Sorry about the delay sometimes work, college and homework get in the way of posting.
In the interest of letting everyone else on the forum know I sent ethiopea the following message. It's the text of a paper I had to do for english 102 on the Patriot Act.
The USA PATRIOT Act Sharing Information to Fight Terrorism
The old Strategic mindset of cold war intelligence gathering focused on clearly defined strategic threats to national security. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the bi-polar nature of a world divided between east and west necessitates a new kind of intelligence gathering procedure. Threats posed by terrorists are smaller and harder to confront than threats posed by nations with standing armies. The USA Patriot Act amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and allows for information sharing between the Justice Department and the State Department. The provisions outlined in the Patriot Act allow the government to better deal with emerging threats to national security.
The USA PATRIOT Act Sharing Information to Fight Terrorism
For more than 40 years the United States fought the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The intelligence communityâ€™s main focus was evaluating and figuring out ways to fight conventional forces. Forces controlled by a national government with a clear doctrine and an established order of battle. The focus on conventional forces directed the development of satellite assets in order to better evaluate the capacity of nations to wage war. Finding better ways to fight and evaluate nations left the United States vulnerable to forces which recognize no national boundaries. As Robert Kaplan states in an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal â€œWhile the U.S. spends billions of dollars on sophisticated defense systems, the dime-a-dozen kidnapper and suicide bomber have emerged as the most strategic weapons of war.â€ Through four successive administrations the threat of global terrorism grew in importance culminating in the events of September, 11th 2001 (Ball 33). Terrorists and those that support them constitute an enemy unlike any other, for terrorists follow no specific rules. Unlike conventional military forces terrorists possess no military doctrine and no readily identifiable chain of command. Fighting terrorism requires a complete sharing of governmental information across bureaucratic lines. The old cold-war structure where law-enforcement agencies handled domestic concerns and the intelligence community focused on foreign threats to national security no longer applies. Terrorists do not acknowledge national borders only organizational ties. Tracking terrorists necessitates that the intelligence community shares information about foreign terrorist organizations and operatives with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, so that terrorists working in the United States may be better apprehended. The USA PATRIOT Act facilitates the sharing of information between agencies and is therefore a useful tool for successfully prosecuting the war on terrorism.
The full title of the USA PATRIOT Act is â€œUniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Toolsn
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001â€ (United States, USA Patriot Act, 1). The purpose of the Patriot Act is, â€œTo deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, [and] to enhance law enforcement investigatory toolsâ€ (United States, USA Patriot Act 2). In laymanâ€™s terms the Patriot Act functions as a bridge between government agencies allowing them to effectively share information. Prior to the Patriot Act the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 separated bureaucratic inquiries into two categories, those dealing with foreign intelligence and those dealing with illegal activities. The primary aim of foreign intelligence gathering is to acquire information about foreign governments and their inhabitants, while the goal of a criminal investigation is to gather data about illicit activities (Ball 56). The Patriot Act relaxes many of the limitations on foreign intelligence gathering and allows for greater access to information between the FBI and the Intelligence Community. Specifically in Section 203 the Patriot Act allows â€œlaw enforcement officials to share foreign intelligence or counterintelligence [â€¦] information [â€¦] obtained through a criminal wiretap with law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security personnelâ€ (United States, USA Patriot and Terrorism Prevention 76).
In addition to facilitating greater communication between government agencies the Patriot Act also grants other tools to the federal government for the prosecution of terrorism. In 1978 the FISA set up a court to govern the collection of foreign intelligence through electronic surveillance (Ball 45). The Patriot Act expands the power of the FISA court under section 215 by allowing the court to subpoena â€œbusiness records related to â€˜international terrorismâ€™ and clandestine intelligence activitiesâ€™â€™ (United States, USA Patriot and Terrorism Prevention 7Cool. The powers granted under section 215 of the Patriot Act allow the Justice Department to scrutinize the records of businesses and charities with known links to terrorism. Examining the records of companies and non-profits associated with terrorist organizations enables the government to freeze assets that could potentially fund terrorist activities in the United States.
Contrary to popular opinions held by critics of the Patriot Act the Federal Government may not arbitrarily designate terrorist organizations. According to the State Department website on Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) specific guidelines must be followed. There are three criteria for the designation. First the organization â€œMust be foreign.â€ Second the â€œOrganization must engage in terrorist activity [â€¦] or retain the capability and intent to engage in [â€¦] terrorism.â€ Third the â€œOrganizationâ€™s terrorist activity [â€¦] must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security [â€¦] of the United States.â€ The list currently comprises 42 international groups with known links to terrorism. The Patriot Act only allows the freezing of the assets of an organization, â€œpending an investigation into possible associations with a designated terrorist groupâ€ (Authority and Process). The designation of a particular organization as an FTO must happen before any investigation into possible links with businesses or charities. In short, to have its assets frozen a business, charity, or individual must have a possible link with one of the 42 organizations listed on the State Departmentâ€™s website.
The Patriot Act forms a vital piece of legislation in the Global War on Terrorism, coordinating the actions of disparate agencies into a unified whole. The State Departmentâ€™s list of FTOs guides the intelligence community in collecting information about specific threats. Under the Patriot Act the information collected by the intelligence community on FTOs may now be shared with law enforcement agencies pursuant with the revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and the National Security Act of 1947. The information once shared between agencies is processed in the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center, and disseminated jointly by the CIA working in conjunction with the Attorney General and the Director of the CIA (Ball 53).
Before the creation of the Patriot Act each government agency acted alone under separate legislation. The State Department under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act controlled the designation of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (Foreign Terrorist Organizations). The FISA separated the collection of Foreign Intelligence from use in criminal investigations involving terrorism. In sum, the State Department acted independently of the intelligence community, and law enforcement agencies remained unaided by either. Ultimately the Patriot Act constitutes a first step in overcoming the cold-war mentality that focused intelligence gathering on nations and armies. The strategic threats to national security have changed, becoming smaller and harder to assess. As Robert Kaplan states in his book The Coming Anarchy, â€œThe question is not whether there will be war [â€¦] but what kind of warâ€ (46)? In order to be successful in this new kind of war the federal government must counter multiple pressures from a myriad of organizations and individuals. The operating procedures and aims of each of the 42 organizations listed by the State Department are uniquely different. No single policy will ever be enough to successfully ensure the complete safety of the American People from terrorism. In order to do so every agency of the government would need to be successful all of the time. In contrast the terrorists and their organizations need only succeed once. However the provisions for information sharing, and the revisions to existing legislation contained within the Patriot Act ensure the best protection possible within the bounds created by a democratic society.
"Authority and Process of Office of Foreign Assets Control to Release Frozen Charitable Funds." Charities and National Security. 06 Nov. 2006. OMB Watch. 21 Nov. 2006 <http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3632/1/407?TopicID=2>.
Ball, Howard. The USA Patriot Act. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2004
Kaplan, Robert D. "The Tribal Way of War." The Wall Street Journal 19 July 2006. 15 Nov. 2006 <http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110008674>.
Kaplan, Robert D. The Coming Anarchy Shattering the Dreams of the Post Cold War. 2nd ed. New York: Random House, 2001.
"Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs)." Fact Sheet Office of Counterterrorism. 11 Oct. 2005. U.S. Department of State. 19 Nov. 2006 <http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm>.
United States. Cong. House. USA Patriot and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 Report of the Comittee on the Judiciary House of Representatives. 109th Cong., 1st sess. HR 3199. 18 July 2005. 20 Nov. 2006 <http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2005_rpt/hrpt109-174pt1.pdf>.
United States. Cong. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot Act) Act of 2001. 107th Cong., 1st sess. Public Law 107-56. 26 Oct. 2001. 10 Nov. 2006 <http://intelligence.senate.gov/patriot.pdf>.
Anonymous. "How Not to Catch a Terrorist." The Atlantic Monthly Dec. 2004: 50-52.
Chang, Nancy. Silencing Political Dissent. New York: Seven Stories P, 2002.
Cullison, Alan. "Inside Al-Qaeda's Hard Drive." The Atlantic Monthly Sept. 2004: 55-70.
Franks, Tommy. American Soldier. New York: HarperCollins, 2004.
Huer, Richards J. Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. 2nd ed. Washington D.C.: Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, 2001. 17 Nov. 2006 <https://www.cia.gov/csi/books/19104/index.html>.
In addition I spent 4 and half years in the Millitary (as an analyst) and I know how everything fits together.
In the beginning, the iustitium was only invoked in states of siege or war; gradually, though, it began to be enforced as well against tumulti (rebellions) in Rome. This enabled the Senate to proceed manu militari against Roman citizens while denying their civil rights, including arbitrary detentions, summary executions, etc. for which the authority was unresponsible by virtue of the iustitium. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t need to tell you that from rebellion it soon became to be enforced against riots, from riots to the opponentsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ followers, becoming soon an indispensable instrument for political domination in an increasingly totalitarian Republic.
The major problem with this idea of comparing the american system of juris prudence and the roman is that the roman legal system resembled the british. The Roman possessed no written constitution aside from the twelve tables. Roman law consisted of a body of legislation with no governing principles but it gradually evolved and became less harsh over time. Under Agustus the practice of eliciting a confession from a slave by torture was still widely practiced. Agustus had to rule that a son thrice sold into slavery was no longer bound by the rule of the Pater Familias. The principle of everyone regardless of status was not put forward in theory until the time of Hadrian. The Practice of eliciting confessions by torture from slaves was practiced ocasionally even under Justinian. This eventually found new birth on the continent where torture was widely practiced under civil as well as cannon law. Keep in mind the British/American Right of Habeas Corpus still has no known precedent on the continent. As I said earlier as bad as some of the post 9/11 legislation is it still protects the rights of citizens for a fair trial. The issue is foreign nationals who engage in terrorist activity.