Electronic Surveillance And Its Historical Context

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was originally enacted to protect entities from abuse of surveillance for national security reasons. FISA contains policies associated with the process of gathering foreign intelligence by the intelligence community for national security reasons (Addicott & McCaul, 2008, p. 46-47). FISA also consisted of a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which had eleven unnamed federal judges who issued warrants regarding surveillance or searches for the intelligence community, and a court review board, which consisted of three federal judges who reviewed the actions of the secret court. After the passing of the Patriot Act by the Bush Administration, the NSA was essentially given full authority to collect information on citizens without a warrant, thereby circumventing the FISC, and Bush fully defended the NSA, stating “‘The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time.’” (Schwartz 2009

Today, electronic surveillance remains one of the most effective tools the United States has to protect against foreign powers and groups seeking to inflict harm on the nation, but it does not go without a few possessing a few negative aspects either. Electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence has likely saved the lives of many innocent people through prevention of potential acts of aggression towards the United States. There are many pros to the actions authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pertaining to electronic surveillance, but there are also cons. Looking at both the pros and cons of electronic surveillance is important in understanding the overall effectiveness of FISA. [1]

In the years since the passing of the Patriot Act, there has been much controversy and debate regarding the positive and negative advantages, and consequences of this bill. As a member of the law enforcement community I have experienced firsthand some of the changes the Patriot Act has brought upon this nation. A result of this experience along with information obtained in the studying of this act and

Since the passing of FISA came after a widespread finding of warrantless wiretapping by a number of different government entities, Congress along with the Carter administration, needed to carefully craft a bill that not only reconciled national security needs to conduct domestic surveillance, but also continued to protect individual liberties such as that of the first and fourth amendments. The once top-secret Carter administration memos regarding FISA offer a first-hand glimpse at the thinking that went into

     In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks US Congress passed legislation known as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 commonly known as the USA Patriot Act. This paper will attempt to prove that not only is the USA Patriot Act unconstitutional but many of its provisions do nothing at all to protect Americans from the dangers of terrorism.

The past several years have seen a proliferation of legislation directed at controlling criminal activities through the increased application of new laws. The effectiveness of these new laws, remains in question due not only to their relative infancy but also due to a uniform determinism of what constitutes effectiveness. The purpose of this paper will be to review the Fourth amendment particularly relating to NSA, FISA, Title III and the PATRIOT Act.

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) is one of the most controversial pieces of legislation to ever pass through the US Senate. Its critics use fear mongering tactics to scare people into opposition of an intrusive police state which they believe is inevitable given the government’s new powers. They consider the Act an assault on civil liberties and an invasion of the privacy of innocent American citizens. Yet the real issue is not that the government now has new powers, it’s that the American people do not trust our intelligence agencies to handle these new powers properly while still respecting their rights.

“The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), enacted in 1978, prescribes procedures for physical searches and electronic surveillance of activities of foreign entities and individuals where a significant purpose of the search or surveillance (and the collection of information) is to obtain foreign intelligence information.”(Gilbert 4). This is the part where the Patriot Act and TSA meet this information states that any foreign immigrant that wants to come into the U.S will be background checked and must have a visa. This provides an understanding of the immigrants history as a backup for the best safety as a country. “While rules that pertain to U.S. government access to data and communications have received a lot of attention, most reports have omitted to indicate that most other countries also have laws authorizing government investigations for national security and other purposes.”(Gilbert 3). “These laws tend to provide the respective governments with similar, if not greater, powers of access to data and communication” (US Patriot Act 1). This shows that even other countries want our technology for their investigations to try and stop the criminals all together, but The “Patriot Act. This broad legislative policy gave the government investigative powers to fight against terrorism and subsequently targeted those in the Arab, Muslim” (Akiyama 1) by prejudging society, which raised problems after

The Patriot Act of 2001 has in many ways changed the way that acts of terrorism and other crimes related to terrorism are handled within the Federal system. The Patriot Act in many ways unites under one law code a few different important clauses relating to tools available to federal law enforcement and also to the new more pressed penalties for terrorist acts. The entire act within itself provides law enforcement a new set of measures and procedures to combating terrorist on the financial field as well as the domestic home front. The most basic of tools that many law enforcement agencies have took advantage of were with the passing of the Patriot Act of 2001 becoming newly available to that of federal investigatory

The Patriot Act came into existence upon signing into law by the President George Bush. This Act of the Congress was meant to unite the Americans as they fight and intercept the different acts of terrorism (Doyle 2). Through the act, appropriate tools necessary for the execution of the mandates were provided. The act allows the empowered surveillance bodies to search for the different business records, rove through the wiretaps and carries out surveillance on the persons who are suspected to be terrorists or linked to terrorist-related activities. Owing to the powerful nature of the act, several issues have been raised concerning the validity and appropriateness of the act. Most of the issues raised point towards the morality aspect of the act. One issue of concern is privacy of individuals as far as the execution of Patriot Act is concerned (Doyle 2).

The purpose of this research paper is to give those not aware of the Patriot Act a condensed version of the framework of the Act. According to the architects of the Patriot Act, the goal of the Act was to deal a crippling blow to the infrastructure of domestic terrorism in the United States. However, if not properly utilized, there will be, and should be a strong public reaction against the Act due to its extensive range of authority. Many provisions in the Act apply to American citizens, and we will be affected.

Bazan, E. B. (2008). The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: overview and modifications. New York: Nova Science Publishers. When you look into this Act, there were many flaws that were infringing on American freedom. The FISA has faced much criticism and disapproval. One of the major problems associated with the FISA is the fact

Many innocent Americans lives were taken by an act of terrorism on September 11, 2001. This has terrorized many people who lost loved ones on this day. There was much controversy among the government’s officials and American citizens on what the course of action is to prevent this tragedy from happening again. After many days of formulating a plan, A bill was passed on October 26, 2001 by George W. Bush to help solve this issue. This new regulation became know as the Patriot Act. This bill provided the government the necessary tools to intercept American citizens private information, which would help discover suspicious activity among suspected terrorists threats. The main bill’s focus was to help prevent future terrorists from executing their malicious attacks. Despit the law’s ability to keep this country safe, we sacrifice some of our freedom for the good of each of us. Although the American government has retrieved personal information throughout history, our civil liberties should be preserved along with the safety of our exclusive information from the United States government.

covers: 1) The Intelligence Community, 2) The Fourth Amendment Framework (Keith vs. U.S.), and 3) The Foreign Intelligence Gathering. We gain further understanding of intelligence agencies and their functions, the Fourth Amendments application to domestic and overseas cases, and the Foreign Intelligence Service Act.

Prior the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the FISA Act gave the procedures “for requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power” (Aftergood 2). However after the 2001, the powers of the FISA Act had become augmented far beyond the provisions of its original 1978 bill. For example, the original use of the FISA Act was for only “the purpose of foreign intelligence” (Baker 12) but the language in the Patriot Act changed the purpose of the FISA Act to “a purpose, which thus making the FISA process generally available to law enforcement not engaged in foreign intelligence work” (Baker