response-pol 7

Response one pol-07

THREE OR FOUR REFERENCES

The USA Patriot Act is a policy that was enacted because of the Terrorist Acts that happened on September 11th, 2001. Citizens were afraid after the attacks, so the government formed a policy to help protect the United States against potential future terrorist attacks (Act 2001). The USA Patriot Act also strives to detect Terrorist Acts in other parts of the world and protect from terrorist attacks (Act 2001).

There have been more security measures since the act was created. The security measures are ultimately for the Safety of American citizens, but are also in place to assist with safety in the rest of the world. One area that has major security measures are airports, domestic and international, so what happened on September 11th will never happen again.

                Policies are put in place to protect citizens, but some policies have been criticized for violating civil rights. The Patriot Act states that the government can conduct searches without a warrant and do not have to have to have probable cause (Act 2001). That is a violation of people’s privacy and of the constitution because amendments were put in place to protect citizen rights. The act mostly seems to target people who are not United States citizens for stricter searches, United States citizens are also subject to impromptu searches. The government was shown to go overboard by monitoring many citizens’ phone calls and also by requesting sales receipts from many retailors to monitor what citizens are buying (Forsyth 2015). Safety is important but monitoring phone calls and sales transactions without just cause is not necessary.

                The act has been effective in the United States and has helped to protect the Unites States from terrorism. Terrorist still occurs in other parts of the world, but it is also impossible to completely stop all acts of terrorism before they happen. People may not agree with all of the additional security in public places, such as airports and stadiums but the extra measures have helped save lives. The act should be equal, but some people are searched more than others because of who they are and how they look. The act is not ethical because it invaded people’s privacy and made them lose trust in the government. Citizens will not respect the government is they do not think that the government respects them.

                The Freedom Act was signed in 2015 and ended many of the unnecessary sections of the Patriot Act, including unnecessary surveillance and bulk collections that many policy makers and citizens did not agree with (Freedom 2015).  The act promotes transparency, so important information is shared   with the public. The act is not perfect does, but it does cater more to the American Public and it does address some issues that were present in the Patriot Act.

References

Forsyth, B. (2015). Banning bulk: Passage of the USA FREEDOM act and ending bulk collection. Washington and Lee Law Review, 72(3), 1307-1341.

https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/docview/1756930746?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=8289

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct  Terrorism Act of 2001. (2001). Public Law

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/pdf/PLAW-107publ56.pdf

USA Freedom Act. (2015). Judiciary Committee.

https://judiciary.house.gov/issue/usa-freedom-act/

Response two pol-07

THREE OR FOUR REFERENCES

The 2001 USA Patriot Act states that “the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans, including Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, and Americans from South Asia, must be protected, and that every effort must be taken to preserve their safety.” The topic of racism in general certainly applies to both the Patriot Act and its revision. I chose to look at a specific aspect of this and read about the electronic surveillance that is allowed under the acts since technology has changed and advanced by leaps and bounds between the time periods of two documents. These two areas of the act tie together because of probable cause. By using probable cause, active surveillance can easily be tied to monitoring individuals’ devices based on racial profiling whether the individual is a U.S. citizen or a foreign tourist that is considered “of interest” (H.R. 3162, 2001, enacted).

In the 2001 Patriot Act, the section that governed the rules on how those searches were conducted were far less stringent. The federal officers involved in the investigations “may consult” with federal law enforcement officers to coordinate efforts. There was no detailed guidelines on who could or should authorize searches and how long someone was allowed to be under watch. The 2015 act requires there to be set time periods that surveillance and acquisition of foreign intelligence can be conducted. It also requires the surveillance not exceed 72 hours and stopping if there is a court order, the Attorney General directs termination, a head element of the intelligence community decides the surveillance is no longer necessary or if threat of death or bodily harm no longer exists.

There was corrective action that was made in the 2015 Freedom Act. This act specifically states that “non-publicly available information concerning unconsenting non-United States persons acquired under this subsection shall not be disseminated during the 72-hour time period unless necessary to investigate, reduce, or eliminate the threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person”. The act goes on to relay that if the Attorney General decides not to allow use of the electronic surveillance or a court order is not obtained during the limited 72-hour time period of surveillance that the information is not allowed to be retained unless the Attorney General deems the information indicates a threat of death or harm to other persons.

The 2001 Patriot Act granted the government surveillance powers that were disconnected with the Forth Amendment’s probable cause warrant requirements making it both less ethical or equal. Under a provision of the FAA, there was a focused debate of Section 702. This was the section that allowed the government to target communications of foreign entities. While collecting that data, the government was inadvertently collecting the emails, texts and calls of innocent Americans (Eddington, 2017). So the intelligence being collected on non-citizens was spilled over to U. S. citizens. Violating the privacy of citizens was an unpopular trade-off of security and civil rights.

 

 

 

Reference:

H.R. 3162, 107th Congress Cong., 132 (2001) (enacted).

H.R. 2048, 114th Congress Cong., Publisher not identified 267 (2015) (enacted).

Eddington, P. G. (2017). Surveillance “Reform”: The Fourth Amendment’s Long, Slow, Goodbye. Just Security. Retrieved May 15, 2018.

 Response Three pol-07

THREE OR FOUR REFERENCES

First I think it is important to look at what needs were not being met that created the requirement for the Freedom Act of 2015.  In 2013, Ed Snowden was motived by what he perceived to be the government acting in secrecy and violating Americans’ rights in regards to the NSA surveillance programs.  What was seen was a need to reform the [not so modern] Surveillance Programs.  This Act was the first time, that Congress, has restrained the National Security Agency’s acts since the fateful day of September 11th, 2001.  (Humans Right Watch, 2015, p 1). 

What the Act specifically does do:  does not allow the bulk collection of calling records, changes the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, and the most important part is that it increases reporting and transparency.  (Human Right Watch, 2015, p 1).  Transparency is key to trust.  When it comes to national security, there will always have to be a trade-off of security and civil rights.  However, civil rights should never be violated just for someone to be looking for anything.  There still needs to be rules, and regulations, and black and white guide lines to ensure that no one is treated unethically or unfairly.  And In my opinion, that is how the Freedom Act of 2015 corrects this.  It brought a problem to light and was transparent about what was done to correct the problem.    

If we look at the evaluative framework from previous weeks, we can look at if it has been effective, equal, and ethical.  During implementation equality and the ethics of the policy were looked at.  From the research I have done this week, the goal was to protect all individual’s basic right to privacy.  A technical solution was created that still allows the government to obtain what phone records are essential to an investigation in regards to privacy.  (DNI, 2015, p 1).  When I look at this to me, I see both things, ethics and equality.  As I have previously stated for other week’s posts, you cannot have ethics without equality…they go hand in hand.  Because of this both can be looked at during the same time [which is why I have to same example to demonstrate both].    

In regards to effectiveness, it is still pretty early to tell.  This policy has been around for almost three years.  Since then, even being in the Department of Defense, there has not been much talk about it.  I keep looking at trying to find specifics to measure its effectiveness and am not coming up with much data, or data newer than 2016.  Because of this, I will be interested to see what my classmates find in the research they have done this week.  I will say, unless the proverbial home run is hit, or it is a drastic fail, it is hard to truly measure effectiveness in this category.                      

Humans Right Watch.  (2015).  Strengthen the USA Freedom Act.  [Data File].  Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/05/19/strengthen-usa-freedom-act

DNI.  (2015).  FACT SHEET:  Implementation of the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015.  [Data File].  Retrieved from https://www.dni.gov/files/icotr/USAFA%20Implementation%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

Response four pol-07

THREE OR FOUR REFERENCES

The purpose of the USA PATRIOT act is to cut off support or aid for terrorist activities through implementation of pro-active and reactionary policies in response to the events of 9/11.  The USA PATRIOT act requires financial institutions to monitor the possibility of money laundering efforts to fund terrorist groups. The law is controversial because it allows for the monitoring and collection of phone records and business data. According to Banks and Tauber, the USA PATRIOT Act granted the federal government to intercept communications among suspected terrorists by allowing government agencies unprecedented access to personal, consumer, and business information (2014, p. 144). The law enables intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies to share information concerning investigatory matters. This provision enhanced the communication lines between multiple agencies regarding matters of national security. However, detractors of the provision have concerns about the possibility of a collection of mass databases possessing information on ordinary citizens with no malicious terroristic intent (Abramson & Godoy, 2006). The government, itself, admitted that the collection of billions of personal records has no legal merit (Forsyth, 2015, p.1313). The federal courts has deferred to executive power and congressional legislative authority during times of duress regarding terrorist activity (Banks & Tauber, 2014, p.139).

The USA PATRIOT act provided a solution to curbing terrorist support through seizing assets within American banking institutions. Cutting off the flow of cash funds to terrorist groups by preventing, monitoring, and prosecuting offenders supporting terrorist groups (United States Department of the Treasury). Since September 11, there have no terrorist attacks on American soil. Therefore, the effectiveness of the policy has provided a viable solution to the threat of terrorist activity on American soil and abroad. Concerning the equality of the policy, implementation of the policy has impacted many Americans through broad monitoring of American citizens personal information. The concerns of ethical breaches has been acknowledged; but the trade-off for maintaining national security may have been warranted in times of perseverance of national interests.

The ethical implications has brought concerns from privacy advocacy groups as an infringement upon the Constitutional right to privacy which resulted in the creation of the USA Freedom Act signed into law June 2, 2015, by President Obama. The USA PATRIOT ACT detractors perceived the USA PATRIOT act as an infringement on civil liberties. As discussed in Forsyth, opponents from both sides of the aisle, with support of privacy groups and tech companies, called for the creation of a reformatory measure known as the USA FREEDOM act (2015, p.1323). The USA FREEDOM Act sought to amend the unethical practice of bulk collection of private information through the implementation of new standards and procedures within government agencies. Essentially, in order stem the overreach of the federal government, the USA FREEDOM Act prohibits the extensive arbitrary records from an entire state, city, or zip code (Congressional Digest, 2015). The specific selection term within the USA FREEDOM Act is critical in assessing the relevance of collecting data of personal information. The specific selection term is the legal standard to limit, to the greatest extent practical, the amount of information collected for investigatory purposes (Forsyth, 2015, p.1337). The specific selection term does not limit the amount of information of records collection, but limits the number to the greatest extent possible. The USA FREEDOM Act strengthens national security by allowing for call detail monitoring under the guidance and oversight of Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act Court. According to the Senate report, public relations revelations, specifically has resulted in attention regarding the protection the privacy of American citizens (United Sates Senate, 2013).  It is imperative that policy makers understand that the creation of national security policies enacted may deny Americans the civil liberties and freedoms that these policies are meant to protect (Davis, 2002, p.13). The fine line to maintain national security must be balanced by responsible government oversight to insure American rights are not compromised.

References:

Banks, C. P., & Tauber, S. (2014). U.S. district court decision-making in USA PATRIOT act cases after september 11. Justice System Journal, 35(2), 139-161. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/1532457697?accountid=8289

Davis, D. H. (2002). The dark side to a just war: The USA patriot act and counterterrorism's potential threat to religious freedom. Journal of Church and State, 44(1), 5-17. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/docview/230047595?accountid=8289

Forsyth, B. (2015). Banning bulk: Passage of the USA FREEDOM act and ending bulk collection. Washington and Lee Law Review, 72(3), 1307-1341. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/1756930746?accountid=8289

United States. Congress. Senate. (2013). The USA FREEDOM act Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/1679098464?accountid=8289

USA freedom act summary: Amendments to U.S. government surveillance authorities. (2015). Congressional Digest, 94(10), 8.

United States Department of the Treasury. FINCEN. USA PATRIOT ACT. Retrieved from https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-regulations/usa-patriot-act