Patriot Act - SMOKE SCREEN AT BEST

The USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as the Patriot Act) is an Act of
the U.S. Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush
on October 26, 2001. The title of the act is a ten letter backronym
(USA PATRIOT) that stands for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by)
Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct
Terrorism Act of 2001.[1]

The act, a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th,
dramatically reduced daily freedoms of the American public and
restrictions in law enforcement agencies' gathering of intelligence
within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s
authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those
involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadened the
discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining
and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act
also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic
terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA
PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.

On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed a four-year extension
of three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act:[2] roving wiretaps,
searches of business records (the "library records provision"), and
conducting surveillance of "lone wolves" — individuals suspected of
terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups.[3]

Contents

 [hide]

    1 Details
    2 Background
    3 Titles
        3.1 Title I: Enhancing Domestic Security against Terrorism
        3.2 Title II: Surveillance procedures
        3.3 Title III: Anti-money-laundering to prevent terrorism
        3.4 Title IV: Border security
        3.5 Title V: Removing obstacles to investigating terrorism
        3.6 Title VI: Victims and families of victims of terrorism
        3.7 Title VII: Increased information sharing for critical
infrastructure protection
        3.8 Title VIII: Terrorism criminal law
        3.9 Title IX: Improved Intelligence
        3.10 Title X: Miscellaneous
    4 Reauthorizations
    5 Controversy
    6 See also
    7 References
    8 Further reading
        8.1 Law review articles
        8.2 Books
    9 External links
        9.1 Government sources
        9.2 Critical views
        9.3 Other

[edit] Details

The Act was passed in the House by 357 to 66 (of 435) and in the
Senate by 98 to 1 and was supported by members of both the Republican
and Democratic parties.

Opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite
detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement
officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the
occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National
Security Letters, which allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a
court order, and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to
business records, including library and financial records. Since its
passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act,
and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are
unconstitutional.

Many of the act's provisions were to sunset beginning December 31,
2005, approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding
the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sunsetting
provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections
to enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate
passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several
sections of the act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of
the act's original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a
conference committee that was criticized by Senators from both the
Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty
concerns.[4]

The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version,
passed Congress on March 2, 2006, and was signed into law by President
George W. Bush on March 9 and 10, 2006.
[edit] Background

See also: History of the USA PATRIOT Act

The PATRIOT Act[5] has made a number of changes to U.S. law. Key acts
changed were the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA),
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), the Money
Laundering Control Act of 1986 and Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), as well as
the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Act itself came about after
the September 11th attacks on New York City and the Pentagon. After
these attacks, Congress immediately started work on several proposed
antiterrorist bills, before the Justice Department finally drafted a
bill called the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001. This was introduced to the
House as the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001, and was later passed by the
House as the Uniting and Strengthening America (USA) Act (H.R. 2975)
on October 12.[6] It was then introduced into the Senate as the USA
Act (S. 1510) [7] where a number of amendments were proposed by
Senator Russ Feingold,[8][9][10][10] all of which were passed. The
final bill, the USA PATRIOT Act was introduced into the House on
October 23 and incorporated H.R. 2975, S. 1510 and many of the
provisions of H.R. 3004 (the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act).[11] It was
vehemently opposed by only one Senator, Russ Feingold, who was the
only Senator to vote against the bill. Senator Patrick Leahy also
expressed some concerns.[12] However, many parts were seen as
necessary by both detractors and supporters.[13][14][15] The final Act
included a number of sunsets which were to expire on December 15,
2005.

Due to its controversial nature, a number of bills were proposed to
amend the USA PATRIOT Act. These included the Protecting the Rights of
Individuals Act,[16] the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act,[17] and
the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE),[18] none of which passed.
In late January 2003, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity,
Charles Lewis, published a leaked draft copy of an Administration
proposal titled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003.[19]
This highly controversial document was quickly dubbed "PATRIOT II" or
"Son of PATRIOT" by the media and organizations such as the Electronic
Frontier Foundation.[20] The draft, which was circulated to 10
divisions of the Department of Justice,[21] proposed to make further
extensive modifications to extend the USA PATRIOT Act.[22] It was
widely condemned, although the Department of Justice claimed that it
was only a draft and contained no further proposals.[23]
[edit] Titles
[edit] Title I: Enhancing Domestic Security against Terrorism

Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title I

Title I authorizes measures to enhance the ability of domestic
security services to prevent terrorism. The title established a fund
for counter-terrorist activities and increased funding for the FBI's
Technical Support Center. The military was authorized to provide
assistance in some situations that involve weapons of mass destruction
when so requested by the Attorney General. The National Electronic
Crime Task Force was expanded, along with the President's authority
and abilities in cases of terrorism. The title also condemned the
discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans that happened soon
after the September 11 terrorist attacks. The impetus for many of the
provisions came from earlier bills, for instance the condemnation of
discrimination was originally proposed by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) in
an amendment to the Combatting Terrorism Act of 2001, though in a
different form. It originally included "the prayer of Cardinal
Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop of Washington in a Mass on
September 12, 2001 for our Nation and the victims in the immediate
aftermath of the terrorist hijackings and attacks in New York City,
Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania reminds all Americans that 'We must
seek the guilty and not strike out against the innocent or we become
like them who are without moral guidance or proper direction.'[24]
Further condemnation of racial vilification and violence is also
spelled out in Title X, where there was condemnation of such
activities against Sikh Americans, who were mistaken for Muslims after
the September 11th terrorist attack.[25]
[edit] Title II: Surveillance procedures

Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title II

Title II is titled "Enhanced Surveillance Procedures", and covers all
aspects of the surveillance of suspected terrorists, those suspected
of engaging in computer fraud or abuse, and agents of a foreign power
who are engaged in clandestine activities. It primarily made
amendments to FISA, and the ECPA, and many of the most controversial
aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act reside in this title. In particular,
the title allows government agencies to gather "foreign intelligence
information" from both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens, and changed FISA to
make gaining foreign intelligence information the significant purpose
of FISA-based surveillance, where previously it had been the primary
purpose.[26] The change in definition was meant to remove a legal
"wall" between criminal investigations and surveillance for the
purposes of gathering foreign intelligence, which hampered
investigations when criminal and foreign surveillance overlapped.[27]
However, that this wall even existed was found by the Federal
Surveillance Court of Review to have actually been a long-held
misinterpretation by government agencies. Also removed was the
statutory requirement that the government prove a surveillance target
under FISA is a non-U.S. citizen and agent of a foreign power, though
it did require that any investigations must not be undertaken on
citizens who are carrying out activities protected by the First
Amendment.[28] The title also expanded the duration of FISA physical
search and surveillance orders,[29] and gave authorities the ability
to share information gathered before a federal grand jury with other
agencies.[30]

The scope and availability of wiretapping and surveillance orders were
expanded under Title II. Wiretaps were expanded to include addressing
and routing information to allow surveillance of packet switched
networks[31] — the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
objected to this, arguing that it does not take into account email or
web addresses, which often contain content in the address
information.[32] The Act allowed any district court judge in the
United States to issue such surveillance orders[31] and search
warrants for terrorism investigations.[33] Search warrants were also
expanded, with the Act amending Title III of the Stored Communications
Access Act to allow the FBI to gain access to stored voicemail through
a search warrant, rather than through the more stringent wiretap
laws.[34]

Various provisions allowed for the disclosure of electronic
communications to law enforcement agencies. Those who operate or own a
"protected computer" can give permission for authorities to intercept
communications carried out on the machine, thus bypassing the
requirements of the Wiretap statute.[35] The definition of a
"protected computer" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2) and broadly
encompasses those computers used in interstate or foreign commerce or
communication, including ones located outside the United States. The
law governing obligatory and voluntary disclosure of customer
communications by cable companies was altered to allow agencies to
demand such communications under U.S.C. Title 18 provisions relating
to the disclosure of electronic communications (chapter 119), pen
registers and trap and trace devices (chapter 206) and stored
communications (121), though it excluded the disclosure of cable
subscriber viewing habits.[36] Subpoenas issued to Internet Service
Providers were expanded to include not only "the name, address, local
and long distance telephone toll billing records, telephone number or
other subscriber number or identity, and length of service of a
subscriber" but also session times and durations, types of services
used, communication device address information (e.g. IP addresses),
payment method and bank account and credit card numbers.[37]
Communication providers are also allowed to disclose customer records
or communications if they suspect there is a danger to "life and
limb".[38]

Title II established three very controversial provisions: "sneak and
peek" warrants, roving wiretaps and the ability of the FBI to gain
access to documents that reveal the patterns of U.S. citizens. The
so-called "sneak and peek" law allowed for delayed notification of the
execution of search warrants. The period before which the FBI must
notify the recipients of the order was unspecified in the Act — the
FBI field manual says that it is a "flexible standard"[39] — and it
may be extended at the court's discretion.[40] These sneak and peek
provisions were struck down by judge Ann Aiken on September 26, 2007
after a Portland attorney, Brandon Mayfield, was wrongly jailed
because of the searches. The court found the searches to violate the
provision that prohibits unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.[41][42]

Roving wiretaps are wiretap orders that do not need to specify all
common carriers and third parties in a surveillance court order. These
are seen as important by the Department of Justice because they
believe that terrorists can exploit wiretap orders by rapidly changing
locations and communication devices such as cell phones,[43] while
opponents see it as violating the particularity clause of the Fourth
Amendment.[44][45] Another highly controversial provision is one that
allows the FBI to make an order "requiring the production of any
tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and
other items) for an investigation to protect against international
terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such
investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon
the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the
Constitution."[46] Though it was not targeted directly at libraries,
the American Library Association (ALA), in particular, opposed this
provision.[47] In a resolution passed on June 29, 2005, they stated
that "Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act allows the government to
secretly request and obtain library records for large numbers of
individuals without any reason to believe they are involved in illegal
activity."[48] However, the ALA's stance did not go without criticism.
One prominent critic of the ALA's stance was the Manhattan Institute's
Heather Mac Donald, who argued in an article for the New York City
Journal that "[t]he furor over section 215 is a case study in Patriot
Act fear-mongering."[49]

The title also covers a number of other miscellaneous provisions,
including the expansion of the number of FISC judges from seven to
eleven (three of which must reside within 20 miles (32 km) of the
District of Columbia),[50] trade sanctions against North Korea and
Taliban-controlled Afghanistan [51] and the employment of translators
by the FBI.[52]

At the insistence of Republican Representative Richard Armey,[53] the
Act had a number of sunset provisions built in, which were originally
set to expire on December 31, 2005. The sunset provision of the Act
also took into account any ongoing foreign intelligence investigations
and allowed them to continue once the sections had expired.[54] The
provisions that were to expire are below.

Title II sections that were to originally expire on December 31, 2005

Section


Section title

201


Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications
relating to terrorism

202


Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications
relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses

203(b)


Authority to share electronic, wire and oral interception information

204


Clarification of intelligence exceptions from limitations on
interception and disclosure of wire, oral, and electronic
communications

206


Roving surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978.

207


Duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are
agents of a foreign power

209


Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants

212


Emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect life and limb

214


Pen register and trap and trace authority under FISA

215


Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act.

217


Interception of computer trespasser communications

218


Foreign intelligence information

220


Nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence

223


Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures

225


Immunity for compliance with FISA wiretap

[edit] Title III: Anti-money-laundering to prevent terrorism

Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title III

Title III of the Act, titled "International Money Laundering Abatement
and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001," is intended to facilitate
the prevention, detection and prosecution of international money
laundering and the financing of terrorism. It primarily amends
portions of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 (MLCA) and the
Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA). It was divided into three subtitles,
with the first dealing primarily with strengthening banking rules
against money laundering, especially on the international stage. The
second attempts to improve communication between law enforcement
agencies and financial institutions, as well as expanding record
keeping and reporting requirements. The third subtitle deals with
currency smuggling and counterfeiting, including quadrupling the
maximum penalty for counterfeiting foreign currency, such as the Hans
Vierck case of 2001.

The first subtitle tightened the record keeping requirements for
financial institutions, making them record the aggregate amounts of
transactions processed from areas of the world where money laundering
is a concern to the U.S. government. It also made institutions put
into place reasonable steps to identify beneficial owners of bank
accounts and those who are authorized to use or route funds through
payable-through accounts.[55] The U.S. Treasury was charged with
formulating regulations intended to foster information sharing between
financial institutions to prevent money-laundering.[56] Along with
expanding record keeping requirements it put new regulations into
place to make it easier for authorities to identify money laundering
activities and to make it harder for money launderers to mask their
identities.[57] If money laundering was uncovered, the subtitle
legislated for the forfeiture of assets of those suspected of doing
the money laundering.[58] In an effort to encourage institutions to
take steps that would reduce money laundering, the Treasury was given
authority to block mergers of bank holding companies and banks with
other banks and bank holding companies that had a bad history of
preventing money laundering. Similarly, mergers between insured
depository institutions and non-insured depository institutions that
have a bad track record in combating money-laundering could be
blocked.[59]

Restrictions were placed on accounts and foreign banks. It prohibited
shell banks that are not an affiliate of a bank that has a physical
presence in the U.S. or that are not subject to supervision by a
banking authority in a non-U.S. country. It also prohibits or
restricts the use of certain accounts held at financial
institutions.[60] Financial institutions must now undertake steps to
identify the owners of any privately owned bank outside the U.S. who
have a correspondent account with them, along with the interests of
each of the owners in the bank. It is expected that additional
scrutiny will be applied by the U.S. institution to such banks to make
sure they are not engaging in money laundering. Banks must identify
all the nominal and beneficial owners of any private bank account
opened and maintained in the U.S. by non-U.S. citizens. There is also
an expectation that they must undertake enhanced scrutiny of the
account if it is owned by, or is being maintained on behalf of, any
senior political figure where there is reasonable suspicion of
corruption.[61] Any deposits made from within the U.S. into foreign
banks are now deemed to have been deposited into any interbank account
the foreign bank may have in the U.S. Thus any restraining order,
seizure warrant or arrest warrant may be made against the funds in the
interbank account held at a U.S. financial institution, up to the
amount deposited in the account at the foreign bank.[62] Restrictions
were placed on the use of internal bank concentration accounts because
such accounts do not provide an effective audit trail for
transactions, and this may be used to facilitate money laundering.
Financial institutions are prohibited from allowing clients to
specifically direct them to move funds into, out of, or through a
concentration account, and they are also prohibited from informing
their clients about the existence of such accounts. Financial
institutions are not allowed to provide any information to clients
that may identify such internal accounts.[63] Financial institutions
are required to document and follow methods of identifying where the
funds are for each customer in a concentration account that co-mingles
funds belonging to one or more customers.

The definition of money laundering was expanded to include making a
financial transaction in the U.S. in order to commit a violent
crime.[64] the bribery of public officials and fraudulent dealing with
public funds; the smuggling or illegal export of controlled
munition[65] and the importation or bringing in of any firearm or
ammunition not authorized by the U.S. Attorney General[66] and the
smuggling of any item controlled under the Export Administration
Regulations.[67][68] It also includes any offense where the U.S. would
be obligated under a mutual treaty with a foreign nation to extradite
a person, or where the U.S. would need to submit a case against a
person for prosecution because of the treaty; the import of falsely
classified goods;[69] computer crime;[70] and any felony violation of
the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.[68] It also allows the
forfeiture of any property within the jurisdiction of the United
States that was gained as the result of an offense against a foreign
nation that involves the manufacture, importation, sale, or
distribution of a controlled substance.[71] Foreign nations may now
seek to have a forfeiture or judgment notification enforced by a
district court of the United States.[72] This is done through new
legislation that specifies how the U.S. government may apply for a
restraining order[73] to preserve the availability of property which
is subject to a foreign forfeiture or confiscation judgement.[74] In
taking into consideration such an application, emphasis is placed on
the ability of a foreign court to follow due process.[72] The Act also
requires the Secretary of Treasury to take all reasonable steps to
encourage foreign governments make it a requirement to include the
name of the originator in wire transfer instructions sent to the
United States and other countries, with the information to remain with
the transfer from its origination until the point of disbursement.[75]
The Secretary was also ordered to encourage international cooperation
in investigations of money laundering, financial crimes, and the
finances of terrorist groups.[76]

The Act also introduced criminal penalties for corrupt officialdom. An
official or employee of the government who acts corruptly — as well as
the person who induces the corrupt act — in the carrying out of their
official duties will be fined by an amount that is not more than three
times the monetary equivalent of the bribe in question. Alternatively
they may be imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or they may be
fined and imprisoned. Penalties apply to financial institutions who do
not comply with an order to terminate any corresponding accounts
within 10 days of being so ordered by the Attorney General or the
Secretary of Treasury. The financial institution can be fined
$US10,000 for each day the account remains open after the 10 day limit
has expired.[62]

The second annotation made a number of modifications to the BSA in an
attempt to make it harder for money launderers to operate and easier
for law enforcement and regulatory agencies to police money laundering
operations. One amendment made to the BSA was to allow the designated
officer or agency who receives suspicious activity reports to notify
U.S. intelligence agencies.[77] A number of amendments were made to
address issues related to record keeping and financial reporting. One
measure was a new requirement that anyone who does business file a
report for any coin and foreign currency receipts that are over
US$10,000 and made it illegal to structure transactions in a manner
that evades the BSA's reporting requirements.[78] To make it easier
for authorities to regulate and investigate anti-money laundering
operations Money Services Businesses (MSBs) — those who operate
informal value transfer systems outside of the mainstream financial
system — were included in the definition of a financial
institution.[79] The BSA was amended to make it mandatory to report
suspicious transactions and an attempt was made to make such reporting
easier for financial institutions.[80] FinCEN was made a bureau of the
United States Department of Treasury[81] and the creation of a secure
network to be used by financial institutions to report suspicious
transactions and to provide alerts of relevant suspicious activities
was ordered.[82] Along with these reporting requirements, a
considerable number of provisions relate to the prevention and
prosecution of money-laundering.[83] Financial institutions were
ordered to establish anti-money laundering programs and the BSA was
amended to better define anti-money laundering strategy.[84] Also
increased were civil and criminal penalties for money laundering and
the introduction of penalties for violations of geographic targeting
orders and certain record-keeping requirements.[85] A number of other
amendments to the BSA were made through subtitle B, including granting
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System power to
authorize personnel to act as law enforcement officers to protect the
premises, grounds, property and personnel of any U.S. National reserve
bank and allowing the Board to delegate this authority to U.S. Federal
reserve bank.[86] Another measure instructed United States Executive
Directors of international financial institutions to use their voice
and vote to support any country that has taken action to support the
U.S.'s War on Terrorism. Executive Directors are now required to
provide ongoing auditing of disbursements made from their institutions
to ensure that no funds are paid to persons who commit, threaten to
commit, or support terrorism.[87]

The third subtitle deals with currency crimes. Largely because of the
effectiveness of the BSA, money launders had been avoiding traditional
financial institutions to launder money and were using cash-based
businesses to avoid them. A new effort was made to stop the laundering
of money through bulk currency movements, mainly focusing on the
confiscation of criminal proceeds and the increase in penalties for
money laundering. Congress found that a criminal offense of merely
evading the reporting of money transfers was insufficient and decided
that it would be better if the smuggling of the bulk currency itself
was the offense. Therefore, the BSA was amended to make it a criminal
offense to evade currency reporting by concealing more than US$10,000
on any person or through any luggage, merchandise or other container
that moves into or out of the U.S. The penalty for such an offense is
up to 5 years imprisonment and the forfeiture of any property up to
the amount that was being smuggled.[88] It also made the civil and
criminal penalty violations of currency reporting cases[89] be the
forfeiture of all a defendant's property that was involved in the
offense, and any property traceable to the defendant.[90] The Act
prohibits and penalizes those who run unlicensed money transmitting
businesses.[91] In 2005, this provision of the USA PATRIOT Act was
used to prosecute Yehuda Abraham for helping to arrange money
transfers for British arms dealer Hermant Lakhani, who was arrested in
August 2003 after being caught in a government sting. Lakhani had
tried to sell a missile to an FBI agent posing as a Somali
militant.[92] The definition of counterfeiting was expanded to
encompass analog, digital or electronic image reproductions, and it
was made an offense to own such a reproduction device. Penalties were
increased to 20 years imprisonment.[93] Money laundering "unlawful
activities" was expanded to include the provision of material support
or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.[94] The
Act specifies that anyone who commits or conspires to undertake a
fraudulent activity outside the jurisdiction of the United States, and
which would be an offense in the U.S., will be prosecuted under 18
U.S.C. § 1029, which deals with fraud and related activity in
connection with access devices.[95]
[edit] Title IV: Border security

Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title IV

Title IV amends the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to give
more law enforcement and investigative power to the United States
Attorney General and to the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS). The Attorney General was authorized to waive any cap on the
number of full time employees (FTEs) assigned to the INS on the
Northern border of the United States.[96] Enough funds were set aside
to triple the maximum number of Border Patrol personnel, Customs
Service personnel and INS inspectors along with an additional
US$50,000,000 funding for the INS and the U.S. Customs Service to
improve technology for monitoring the Northern Border and acquiring
additional equipment at the Canadian northern border.[97] The INS was
also given the authority to authorize overtime payments of up to an
extra US$30,000 a year to INS employees.[98] Access was given to the
Department of State and the INS to criminal background information
contained in the National Crime Information Center's Interstate
Identification Index (NCIC-III), Wanted Persons File and any other
files maintained by the National Crime Information Center to determine
whether visa applicants and applicants could be admitted to the
U.S.[99] The Department of State was required to form final
regulations governing the procedures for taking fingerprints and the
conditions with which the department was allowed to use this
information.[100] Additionally, the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) was ordered to develop a technology standard to
verify the identity of persons applying for a United States visa.[100]
The reason was to make the standard the technology basis for a
cross-agency, cross-platform electronic system used for conducting
background checks, confirming identities and ensuring that people have
not received visas under different names.[101] This report was
released on November 13, 2002,[102] however, according to NIST, this
was later "determined that the fingerprint system used was not as
accurate as current state-of-the-art fingerprint systems and is
approximately equivalent to commercial fingerprint systems available
in 1998."[103] This report was later superseded by section 303(a) of
the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002.

Under subtitle C, various definitions relating to terrorism were
altered and expanded. The INA was retroactively amended to disallow
aliens who are part of or representatives of a foreign organization or
any group who endorses acts of terrorism from entering the U.S. This
restriction also included the family of such aliens.[104] The
definition of "terrorist activity" was strengthened to include actions
involving the use of any dangerous device (and not just explosives and
firearms).[104] To "engage in terrorist activity" is defined as
committing, inciting to commit or planning and preparing to undertake
an act of terrorism. Included in this definition is the gathering of
intelligence information on potential terrorist targets, the
solicitation of funds for a terrorist organization or the solicitation
of others to undertake acts of terrorism. Those who provide knowing
assistance to a person who is planning to perform such activities are
defined as undertaking terrorist activities. Such assistance includes
affording material support, including a safe house, transportation,
communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial
benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including
chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or
training to perform the terrorist act.[104] The INA criteria for
making a decision to designate an organization as a terrorist
organization was amended to include the definition of a terrorist
act.[105] Though the amendments to these definitions are retroactive,
it does not mean that it can be applied to members who joined an
organization, but since left, before it was designated to be a
terrorist organization under 8 U.S.C. § 1189 by the Secretary of
State.[104]

The Act amended the INA to add new provisions enforcing mandatory
detention laws. These apply to any alien who is engaged in terrorism,
or who is engaged in an activity that endangers U.S. national
security. It also applies to those who are inadmissible or who must be
deported because it is certified they are attempting to enter to
undertake illegal espionage; are exporting goods, technology, or
sensitive information illegally; or are attempting to control or
overthrow the government; or have, or will have, engaged in terrorist
activities.[106] The Attorney General or the Attorney General's deputy
may maintain custody of such aliens until they are removed from the
U.S., unless it is no longer deemed they should be removed, in which
case they are released. The alien can be detained for up to 90 days
but can be held up to six months after it is deemed that they are a
national security threat. However, the alien must be charged with a
crime or removal proceedings start no longer than seven days after the
alien's detention, otherwise the alien will be released. However, such
detentions must be reviewed every six months by the Attorney General,
who can then decide to revoke it, unless prevented from doing so by
law. Every six months the alien may apply, in writing, for the
certification to be reconsidered.[106] Judicial review of any action
or decision relating to this section, including judicial review of the
merits of a certification, can be held under habeas corpus
proceedings. Such proceedings can be initiated by an application filed
with the United States Supreme Court, by any justice of the Supreme
Court, by any circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, or by any district court otherwise
having jurisdiction to entertain the application. The final order is
subject to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit.[106] Provisions were also made for a
report to be required every six months of such decisions from the U.S.
Attorney General to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.[106]

A sense of Congress was given that the U.S. Secretary of State should
expedite the full implementation of the integrated entry and exit data
system for airports, seaports, and land border ports of entry
specified in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). They also found that the U.S.
Attorney General should immediately start the Integrated Entry and
Exit Data System Task Force specified in section 3 of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 2000.
Congress wanted the primary focus of development of the entry-exit
data system was to be on the utilization of biometric technology and
the development of tamper-resistant documents readable at ports of
entry. They also wanted the system to be able to interface with
existing law enforcement databases.[107] The Attorney General was
ordered to implement and expand the foreign student monitoring program
that was established under section 641(a) of the IIRIRA.[108] which
records the date and port of entry of each foreign student. The
program was expanded to include other approved educational
institutions, including air flight schools, language training schools
or vocational schools that are approved by the Attorney General, in
consultation with the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of
State. US$36,800,000 was appropriated for the Department of Justice to
spend on implementing the program.[109]

The Secretary of State was ordered to audit and report back to
Congress on the Visa waiver program specified under 8 U.S.C. § 1187
for each fiscal year until September 30, 2007. The Secretary was also
ordered to check for the implementation of precautionary measures to
prevent the counterfeiting and theft of passports as well as ascertain
that countries designated under the visa waiver program have
established a program to develop tamper-resistant passports.[110] The
Secretary was also ordered to report back to Congress on whether
consulate shopping was a problem.[111]

The last subtitle, which was introduced by Senators John Conyers and
Patrick Leahy, allows for the preservation of immigration benefits for
victims of terrorism, and the families of victims of terrorism.[112]
They recognized that some families, through no fault of their own,
would either be ineligible for permanent residence in the United
States because of being unable to make important deadlines because of
the September 11 terrorist attacks, or had become ineligible to apply
for special immigration status because their loved one died in the
attacks.[113]
[edit] Title V: Removing obstacles to investigating terrorism

Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title V

It allows the U.S. Attorney General to pay rewards pursuant of
advertisements for assistance to the Department of Justice to combat
terrorism and prevent terrorist acts, though amounts over $US250,000
may not be made or offered without the personal approval of the
Attorney General or President, and once the award is approved the
Attorney General must give written notice to the Chairman and ranking
minority members of the Committee on Appropriations and the Judiciary
of the Senate and of the House of Representatives.[114] The State
Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 was amended to allow the
Department of State to offer rewards, in consultation with the
Attorney General, for the full or significant dismantling of any
terrorist organization[115] and to identify any key leaders of
terrorist organizations.[116] The Secretary of State was given
authority to pay greater than $US5 million if he so determines it
would prevent terrorist actions against the United States and
Canada.[117] The DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act was amended to
include terrorism or crimes of violence in the list of qualifying
Federal offenses.[118] Another perceived obstacle was to allow Federal
agencies to share information with Federal law enforcement agencies.
Thus, the act now allows Federal officers who acquire information
through electronic surveillance or physical searches to consult with
Federal law enforcement officers to coordinate efforts to investigate
or protect against potential or actual attacks, sabotage or
international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities by an
intelligence service or network of a foreign power.[119]

Secret Service jurisdiction was extended to investigate computer
fraud, access device frauds, false identification documents or
devices, or any fraudulent activities against U.S. financial
institutions.[120] The General Education Provisions Act was amended to
allow the U.S. Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General to
collect and retain educational records relevant to an authorized
investigation or prosecution of an offense that is defined as a
Federal crime of terrorism and which an educational agency or
institution possesses. The Attorney General or Assistant Attorney
General must "certify that there are specific and articulable facts
giving reason to believe that the education records are likely to
contain information [that a Federal crime of terrorism may be being
committed]." An education institution that produces education records
in response to such a request is given legal immunity from any
liability that rises from such a production of records.[121]

One of the most controversial aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act is in
title V, and relates to National Security Letters (NSLs). An NSL is a
form of administrative subpoena used by the FBI, and reportedly by
other U.S. government agencies including the CIA and the Department of
Defense (DoD). It is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or
organization to turn over various records and data pertaining to
individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight and
also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from
disclosing that the letter was ever issued. Title V allowed the use of
NSLs to be made by a Special Agent in charge of a Bureau field office,
where previously only the Director or the Deputy Assistant Director of
the FBI were able to certify such requests.[122] This provision of the
Act was challenged by the ACLU on behalf of an unknown party against
the U.S. government on the grounds that NSLs violate the First and
Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because there is no way to
legally oppose an NSL subpoena in court, and that it was
unconstitutional to not allow a client to inform their Attorney as to
the order because of the gag provision of the letters. The court's
judgement found in favour of the ACLU's case, and they declared the
law unconstitutional.[123] Later, the USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized
and amendments were made to specify a process of judicial review of
NSLs and to allow the recipient of an NSL to disclose receipt of the
letter to an attorney or others necessary to comply with or challenge
the order.[124] However, in 2007 the U.S. District Court struck down
even the reauthorized NSLs because the gag power was unconstitutional
as courts could still not engage in meaningful judicial review of
these gags.
[edit] Title VI: Victims and families of victims of terrorism

Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title VI

Title VI made amendments to the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA) in
order to make changes to how the U.S. Victims of Crime Fund was
managed and funded. Changes were made to VOCA to improve the speedy
provision of aid to families of public safety officers by expedited
payments to officers or the families of officers. Under the changes,
payments must be made no later than 30 days after the officer is
injured or killed in the line of duty.[125] The Assistant Attorney
General was given expanded authority under section 614 of the USA
PATRIOT Act to make grants to any organization that administers any
Office of Justice Programs, which includes the Public Safety Officers
Benefits Program.[126] Further changes to the Victims of Crime Fund
increased the amount of money in the Fund, and changed the way that
funds were distributed.[127] The amount available for grants made
through the Crime Victim Fund to eligible crime victim compensation
programs were increased from 40 percent to 60 percent of the total in
the Fund. A program can provide compensation to U.S. citizens who were
adversely affected overseas. Means testing was also waived for those
who apply for compensation.[128] Under VOCA, the Director may make an
annual grant from the Crime Victims Fund to support crime victim
assistance programs. An amendment was made to VOCA to include offers
of assistance to crime victims in the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and any
other U.S. territory.[129] VOCA also provides for compensation and
assistance to victims of terrorism or mass violence.[130] This was
amended to allow the Director to make supplemental grants to States
for eligible crime victim compensation and assistance programs, and to
victim service organizations, public agencies (including Federal,
State, or local governments) and non-governmental organizations that
provide assistance to victims of crime. The funds could be used to
provide emergency relief, including crisis response efforts,
assistance, compensation, training and technical assistance for
investigations and prosecutions of terrorism.[131]
[edit] Title VII: Increased information sharing for critical
infrastructure protection

Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title VII

Title VII has one section. The purpose of this title is to increase
the ability of U.S. law enforcement to counter terrorist activity that
crosses jurisdictional boundaries. It does this by amending the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to include
terrorism as a criminal activity.
[edit] Title VIII: Terrorism criminal law

Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title VIII

Title VIII alters the definitions of terrorism, and establishes or
re-defines rules with which to deal with it. It redefined the term
"domestic terrorism" to broadly include mass destruction as well as
assassination or kidnapping as a terrorist activity. The definition
also encompasses activities that are "dangerous to human life that are
a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State"
and are intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population,"
"influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," or
are undertaken "to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping" while in the jurisdiction
of the United States.[132] Terrorism is also included in the
definition of racketeering.[133] Terms relating to cyber-terrorism are
also redefined, including the term "protected computer," "damage,"
"conviction," "person," and "loss."[134]

New penalties were created to convict those who attack mass
transportation systems. If the offender committed such an attack while
no passenger was on board, they are fined and imprisoned for a maximum
of 20 years. However, if the activity was undertaken while the mass
transportation vehicle or ferry was carrying a passenger at the time
of the offense, or the offense resulted in the death of any person,
then the punishment is a fine and life imprisonment.[135] The title
amends the biological weapons statute to define the use of a
biological agent, toxin, or delivery system as a weapon, other than
when it is used for "prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or
other peaceful purposes." Penalties for anyone who cannot prove
reasonably that they are using a biological agent, toxin or delivery
system for these purposes are 10 years imprisonment, a fine or
both.[136]

A number of measures were introduced in an attempt to prevent and
penalize activities that are deemed to support terrorism. It was made
a crime to harbor or conceal terrorists, and those who do are subject
to a fine or imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both.[137] U.S.
forfeiture law was also amended to allow authorities to seize all
foreign and domestic assets from any group or individual that is
caught planning to commit acts of terrorism against the U.S. or U.S.
citizens. Assets may also be seized if they have been acquired or
maintained by an individual or organization for the purposes of
further terrorist activities.[138] One section of the Act (section
805) prohibited "material support" for terrorists, and in particular
included "expert advice or assistance."[139] This was struck down as
unconstitutional by a U.S. Federal Court after the Humanitarian Law
Project filed a civil action against the U.S. government. The court
found that it violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the United
States Constitution and the provision was so vague it would cause a
person of average intelligence to have to guess whether they were
breaking the law, thus leading to a potential situation where a person
was charged for an offense that they had no way of knowing was
illegal. The court found that this could potentially have the effect
of allowing arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law, as
well as possible chilling effects on First Amendment rights.[140][141]
Congress later improved the law by defining the definitions of the
"material support or resources," "training," and "expert advise or
resources."[142]

Cyberterrorism was dealt with in various ways. Penalties apply to
those who either damage or gain unauthorized access to a protected
computer and then commit a number of offenses. These offenses include
causing a person to lose an aggregate amount greater than US$5,000, as
well as adversely affecting someone's medical examination, diagnosis
or treatment. It also encompasses actions that cause a person to be
injured, a threat to public health or safety, or damage to a
governmental computer that is used as a tool to administer justice,
national defense or national security. Also prohibited was extortion
undertaken via a protected computer. The penalty for attempting to
damage protected computers through the use of viruses or other
software mechanism was set to imprisonment for up to 10 years, while
the penalty for unauthorized access and subsequent damage to a
protected computer was increased to more than five years imprisonment.
However, should the offense occur a second time, the penalty increases
up to 20 years imprisonment.[143] The act also specified the
development and support of cybersecurity forensic capabilities. It
directs the Attorney General to establish regional computer forensic
laboratories that have the capability of performing forensic
examinations of intercepted computer evidence relating to criminal
activity and cyberterrorism, and that have the capability of training
and educating Federal, State, and local law enforcement personnel and
prosecutors in computer crime, and to "facilitate and promote the
sharing of Federal law enforcement expertise and information about the
investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer-related crime
with State and local law enforcement personnel and prosecutors,
including the use of multijurisdictional task forces." The sum of
$50,000,000 was authorized for establishing such labs.[144]
[edit] Title IX: Improved Intelligence

Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title IX

Title IX amends the National Security Act of 1947 to require the
Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) to establish requirements and
priorities for foreign intelligence collected under FISA and to
provide assistance to the United States Attorney General to ensure
that information derived from electronic surveillance or physical
searches is disseminated for efficient and effective foreign
intelligence purposes.[145] With the exception of information that
might jeopardize an ongoing law enforcement investigation, it was made
a requirement that the Attorney General, or the head of any other
department or agency of the Federal Government with law enforcement
responsibilities, disclose to the Director any foreign intelligence
acquired by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Attorney General and
Director of Central Intelligence were directed to develop procedures
for the Attorney General to follow in order to inform the Director, in
a timely manner, of any intention of investigating criminal activity
of a foreign intelligence source or potential foreign intelligence
source based on the intelligence tip-off of a member of the
intelligence community. The Attorney General was also directed to
develop procedures on how to best administer these matters.[146]
International terrorist activities were made to fall within the scope
of foreign intelligence under the National Security Act.[147]

A number of reports were commissioned relating to various
intelligence-related government centers. One was commissioned into the
best way of setting up the National Virtual Translation Center, with
the goal of developing automated translation facilities to assist with
the timely and accurate translation of foreign intelligence
information for elements of the U.S. intelligence community.[148] The
USA PATRIOT Act required this to be provided on February 1, 2002,
however the report, entitled "Director of Central Intelligence Report
on the National Virtual Translation Center: A Concept Plan to Enhance
the Intelligence Community's Foreign Language Capabilities, April 29,
2002" was received more than two months late, which the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence reported was "a delay which, in addition to
contravening the explicit words of the statute, deprived the Committee
of timely and valuable input into its efforts to craft this
legislation."[149] Another report was commissioned on the feasibility
and desirability of reconfiguring the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking
Center and the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of
the Treasury.[150] It was due by February 1, 2002 however, it was
never written. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later
complained that "[t]he Director of Central Intelligence and the
Secretary of the Treasury failed to provide a report, this time in
direct contravention of a section of the USA PATRIOT Act" and they
further directed "that the statutorily-directed report be completed
immediately, and that it should include a section describing the
circumstances which led to the Director's failure to comply with
lawful reporting requirements."[151]

Other measures allowed certain reports on intelligence and
intelligence-related matters to be deferred until either February 1,
2002 or a date after February 1, 2002 if the official involved
certified that preparation and submission on February 1, 2002, would
impede the work of officers or employees engaged in counterterrorism
activities. Any such deferral required congressional notification
before it was authorized.[152] The Attorney General was charged with
training officials in identifying and utilizing foreign intelligence
information properly in the course of their duties. The government
officials include those in the Federal Government who do not normally
encounter or disseminate foreign intelligence in the performance of
their duties, and State and local government officials who encounter,
or potentially may encounter in the course of a terrorist event,
foreign intelligence in the performance of their duties.[153] A sense
of Congress was expressed that officers and employees of the
intelligence community should be encouraged to make every effort to
establish and maintain intelligence relationships with any person,
entity, or group while they conduct lawful intelligence
activities.[147]
[edit] Title X: Miscellaneous

Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title X

Title X created or altered a number of miscellaneous laws that did not
really fit into the any other section of the USA PATRIOT Act. Hazmat
licenses were limited to drivers who pass background checks and who
can demonstrate they can handle the materials.[154] The Inspector
General of the Department of Justice was directed to appoint an
official to monitor, review and report back to Congress all
allegations of civil rights abuses against the DoJ.[155] It amended
the definition of "electronic surveillance" to exclude the
interception of communications done through or from a protected
computer where the owner allows the interception, or is lawfully
involved in an investigation.[156] Money laundering cases may now be
brought in the district the money laundering was committed or where a
money laundering transfer started from.[157] Aliens who committed
money laundering were also prohibited from entering the U.S.[158]
Grants were provided to first responders to assist them with
responding to and preventing terrorism.[159] US$5,000,000 was
authorized to be provided to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
to train police in South and East Asia.[160] The Attorney General was
directed to commission a study on the feasibility of using biometric
identifiers to identify people as they attempt to enter the United
States, and which would be connected to the FBI's database to flag
suspected criminals.[161] Another study was also commissioned to
determine the feasibility of providing airlines names of suspected
terrorists before they boarded flights.[162] The Department of Defense
was given temporary authority to use their funding for private
contracts for security purposes.[163] The last title also created a
new Act called the Crimes Against Charitable Americans Act[164] which
amended the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act
to require telemarketers who call on behalf of charities to disclose
the purpose and other information, including the name and mailing
address of the charity the telemarketer is representing.[165] It also
increased the penalties from one year imprisonment to five years
imprisonment for those committing fraud by impersonating a Red Cross
member.[166]
[edit] Reauthorizations

The USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized by two bills. The first, the USA
PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005, was
passed by both houses of Congress in July 2005. This bill reauthorized
provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It created new provisions relating
to the death penalty for terrorists,[167] enhancing security at
seaports,[168] new measures to combat the financing of terrorism,[169]
new powers for the Secret Service,[170] anti-Methamphetamine
initiatives[171] and a number of other miscellaneous provisions. The
second reauthorization act, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional
Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006, amended the first and was passed
in February 2006.

The first act reauthorized all but two of the provisions of Title II
that would have expired. Two sections were changed to sunset on
December 31, 2009: section 206 — the roving wiretap provision — and
section 215, which allowed access to business records under FISA.
Section 215 was amended further regardless so as to give greater
judicial oversight and review. Such orders were also restricted to be
authorized by only the FBI Director, the FBI Deputy Director, or the
Executive Assistant Director for National Security, and minimization
procedures were specified to limit the dissemination and collection of
such information. Section 215 also had a "gag" provision, which was
changed to allow the defendant to contact their Attorney.[172]
However, the change also meant that the defendant was also made to
tell the FBI who he (or she) was disclosing the order to — this
requirement was removed by the USA PATRIOT Act Additional
Reauthorizing Amendments Act.[173]

President Barack Obama, on Saturday, February 27, 2010, signed into
law legislation that would temporarily extend for one year, three
controversial provisions of the Patriot Act that had been set to
expire:[174] [175] [176]

    Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance
on multiple phones.
    Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in
anti-terrorism operations.
    Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S.
citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized
terrorist group.

[177]

In a vote on February 8, 2011, the House of Representatives considered
a further extension of the Act through the end of 2011.[178] House
leadership moved the extension bill under suspension of the rules,
which is intended for noncontroversial legislation and requires
two-thirds majority to pass.[178] After the vote, the extension bill
did not pass; 277 members voted in favor, which was less than the 290
votes needed to pass the bill under suspension of the rules.[178]
Without an extension, the Act set to expire on February 28, 2011.

As NSL provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act had been struck by the
courts[123] the reauthorization Act amended the law in an attempt to
make them lawful. It provided for judicial review and the legal right
of a recipient to challenge the validity of the letter. The
reauthorization act still allowed NSLs to be closed and all evidence
to be presented in camera and ex parte.[179] Gag provisions were
maintained, but were not automatic. They only occurred when the Deputy
Assistant Director of the FBI or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau
field office certified that disclosure would result in "a danger to
the national security of the United States, interference with a
criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation,
interference with diplomatic relations, or danger to the life or
physical safety of any person".[180] However, should there be no
non-disclosure order, the defendant can disclose the fact of the NSL
to anyone who can render them assistance in carrying out the letter,
or to an attorney for legal advice. Again, however, the recipient was
ordered to inform the FBI of such a disclosure.[180] Because of the
concern over the chilling effects of such a requirement, the
Additional Reauthorization Amendments Act removed the requirement to
inform the FBI that the recipient spoke about the NSL to their
Attorney.[181] Later, the Additional Reauthorization Amendments Act
excluded libraries from receiving NSLs, except where they provide
electronic communications services.[182] The reauthorization Act also
ordered the Attorney General submit a report semi-annually to the
House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the House and Senate
Intelligence Committees and the House Committee on Financial Services
and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on all
NSL request made under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.[183]

Changes were made to the roving wiretap provisions of the USA PATRIOT
Act. Applications and orders for such wiretaps must describe the
specific target of the electronic surveillance if the identity of the
target is not known. If the nature and location of each of the
facilities or places targeted for surveillance is not known, then
after 10 days the agency must provide notice to the court. The notice
must include the nature and location of each new facility or place at
which the electronic surveillance was directed. It must also describe
the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify
the applicant's belief that each new surveillance place or facility
under surveillance is or was being used by the target of the
surveillance. The applicant must also provide a statement detailing
any proposed minimization procedures that differ from those contained
in the original application or order, that may be necessitated by a
change in the facility or place at which the electronic surveillance
is directed. Applicants must detail the total number of electronic
surveillances that have been or are being conducted under the
authority of the order.[184]

Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act was modified. Previously it stated
that delayed notifications would be made to recipients of "sneak and
peek" searches in a "reasonable period". This was seen as
unreasonable, as it was undefined and could potentially be used
indefinitely. Thus, the reauthorization act changed this to a period
not exceeding 30 days after the date of the execution of the search
warrant. Courts were given the opportunity to extend this period if
they were provided good cause to do so. Section 213 states that
delayed notifications could be issued if there is "reasonable cause to
believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the
warrant may have an adverse result". This was criticized, particularly
by the ACLU, for allowing potential abuse by law enforcement
agencies[185] and was later amended to prevent a delayed notification
"if the adverse results consist only of unduly delaying a trial."[186]

The reauthorization act also legislates increased congressional
oversight for emergency disclosures by communication providers
undertaken under section 212 of the USA PATRIOT Act.[187] The duration
of FISA surveillance and physical search orders were increased.
Surveillance performed against "lone wolf terrorists" under section
207 of the USA PATRIOT Act were increased to 120 days for an initial
order, while pen registers and trap and trace device extensions under
FISA were increased from 90 days to a year. The reauthorization act
also increased congressional oversight, requiring a semi-annual report
into physical searches and the use of pen registers and trap and trace
devices under FISA.[188] The "lone wolf terrorist" provision (Section
207) was a sunset provision that also was to have expired, however
this was enhanced by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2004. The reauthorization act extended the expiration date to
December 31, 2009.[189] The amendment to material support law done in
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act[142] was also
made permanent.[190] The definition of terrorism was further expanded
to include receiving military-type training from a foreign terrorist
organization and narcoterrorism.[191] Other provisions of the
reauthorization act was to merge the law outlawing train wrecking (18
U.S.C. § 992) and the law outlawing attacks on mass transportation
systems (18 U.S.C. § 1993) into a new section of Title 18 of the U.S.
Code (18 U.S.C. § 1992) and also to criminalize the act of planning a
terrorist attack against a mass transport system.[192][193] Forfeiture
law was further changed and now assets within U.S. jurisdiction will
be seized for illegally trafficking in nuclear, chemical, biological
or radiological weapons technology or material, if such offense is
punishable under foreign law by death or imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year. Alternatively, this applies if similar punishment
would be so punishable if committed within the U.S.[194] A sense of
Congress was further expressed that victims of terrorism should be
entitled to the forfeited assets of terrorists.[195]
[edit] Controversy

See also: Controversial invocations of the USA PATRIOT Act

The USA PATRIOT Act has generated a great deal of controversy since
its enactment. Opponents of the Act have been quite vocal in asserting
that it was passed opportunistically after the September 11 attacks,
believing there to have been little debate. They view the Act as one
that was hurried through the Senate with little change before it was
passed. (Senators Patrick Leahy and Russell Feingold proposed
amendments to modify the final revision.)[12][196][197] The sheer
magnitude of the Act itself was noted by Michael Moore in his
controversial film Fahrenheit 9/11. In one of the scenes of the movie,
he records Congressman Jim McDermott alleging that no Senator read the
bill[198] and John Conyers, Jr. as saying, "We don't read most of the
bills. Do you really know what that would entail if we read every bill
that we passed?" Congressman Conyers then answers his own rhetorical
question, asserting that if they did it would "slow down the
legislative process".[199] As a dramatic device, Moore then hired an
ice-cream van and drove around Washington, D.C. with a loud speaker,
reading out the Act to puzzled passers-by, which included a few
Senators.[200] However, Moore was not the only commentator to notice
that not many people had read the Act. When Dahlia Lithwick and Julia
Turne for Slate asked, "How bad is PATRIOT, anyway?", they decided
that it was "hard to tell" and stated:

    The ACLU, in a new fact sheet challenging the DOJ Web site, wants
you to believe that the act threatens our most basic civil liberties.
Ashcroft and his roadies call the changes in law "modest and
incremental." Since almost nobody has read the legislation, much of
what we think we know about it comes third-hand and spun. Both
advocates and opponents are guilty of fear-mongering and distortion in
some instances.[201]

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has criticized the
law as unconstitutional, especially when "the private communications
of law-abiding American citizens might be intercepted
incidentally",[202] while the Electronic Frontier Foundation held that
the lower standard applied to wiretaps "gives the FBI a 'blank check'
to violate the communications privacy of countless innocent
Americans".[45] Others do not find the roving wiretap legislation to
be as concerning. Professor David D. Cole of the Georgetown University
Law Center, a critic of many of the provisions of the Act, found that
though they come at a cost to privacy are a sensible measure[203]
while Paul Rosenzweig, a Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Center
for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, argues that
roving wiretaps are just a response to rapidly changing communication
technology that is not necessarily fixed to a specific location or
device.[204]

The Act also allows access to voicemail through a search warrant
rather than through a title III wiretap order.[205] James Dempsey, of
the CDT, believes that it unnecessarily overlooks the importance of
notice under the Fourth Amendment and under a Title III wiretap,[206]
and the EFF criticizes the provision's lack of notice. However, the
EFF's criticism is more extensive — they believe that the amendment
"is in possible violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution" because previously if the FBI listened to voicemail
illegally, it could not use the messages in evidence against the
defendant.[207] Others disagree with these assessments. Professor Orin
Kerr, of the George Washington University school of law, believes that
the ECPA "adopted a rather strange rule to regulate voicemail stored
with service providers" because "under ECPA, if the government knew
that there was one copy of an unopened private message in a person's
bedroom and another copy on their remotely stored voicemail, it was
illegal for the FBI to simply obtain the voicemail; the law actually
compelled the police to invade the home and rifle through peoples'
bedrooms so as not to disturb the more private voicemail." In
Professor Kerr's opinion, this made little sense and the amendment
that was made by the USA PATRIOT Act was reasonable and sensible.[208]

The USA PATRIOT Act's expansion of court jurisdiction to allow the
nationwide service of search warrants proved controversial for the
EFF.[209] They believe that agencies will be able to "'shop' for
judges that have demonstrated a strong bias toward law enforcement
with regard to search warrants, using only those judges least likely
to say no—even if the warrant doesn't satisfy the strict requirements
of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution",[210] and that it reduces
the likelihood that smaller ISPs or phone companies will try to
protect the privacy of their clients by challenging the warrant in
court — their reasoning is that "a small San Francisco ISP served with
such a warrant is unlikely to have the resources to appear before the
New York court that issued it."[210] They believe that this is bad
because only the communications provider will be able to challenge the
warrant as only they will know about it—many warrants are issued ex
parte, which means that the target of the order is not present when
the order is issued.[210]

For a time, the USA PATRIOT Act allowed for agents to undertake "sneak
and peek" searches.[40] Critics such as EPIC and the ACLU strongly
criticized the law for violating the Fourth Amendment,[211] with the
ACLU going so far as to release an advertisement condemning it and
calling for it to be repealed.[212][213] However supporters of the
amendment, such as Heather Mac Donald, a fellow at the Manhattan
Institute and contributing editor to the New York City Journal,
expressed the belief that it was necessary because the temporary delay
in notification of a search order stops terrorists from tipping off
counterparts who are being investigated.[214] In 2004, FBI agents used
this provision to search and secretly examine the home of Brandon
Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of
involvement in the Madrid train bombings. While the U.S. Government
did publicly apologize to Mayfield and his family,[215] Mayfield took
it further through the courts. On September 26, 2007, judge Ann Aiken
found the law was, in fact, unconstitutional as the search was an
unreasonable imposition on Mayfield and thus violated the Fourth
Amendment.[41][42]

Laws governing the material support of terrorism proved contentious.
It was criticized by the EFF for infringement of freedom of
association. The EFF argues that had this law been enacted during
Apartheid, U.S. citizens would not have been able to support the
African National Congress (ANC) as the EFF believe the ANC would have
been classed as a terrorist organization. They also used the example
of a humanitarian social worker being unable to train Hamas members
how to care for civilian children orphaned in the conflict between
Israelis and Palestinians, a lawyer being unable to teach IRA members
about international law, and peace workers being unable to offer
training in effective peace negotiations or how to petition the United
Nations regarding human rights abuses.[216] Another group, the
Humanitarian Law Project, also objected to the provision prohibiting
"expert advise and assistance" to terrorists and filed a suit against
the U.S. government to have it declared unconstitutional. They
succeeded, and a Federal Court found that the law was vague enough to
cause a reasonable person to guess whether they were breaking the law
or not. Thus they found it violated the First Amendment rights of U.S.
citizens, and struck it down.[140][141]

Perhaps one of the biggest controversies involved the use of NSLs by
the FBI. Because they allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and
financial records without a court order, they were criticized by many
parties.[217][218][219][220] In November 2005, BusinessWeek reported
that the FBI had issued tens of thousands of NSLs and had obtained one
million financial, credit, employment, and in some cases, health
records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses. Selected
businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental
agencies. An anonymous Justice official claimed that such requests
were permitted under section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act and despite
the volume of requests insisted "We are not inclined to ask courts to
endorse fishing expeditions".[221] Before this was revealed, however,
the ACLU challenged the constitutionality of NSLs in court. In April
2004, they filed suit against the government on behalf of an unknown
Internet Service Provider who had been issued an NSL, for reasons
unknown. In ACLU v. DoJ, the ACLU argued that the NSL violated the
First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because the USA
PATRIOT Act failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone
or Internet company could try to oppose an NSL subpoena in court. The
court agreed, and found that because the recipient of the subpoena
could not challenge it in court it was unconstitutional.[123] Congress
later tried to remedy this in a reauthorization Act, but because they
did not remove the non-disclosure provision a Federal court again
found NSLs to be unconstitutional because they prevented courts from
engaging in meaningful judicial review.[222][223][224]

Another provision of the USA PATRIOT Act has caused a great deal of
consternation amongst librarians. Section 215 allows the FBI to apply
for an order to produce materials that assist in an investigation
undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine
intelligence activities. Among the "tangible things" that could be
targeted, it includes "books, records, papers, documents, and other
items".[46] Supporters of the provision point out that these records
are held by third parties, and therefore are exempt from a citizen's
reasonable expectations of privacy and also maintain that the FBI has
not abused the provision.[225] As proof, then Attorney General John
Ashcroft released information in 2003 that showed that section 215
orders had never been used.[226] However, despite protestations to the
contrary, the American Library Association strongly objected to the
provision, believing that library records are fundamentally different
from ordinary business records, and that the provision would have a
chilling effect on free speech. The association became so concerned
that they formed a resolution condemning the USA PATRIOT Act, and
which urged members to defend free speech and protect patrons'
privacy.[227] They urged librarians to seek legal advice before
complying with a search order and advised their members to only
keeping records for as long as was legally needed.[228] Consequently,
reports started filtering in that librarians were shredding records to
avoid having to comply with such orders.[229][230][231]

In 2005, Library Connection, a nonprofit consortium of 27 libraries in
Connecticut, received a National Security Letter (NSL) from the FBI,
along with its accompanying perpetual gag order, demanding library
patrons’ records. George Christian, executive director of Library
Connection, and three members of the executive committee of the board
engaged the ACLU to file suit to challenge the constitutional validity
of the NSL. Because Section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which
authorizes the FBI to demand records without prior court approval,
also forbids, or gags, anyone who receives an NSL from telling anyone
else about receiving it, they also challenged the validity of the gag
order. For almost a year the ACLU fought to lift the gag order,
challenging the government’s power under Section 505 to silence four
citizens who wished to contribute to public debate on the PATRIOT Act.
In May 2006, the government finally gave up its legal battle to
maintain the gag order. On June 26, 2006, the ACLU announced that,
after dropping its defense of the gag provision accompanying the NSL
request, the FBI abandoned the lawsuit entirely. The Connecticut Four
were honored by the ALA with the 2007 Paul Howard Award for Courage
for their challenge to the National Security Letter and gag order
provision of the USA PATRIOT Act.[232] The Connecticut Four are: 1.
George Christian, executive director of Library Connection 2. Peter
Chase, vice president of Library Connection, director of the
Plainville (CT) Public Library, and chairman of the Connecticut
Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom Committee 3. Barbara
Bailey, president of Library Connection and director of the Welles-
Turner Memorial Library in Glastonbury, Connecticut 4. Jan Nocek,
secretary of Library Connection and director of the Portland (CT)
Library. In a summary of the actions of the Connecticut Four and their
challenge to the USA PATRIOT Act, Jones (2009: 223) notes: “Librarians
need to understand their country’s legal balance between the
protection of freedom of expression and the protection of national
security. Many librarians believe that the interests of national
security, important as they are, have become an excuse for chilling
the freedom to read.”[233]

Another controversial aspect of the USA PATRIOT Act is the immigration
provisions that allow for the indefinite detention of any alien whom
the Attorney General believes may cause a terrorist act.[106] Before
the USA PATRIOT Act was passed, Anita Ramasastry, an associate
professor of law and a director of the Shidler Center for Law,
Commerce, & Technology at the University of Washington School of Law
in Seattle, Washington, accused the Act of depriving basic rights for
immigrants to America, including legal permanent residents. She warned
that "Indefinite detention upon secret evidence — which the USA
PATRIOT Act allows — sounds more like Taliban justice than ours. Our
claim that we are attempting to build an international coalition
against terrorism will be severely undermined if we pass legislation
allowing even citizens of our allies to be incarcerated without basic
U.S. guarantees of fairness and justice."[234] Many other parties have
also been strongly critical of the provision. Russell Feingold, in a
Senate floor statement, claimed that the provision "falls short of
meeting even basic constitutional standards of due process and
fairness [as it] continues to allow the Attorney General to detain
persons based on mere suspicion".[235] The University of California
passed a resolution condemning (amongst other things) the indefinite
detention provisions of the Act,[236] while the ACLU has accused the
Act of giving the Attorney General "unprecedented new power to
determine the fate of immigrants... Worse, if the foreigner does not
have a country that will accept them, they can be detained
indefinitely without trial."[237]

Another controversial aspect of the USA PATRIOT Act is its effect on
the privacy of Canadians living in the province of British Columbia
(B.C.). British Columbia’s privacy commissioner raises concerns that
the USA PATRIOT Act will allow the United States government to access
Canadians' private information, such as personal medical records, that
are outsourced to American companies. Although the government of B.C.
has taken measures to prevent United States authorities from obtaining
information, the widespread powers of the USA PATRIOT Act could
overcome legislation that is passed in Canada.[238] B.C. Privacy
Commissioner David Loukidelis stated in a report on the consequences
of the USA PATRIOT Act, “once information is sent across borders, it’s
difficult, if not impossible, to control”.[239]

In an effort to maintain their privacy, British Columbia placed
amendments on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
(FOIPPA), which was enacted as law on October 21, 2004. These
amendments aim to place more firm limitations on “storing, accessing,
and disclosing of B.C. public sector data by service providers.”[240]
These laws only pertain to public sector data and do not cover
trans-border or private sector data in Canada. The public sector
establishments include an estimated 2,000 “government ministries,
hospitals, boards of health, universities and colleges, school boards,
municipal governments and certain Crown corporations and
agencies.”[240] In response to these laws, many companies are now
specifically opting to host their sensitive data outside the United
States.[241]

Legal action has been taken in Nova Scotia to protect the province
from the USA PATRIOT Act’s data collecting methods. On November 15,
2007 the government of Nova Scotia passed a legislation aimed to
protect Nova Scotians’ personal information from being brought forward
by the USA PATRIOT Act. The act was entitled “The new Personal
Information International Disclosure Protection Act”. The goal of the
act is to establish requirements to protect personal information from
being revealed, as well as punishments for failing to do so. Justice
Minister Murray Scott stated, "This legislation will help ensure that
Nova Scotians' personal information will be protected. The act
outlines the responsibilities of public bodies, municipalities and
service providers and the consequences if these responsibilities are
not fulfilled."[242]



Wikisource has original text related to this article:

USA PATRIOT Act

[edit] See also

Portal icon


Government of the United States portal

    Central Intelligence Agency
    Civil Contingencies Act 2004
    Combat Zones That See
    Data mining
    Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003
    Federal Bureau of Investigation
    Foreign Terrorist Organizations
    Guardian (database)
    Information Awareness Office
    Ohio Patriot Act
    United States Department of Homeland Security

[edit] References

    ^ Public Law Pub.L. 107-56
    ^ May 27, 2011 "Obama Signs Last-Minute Patriot Act Extension".
Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/27/senate-clearing-way-extend-patriot-act/%7Cdate
May 27, 2011. Retrieved May 27, 2011.
    ^ Mascaro, Lisa (May 27, 2011). "Congress votes in time to extend
key Patriot Act provisions". Los Angeles Times.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-patriot-act-20110527,0,7749454.story.
Retrieved 2011-05-27.
    ^ "Safe Act Co-Sponsors say PATRIOT Act Conference Report
Unacceptable", Washington Times, November 5, 2005.
    ^ Full Text of Enrolled Bill H.R. 3162, GovTrack.us
    ^ H.R. 2975, THOMAS
    ^ S. 1510, THOMAS
    ^ 2001 Congressional Record, Vol. 147, Pg. 25,
2001&publication=CREC S11020October 25, 2001
    ^ 2001 Congressional Record, Vol. 147, Pg. 25,
2001&publication=CREC S11021October 25, 2001
    ^ a b 2001 Congressional Record, Vol. 147, Pg. 25,
2001&publication=CREC S11022October 25, 2001
    ^ H.R. 3162, THOMAS
    ^ a b 2001 Congressional Record, Vol. 147, Pg. 25,
2001&publication=CREC S10991October 25, 2001
    ^ "'Trust me' just doesn't fly". USA Today. April 12, 2005.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-04-12-patriot-act-our_x.htm.
Retrieved July 11, 2008. "The conspiracies indictment disclosed
Tuesday of three men already awaiting trial in England is a reminder
that terrorism is a real threat, and most of the law is
non-controversial."
    ^ Steranko, Anastasia (September 19, 2003). "PATRIOT Act inspires
discussion of civil liberties". The Pitt News.
http://media.www.pittnews.com/media/storage/paper879/news/2003/09/19/News/Patriot.Act.Inspires.Discussion.Of.Civil.Liberties-1791796.shtml?sourcedomain=www.pittnews.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com.
Retrieved July 11, 2008.
    ^ Haigh, Anna (February 13, 2004). "Debate around Patriot Act
increases". News (The Daily Pennsylvanian).
http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2004/02/13/News/Debate.Around.Patriot.Act.Increases-2152367.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dailypennsylvanian.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com.
Retrieved July 11, 2008.
    ^ THOMAS, S.1552.
    ^ H.R. 3171, THOMAS
    ^ S.1709, THOMAS
    ^ PBS (February 7, 2007), Now with Bill Moyers, transcript.
    ^ EFF Analysis of "Patriot II," Provisions of the Domestic
Security Enhancement Act of 2003, Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Retrieved August 30, 2007.
    ^ "Control Sheet of the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of
2003"" (PDF). Archived from the original on July 7, 2007.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070707021138/http://publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/downloads/Story_01_020703_Doc_2.pdf..
Retrieved August 30, 2007.
    ^ Singel, Ryan (March 12, 2003). "A Chilly Response to 'Patriot
II'". Politics : Law (Wired News).
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2003/02/57636. Retrieved July
11, 2008.
    ^ United States Department of Justice (February 7, 2007),
Statement of Barbara Comstock, Director of Public Affairs
    ^ 2001 Congressional Record, Vol. 147, Pg. 11,
2001&publication=CREC S9368September 11, 2001
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1002.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 218.
    ^ Andrew C. McCarthy, "Why Section 218 Should be Retained".
Retrieved January 23, 2006. The Patriot Debates.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 214.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 207.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 203.
    ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title
II, Sec. 216.
    ^ Analysis of Specific USA PATRIOT Act Provisions: Pen Registers,
the Internet and Carnivore, Electronic Privacy Information Center.
Accessed December 4, 2005.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 219.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II,
Sec. 204 & 209.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 217.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 211.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 210.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 212.
    ^ Field Guidance on New Authorities (Redacted), Federal Bureau of
Investigation (hosted by the Electronic Privacy Information Center).
Retrieved September 24, 2007.
    ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title
II, Sec. 213.
    ^ a b Singel, Ryan (September 26, 2007). "Court Strikes Down 2 Key
Patriot Act Provisions". Surveillance, The Courts (Wired).
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/09/court-strikes-2.html.
    ^ a b Keller, Susan Jo (September 27, 2007). "Judge Rules
Provisions in Patriot Act to Be Illegal". New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/washington/27patriot.html?ref=us.
    ^ United States Department of Justice, The USA PATRIOT Act:
Preserving Life and Liberty, pg. 2. Retrieved September 24, 2007.
    ^ James Dempsey, "Why Section 206 Should be Modified" (undated),
accessed January 7, 2006.
    ^ a b "Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 206". Electronic
Frontier Foundation. Archived from the original on June 5, 2006.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060605152308/https://www.eff.org/patriot/sunset/206.php

.
Retrieved December 21, 2011.
    ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title
II, Sec. 215.
    ^ Phillips, Heather A., "Libraries and National Security Law: An
Examination of the USA Patriot Act". Progressive Librarian, Vol. 25,
Summer 2005
    ^ American Library Association, Resolution on the USA PATRIOT Act
and Libraries, enacted June 29, 2005
    ^ Mac Donald, Heather (Summer 2003). "Straight Talk on Homeland
Security". City Journal.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_3_straight_talk.html.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 208.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 221.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 205.
    ^ O'Harrow, Jr., Robert (October 27, 2002). "Six Weeks in Autumn".
The Washington Post: p. W06.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A1999-2002Oct22&notFound=true.
Retrieved July 11, 2008.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 224.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle A, Sec. 311.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle A, Sec. 314.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle A, Sec. 317.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle A, Sec. 312, 313, 319 & 325.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle A, Sec. 327.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle A, Sec. 313.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle A, Sec. 312.
    ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title
III, Subtitle A, Sec. 319.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle A, Sec. 325.
    ^ Amendment made to 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(ii) — for some
reason an extra parenthesis was inserted into 18 U.S.C. §
1956(c)(7)(B)(iii), according to Cornell University, this was probably
mistakenly added by law makers
    ^ Illegal export of controlled munitions is defined in the United
States Munitions List, which is part of the Arms Export Control Act
(22 U.S.C. § 2778)
    ^ See 18 U.S.C. § 922(l) and 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)
    ^ Defined in 15 CFR 730–774
    ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title
III, Subtitle A, Sec. 315.
    ^ Defined in 18 U.S.C. § 541
    ^ Defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle A, Sec. 320. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 981(A)(1)(B)
    ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title
III, Subtitle A, Sec. 323. Amended 28 U.S.C. § 2467
    ^ Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983(j)
    ^ 28 U.S.C. § 2467(d)(3)(A)
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle A, Sec. 328.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle A, Sec. 330.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle B, Sec. 356.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle B, Sec. 365.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle B, Sec. 359.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle B, Sec. 352, 354 & 365.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle B, Sec. 361.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle B, Sec. 362.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle B, Sec. 352.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle B, Sec. 354.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle B, Sec. 353.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle B, Sec. 364.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle B, Sec. 360.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle C, Sec. 371.
    ^ So defined in 31 U.S.C. § 5313, 31 U.S.C. § 5316 and 31 U.S.C. § 5324
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle C, Sec. 372. Amended 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle C, Sec. 371. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 1960
    ^ "The Patriot Act: Justice Department Claims Success". National
Public Radio. July 20, 2005.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4756706.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle C, Sec. 374. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 1960
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle C, Sec. 376. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(D)
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III,
Subtitle C, Sec. 377.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV,
Subtitle A, Sec. 401.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV,
Subtitle A, Sec. 402.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV,
Subtitle A, Sec. 404. Amended the Department of Justice Appropriations
Act, 2001.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV,
Subtitle A, Sec. 403. Amends 8 U.S.C. § 1105
    ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title
IV, Sec. 403. Final regulations are specified in 22 C.F.R. 40.5
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV,
Subtitle A, Sec. 405.
    ^ National Institute of Standards and Technology, November 14,
2002. "Use of Technology Standards and Interoperable Databases With
Machine-Readable, Tamper-Resistant Travel Documents" (Appendix A)
    ^ NIST Image Group's Fingerprint Research, see the section "NIST
Patriot Act Work" (accessed June 28, 2006)
    ^ a b c d USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56),
Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 411.
    ^ As specified in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989; see 22 U.S.C. §
2656f(d)(2)
    ^ a b c d e USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56),
Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 412. A new section was created by the Act —
8 U.S.C. § 1226a
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV,
Subtitle B, Sec. 414.
    ^ 8 U.S.C. § 1372(a)
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV,
Subtitle B, Sec. 416.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV,
Subtitle B, Sec. 417.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV,
Subtitle B, Sec. 418.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle C.
    ^ Office of Patrick Leahy, USA PATRIOT Act Section-by-section analysis
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 501.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V,
Sec 502. Amended 22 U.S.C. § 2708(b)(5)
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V,
Sec 502. Amended 22 U.S.C. § 2708(b)(6)
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V,
Sec 502. Amended 22 U.S.C. § 2708(e)(1)
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V,
Sec 503. Amended 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(d)(2)
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V,
Sec 503. Amended 50 U.S.C. § 1825
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 506.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 507.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V,
Sec 505. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 2709(b); Section 1114(a)(5)(A) of the
Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. § 3414(a)(5)(A)) and
Section 624 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681u).
    ^ a b c Doe v. Ashcroft, 334 F.Supp.2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) source
    ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005
(U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177) Title I, Sec. 115 & 116
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI,
Subtitle A, Sec. 611.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI,
Subtitle A, Sec. 614.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI,
Subtitle B, Sec. 621
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI,
Subtitle B, Sec. 622.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI,
Subtitle B, Sec. 623. Amended 42 U.S.C. § 10603(b)(1)
    ^ 42 U.S.C. § 10603b
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI,
Subtitle B, Sec. 624.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 802.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII,
Sec. 813. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII,
Sec. 814. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 801.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 817.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII,
Sec. 803. Created 18 U.S.C. § 2339
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII,
Sec. 806. Amends 18 U.S.C. § 981
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII,
Section 805(a)(2)(B).
    ^ a b Humanitarian Law Project et al. v. John Ashcroft, Findlaw
    ^ a b "Key Patriot Act provision ruled unconstitutional under the
First Amendment" (Press release). Humanitarian Law Project. January
26, 2004. http://hlp.home.igc.org/docs/press/patact012604.html.
Retrieved July 11, 2008. "January 26, 2004: The Center for
Constitutional Rights announced today that a federal court in Los
Angeles has declared unconstitutional a provision of the USA PATRIOT
Act, enacted six weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001. This is the first judicial ruling in the country declaring part
of the USA PATRIOT Act unconstitutional. In a decision issued late
Friday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins ruled that a ban on
providing "expert advice and assistance" to terrorist groups violates
the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution because it is so
vague that it "could be construed to include unequivocally pure speech
and advocacy protected by the First Amendment.""
    ^ a b Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (U.S. S.
2845, Public Law 108-458), Title VI, Subtitle F, Sec. 6603.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 814.
    ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 1...