Qaeda terrorists. Until that legislative package was enacted, America was supposedly at a grave disadvantage.”<ref name="cato">Cato Handbook on Policy (6th edition). Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 199 (Cato Institute, 2005)</ref> They also claim that Ashcroft and the Bush administration pressured congressmen to vote for the package as a whole, instead of piece by piece, which lead to even more measures which would not have been passed had appropriate procedures taken place.<ref name="cato" /> Votes were scheduled to pass the bill before members of congress could get a copy, and in the days right after the terrorist attacks nobody wanted to be seen as unpatriotic by voting against the USA PATRIOT Act.

One point of contention with opponents of the Patriot Act is with the roving wiretaps provision. Some claim that the since the FBI does not have to determine the location of their suspect before they start collecting intelligence, the privacy of innocent citizens could accidentally be intruded upon.<ref name="dempsey">Dempsey, James X. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> They also claim that, due to changes within FISA outside of the realm of the Patriot Act, it is not necessary to know the identity of the person upon whom the warrant is being issued. This could lead to “John Doe” warrants, in which the government does not specify a suspect or a place of interception.<ref name="dempsey" />

Another problem opponents have with the Patriot act is with the sneak and peek search warrants. They claim that the standards are too low, and the definitions are too vague, such that warrants could be executed non-terror related crimes or even non-violent crimes like [[health care]] fraud.<ref>Dempsey, James X. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> These opponents argue that the weak definition of a “reasonable” time to notify the suspect that he had been searched could lead to situations where the suspect is denied his constitutional rights.<ref>Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress. Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 118-9 (Cato Institute, 2003)</ref> If, for example, the FBI got a search warrant to search a suspect’s garbage but found evidence by searching the subject’s desk, by the time the suspect was notified it is likely he will have no legal recourse.

A lot of criticisms have been aimed towards the libraries provision of the Patriot Act. As with other criticisms, those for the libraries provision rest largely in the broad and vague language in the bill. These types of searches had existed before in criminal law, but not with such loose and broad terms. The new law could be used to gain access to records usually subject to privacy protections, such as medical records.<ref name="swire">Swire, Peter P. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Opponents also dislike the [[gag rule]], which makes it illegal for the business which has been subpoenaed to even reveal that they have received a FISA request. Gag rules have been in place for such things as ongoing wiretaps, where informing the suspect would result in negating the usefulness of the tap, but never before have they been used to keep a subject in the dark about completed searches (even sneak and peek suspects eventually discover that they were searched).<ref name="swire" />

Eight states ([[Alaska]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho, Maine]], [[Montana]] and [[Vermont]]) and 396 cities and counties (including [[New York City]]; [[Los Angeles]]; [[Dallas]]; [[Chicago]]; [[Philadelphia]]; and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.{{fact}} Despite these claims, however, the FBI reports that there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm</ref> nor any terrorist incidents causing loss of life on American soil since its passage.

==Expiration==
Sixteen sections of the original bill were set to expire on December 31st, 2001, unless Congress decided to extend them or make them permanent. These sections were all from Title II of the act, the title which contained surveillance procedures, including the controversial ones mentioned above. After months of wrangling, negotiation, and debate (and two deadline extensions) Congress finally on March 2nd, 2006 passed a bill which renewed the Patriot Act but implemented safeguards for civil liberties.<ref>Diamond, John. “Senate Passes Patriot Act Changes; Civil liberties protections added to anti-terror law clear way for renewal” USA Today. March 2nd, 2006, p A.8</ref> Most of the measures were permanent, but the roving wiretap provision was extended only until 2009. Section 215, the libraries provision, was also extended to 2009, but now recipients of the FISA warrant may petition the government after one year to remove the gag order.

==Success==
The Department of Justice, now headed by Attorney General [[Alberto R. Gonzales]], claims that the Patriot Act has been a useful tool in finding and dismantling terrorist organizations and plots. It claims to have disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells, incapacitated over 3,000 terrorists, broken up five terror cells within U.S. borders, charged 401 individuals on terror charges and convicted 212,<ref>U.S. Department of Justice. “Waging the War On Terror,” http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/a_terr.htm (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> though the department does not differentiate between those captured through the new provisions of the Patriot Act, and those who were discovered by other means.

==External Links==
*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html Text of Patriot act]
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162: LIbrary of Congress info on Patriot Act]
*[http://www.ala.org/cfapps/archive.cfm?path=washoff/Patriotres.html view of American Library Association]
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/patriot-games-terrorism-law-and.php view of the Jurist]
*[http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm Department of Justice Official Website]
*[http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm FBI Official Website]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:United States law]]