The Pros and Cons of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

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

When the Patriot Act was passed, there was a public backlash against its constitutionality. In order to protect the nation from future terrorist attacks, the Patriot act vastly expanded the government's authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court”. This brought up a lot of controversy within lawmakers, as the enactment of this law would give the FBI the right to violate the Fourth Amendment.

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

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) is a law granted by the United States which defined procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance that was deemed in the best interest of national security. This gave congress the ability to oversee foreign intelligence surveillance while maintaining secrecy in conducting surveillance of national security threats. The Patriot Act enhanced the FISA capability to conduct wiretap surveillance without warrants. According to Matthew A. Anzaldi and Jonathan W. Gannon (2010), FISA "provides the legal framework through which the Intelligence Community lawfully collects intonation about those who pose national security threats to our country” (p.1690). The right of privacy that’s protected

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 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.

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).

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 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 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

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.

People who oppose the act ask this question “Does this act violate the Fourth Amendment? (The right giving us privacy as United States citizens). “There is an inherent opposition between governments’ requests for access to data in the context of criminal investigations, or the fight against drugs or terrorism, and the basic rights of individuals to privacy in their home or their papers.” (Gilbert 3). Basically to some up that statement there are certain times when the United States will use the act, almost like when the police get a warrant they pick the time that is best for them for their safety and our country as a whole. People who oppose this act also ask this question, is the Patriot Act just a way for the United States to listen to our lives as an excuse? What does the CIA or FBI listen for when using this law? “Contrary to press reports, the Patriot Act is not “the” U.S. law that governs the rules for access to data or communications by law enforcement and national security agencies.”(Gilbert 2). This means the U.S would have to have consent to use other countries databases for information on criminals and other activities, but this brings up a point, the United States wouldn’t give you a warning if they were watching your internet browsing or wiretapping your phone if they wanted your

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.

“The consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival” (Orwell). The world today is full of many dangers domestic and abroad. It has become a routine in the news to report on the daily mass shooting or update with the war on terror. We live in a world where being worried is justified; however, we should not give up our constitutional rights in the face of fear. The NSA’s dragnet surveillance programs, such as PRISM, are both ineffective and are surpassed by less questionable national security programs. The FISA court's’ approval of NSA actions are not only illegal, but exist as an embarrassing formality. Surveillance is a necessary