The Pros and Cons of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was originally enacted to protect entities from abuse of surveillance for national security reasons.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

The USA Patriot Act grants government agencies powers in terrorism investigations that it already uses in non-terrorist crimes. Several law abiding citizens have been approached, questioned, and interrogated without probable cause of any criminal activity, basically for engaging in political speech protected by the constitution (Bailie, 2012). The Act freely eliminates privacy rights for individual Americans, it creates more secrecy for government activities, which make it extremely difficult to know about actions the Government are taking.

In this essay I will discuss the pros and the cons of the Patriot Act, how it affected the lives of US citizens and the world, and whether or not it fits within our democratic form of government. The Patriot Act was a rapidly drafted and approved Act of Congress which was intended to increase the security of US citizens by combatting terrorism. Although granting increased security to an extent, the Act was and still is extremely controversial due to certain parts of the Act limiting the freedoms of American citizens. The Patriot Act enhanced the government’s ability to spy on their own people, and with far fewer restrictions, so many people were and still are disgusted, but many others completely agree with it. Millions of people, billions across the world have a historical trend of being happy to sacrifice their freedoms for increased security. The controversy lies with how more safe are you in comparison to how much of your freedom you have to give up, and that compromise is weighed vastly different for individuals across the world. Did the Patriot Act save enough lives to warrant what it cost, or did it inhibit the lives of too many people to be allowed to continue. The answer will always be disputed and weighing each side will be a very difficult task.

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

The NSA, or National Security Agency, is an American government intelligence agency responsible for collecting data on other countries and sometimes on American citizens in order to protect the country from outside risks. They can collect anything from the people’s phone data to their browser history and use it against them in the court of law. Since the catastrophes of September 11 attacks, the NSA’s surveillance capabilities have grown with the benefit of George W. Bush and the Executive Branch (Haugen 153). This decision has left a country divided for fifteen years, with people who agree that the NSA should be strengthened and others who think their powers should be limited or terminated. Although strengthening NSA surveillance may help the

The Patriot Act allowed the government to conduct searches that it had either previously been unable to conduct or that had been far more difficult. Included in the bill was the ability for the government to conduct secret searches, to collect data on individuals held by third parties as well as the new “roving wiretaps” and “lone wolf provision.” Section 213 allowed for secret searches, also called “sneak and peak” warrants which let government officials search a home or building without giving the subject prior notice, something that had long been required under common law. Critics of the law say that if a property owner is not present or aware of a search, they cannot point out inconsistencies with a warrant, leaving officers with unchecked

Constant controversy have aggravated several Americans since the Patriot Act goes slightly against the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment is the right of people to be secure in their homes, papers, and effect, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw, n.d.). The Patriot Act was implemented for the creation of new laws and for the amendments of current ones for the intent of more efficient terrorism prevention and investigation. The act made changes to the already present amendments, which entitled privacy to American citizens, including the following: wiretap statute, electronic communications privacy act, computer fraud and abuse act, foreign intelligence surveillance act, family education rights and privacy act, pen register and trap and trace statute, money laundering act, immigration and nationality act, money laundering control act, bank secrecy act, right to financial privacy act, and fair credit reporting act (Department of Government and Justice Studies, n.d.). As a result, the Patriot Act contains all of the same checks and balances that the American public has become accustomed to seeing in their government testimonies (List of Pros and Cons of The Patriot Act,

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.

Patriot Act Our nation needs something like the Patriot Act as long as it is being used the way it is intended to be. The pros to this act is that it allows the government to stop and track potential terrorist. Certainly, the government has to have a way in order to monitor certain threats accordingly. Although, with this much power can come a lot of corruption. Allowing the the FBI to spy on any certain individual as they please without sufficient evidence should not be allowed.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorized warrantless surveillance, but only to obtain foreign intelligence information. But the government violated this and the FBI

(The Patriot Act Is Not a Good Antiterrorism Tool). History tends to repeat itself and the Patriot Act is a good example. The Patriot Act violates the First Amendment by taking away American rights to freedom of

So, a bill that almost 40 years ago which clearly stipulated that it could only be used for monitoring foreign agents has been made available to non-intelligence agencies that were not the subjects of the original bill to conduct more intrusive surveillance. Specifically, with the PATRIOT Act, law enforcement could now use the FISA Act as a precursor to obtain private information from “banks, businesses, credit companies, Internet providers, and others about U.S. citizens without a showing of probable cause” (Baker 15). This obviously were not part of the original FISA Act, because the original FISA Act pertained to foreign nationals and spies in the United States, not American citizens. More importantly however this amendment to the FISA Act that gives the government the opportunity to obtain private information without probable cause is in strong violation of Fourth Amendment which stipulates that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” (US. Const. amend. IV), because now the government doesn’t need probable cause anymore to conduct surveillance or gather private information.

Making the world a safe place is a statement everyone likes to hear. The Patriot Act, which was made on September 12, 2001, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attack made on the twin towers. This act was made to keep the people of America safe from terrorists, but also keeps track of all of the files. In today's discussions, people argue whether or not this act should still be used. The pro side of the story is to keep people safe and protects them from terrorist attacks, and other criminal gestures. The con side of the story is that it invades people privacy and is an unfair advantage that the government have towards people lives.

To reiterate, after the passage of the Act, numerous academics and legal specialists have attempted to substantiate whether or not the Act should remain in effect today. Essentially, the arguments addressed can be categorized into two predominant schools of thoughts. One on hand, as a I had briefly mentioned, some scholars believe that the Patriot Act ought to be excluded from the U.S. domestic set of security regulations, because it allows the government to disregard the basic rights of citizens and noncitizens that are secured by the U.S. Bill of Rights somewhat without a probable cause. Further, it legalizes a series of other unconstitutional provisions that could possibly lead the U.S. to a dictatorship. The other side of the debate defends

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was first enacted in 1978, and later amended, including in 1994, by the Patriot Act, and by 2008 it became the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments. In 1972, the Supreme Court chose the case of United States v. United States District Court, otherwise called the "Keith" case, in which the Court considered the legality of an Attorney General approved warrantless electronic surveillance of a United States citizen blamed for bombing a Central Intelligence Agency building. The Court rejected the government's appeal to acknowledge a foreign intelligence special case to the per se warrant prerequisite, holding that the Fourth Amendment prohibited warrantless surveillance directed at domestic threats to United States national security. The Court directly refused to choose the legality of warrantless surveillances where "foreign powers or their agents" were included, leaving open the issue of the Executive's power to direct such operational activities at those persons or elements. The Court likewise firmly asked the Congress to supply a judicially- manageable standard appropriate to surveillances conducted for national security purposes.