DOCSLIB.ORG

An Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act and Its Implications on Nonprofit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act and Its Implications on Nonprofit PATRIOT GAMES The USA Patriot Act1 and its Impact on Nonprofit Organizations By Tim Visser and Kay Guinane Executive Summary The Bush administration recently shut down a number of Muslim-based nonprofit organizations using new powers under the USA Patriot Act, which was passed shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. No criminal charges were made against these organizations, nor were they officially designated terrorist supporters.2 Law enforcement officials simply froze their assets and seized their property “pending an investigation” without producing any evidence, as authorized by the act. Consequently, the burden of proof has shifted to the organizations, which must prove their innocence even though, in many cases, the government has not specified wrongdoing. Moreover, they must do this without access to their own documents, computers, records, or other materials that might make their case. Making matters worse for these organizations, the government controls the information judges see and how they see it; investigators can label evidence confidential for national security reasons and then bring it before a court without the target being represented. This allows the government to present part of the picture most favorable to its case -- which targets are not allowed to confront -- while withholding information that might prove innocence. As one target, the Global Relief Foundation, put it, “In fact, [the Treasury Department] has stated in court that it will base its case on evidence GRF may never see.”3 This secret evidence has also made it difficult to understand the how the act is being applied, although the Bush administration appears to be interpreting its mandate broadly. As a result, without respect to the merits of specific cases, some organizations could decide to stop legal charitable activities -- aid to Muslim countries, in particular -- out of fear of being shut down for “material support” to terrorism, a phrase the Patriot Act leaves vague. For example, the government apparently can shut down an organization if aid is given -- even unknowingly -- to a child of a terrorist suspect or suicide bomber. In fact, this may have resulted in the closing of at least one Muslim nonprofit, as described below. 1 Full Name: “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.” 2 2nd Muslim Charity Sues U.S. Officials on Sanctions, Chicago Tribune; Chicago, Ill.; Jan 31, 2002; Laurie Cohen, Tribune staff reporter. 3 Treasury’s Inconsistent Positions on Islamic Charities, GRF Press Release (3/14/02). In the same press release, GRF makes reference to former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill’s claim to Gulf Arab allies that, “The United States has not targeted any charity institution in its campaign against terrorism and…has no interest in harming charities.” The statement was made months after the raids on GRF, HLF, and BIF. For now, only Muslim organizations have been shut down, but the Patriot Act puts others at risk of investigation as well. In particular, the FBI has recently searched the records of hundreds of libraries to see what books people are reading; the exact number is uncertain because the Patriot Act makes it illegal to publicly disclose a search warrant. The new powers of the act also make it possible for the government to conduct secret and wide-ranging surveillance of nonprofit organizations. For instance, if a terrorist suspect repeatedly logs on to an organization’s web site, the organization and other users of its web site potentially can be investigated too -- without anyone knowing. Moreover, although most have focused on individual civil liberties, there are also fears that the administration could use the act to target organizations that oppose its policies, threatening constitutionally protected speech. Public interest groups have started to raise these problems, with the American Civil Liberties Union leading the way. Backed by growing opposition, local governments have passed more than 160 anti-Patriot Act resolutions, and the House recently voted overwhelmingly to block funds for secret searches of homes or offices, as the act authorizes. When the administration first proposed the Patriot Act, many were nervous to challenge it. Attorney General John Ashcroft captured the prevailing mood at the time: “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies.”4 Two years later, it is the Patriot Act that looks un-American. Concerns for Nonprofits Under the Patriot Act, law enforcement officials have increased powers to shut down a nonprofit organization or spy on its activities. In this respect, a number of provisions are of special concern: Freezing Assets The Patriot Act gives the executive branch largely unchecked power to designate any group as a terrorist organization. Once designated, a group can have all of its materials and property seized and its assets frozen, “pending an investigation.”5 Assets can be taken even if the organization faces no criminal charges. Once all assets are seized and frozen, an organization can be denied access to evidence (the organization’s computers, files, documents, etc.) that might prove its innocence; the government has authority to withhold this information for “national security” reasons. 4 Anthony Lewis, Security and Liberty. A Century Foundation Report (Copyright 2003) 5 Section 106 of the USA PATRIOT Act “Material Support” to Terrorism Section 805 of the Patriot Act expands the definition of “material support” to terrorism to include “monetary instruments” and “expert advice or assistance,” amending a law passed following the Oklahoma City bombing (the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996).6 The full definition now reads: “Currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advise or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials.” (Sec. 2339, Title 18, U.S.C.) In 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the terms “training” and “personnel” were unconstitutionally vague.7 However, the Patriot Act did not remove or redefine these terms, and the new general category of “expert advice or assistance” only increases the ambiguity. This vague language allows wide-ranging prosecutorial discretion and could chill legally protected activities by nonprofits, which might fear criminal charges. David Cole, professor of law at Georgetown University, suggests that, “The reason material support laws have proven so popular with federal prosecutors is that … these laws do not require proof that an individual intended to further any terrorist activity.” He goes on to note, “Under this law it would be a crime for a Quaker to send a book on Gandhi’s theory of nonviolence -- a ‘physical asset’ -- to the leader of a terrorist organization in hopes of persuading him to forgo violence.”8 “Domestic Terrorism” Section 802 of the Patriot Act creates the term “domestic terrorism,” defined as: “An activity that involves acts dangerous to human life and are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state, and appear to be intended: i) To intimidate or coerce a civilian population; ii) To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or; iii) To affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and; 9 iv) Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” 6 It is interesting to note that AEDPA, which was drafted in response to an act of domestic terrorism, deals mostly with international terrorism, while the Patriot Act, which was drafted in response to an Act of international terrorism, deals mostly with domestic issues. 7 Humanitarian Law Project v. Reno, 205 F.3d 1130, 1133-34 (9 th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 US 904 (2001). 8 David Cole, The New McCarthyism: Repeating History in the War on Terrorism, 38 Harv. C.R.-C.L.L.Rev. 1,9 (Winter 2003) 9 Section 2331, Title 18, U.S.C. This definition is so broad that it could capture vigorous protest, potentially stifling critical free speech rights.10 Traditional civil disobedience -- such as the recent World Trade Center protests -- could be looked at as an attempt “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,” falling under the category of “domestic terrorism.” Expanded Surveillance Powers The Patriot Act’s Section 215 -- which amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 -- allows investigators greater leeway to conduct domestic surveillance. This runs counter to the intent of FISA, which was created mostly to deter FBI surveillance of American citizens following abuses throughout the 1960s and 70s. FISA established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to oversee domestic intelligence gathering.11 Under this system, DOJ submits requests to the court, which must approve surveillance, such as wiretapping, as well as searches and seizures. These FISA warrants -- as they are widely known -- are issued in total secrecy.12 FISC was meant to serve as a wall between domestic law enforcement and international intelligence gatherers. However, the Patriot Act shatters that wall, allowing FISA warrants to be issued for criminal investigations against American citizens. Previously, such warrants could only be issued with evidence that the subject was an agent of a foreign power. Moreover, the Patriot Act barely acknowledges Constitutional protections. The act merely states that an investigation cannot be conducted on a U.S. citizen “solely” on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment.13 This allows law enforcement officials to start investigations based primarily on actions protected by the First Amendment, as long as at some point, they cite a reason that is not related to the First Amendment.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Commentary on the Prosecution of Benevolence International Foundation Matthew .J Piers
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DigitalCommons@Pace Pace Law Review Volume 25 Issue 2 Spring 2005 Article 7 The Anti-Terrorist Financing Guidelines: The Impact on International Philanthropy April 2005 Malevolent Destruction of a Muslim Charity: A Commentary on the Prosecution of Benevolence International Foundation Matthew .J Piers Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr Recommended Citation Matthew J. Piers, Malevolent Destruction of a Muslim Charity: A Commentary on the Prosecution of Benevolence International Foundation , 25 Pace L. Rev. 339 (2005) Available at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol25/iss2/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Malevolent Destruction of a Muslim Charity: A Commentary on the Prosecution of Benevolence International Foundation Matthew J. Piers Three years ago we, as a nation, suffered a ghastly act of mass murder and terrorism apparently perpetrated by the self-proclaimed Islamic fundamentalist group, al Qaeda. A remarkable thing occurred in the wake of this tragedy: the United States, already feared and respected as the world's sole remaining super power, became the object of a tidal wave of international support and sympathy. Perhaps never before in our nation's relatively short history have so many hands and hearts reached out to us. The potential to build on this historic outpouring of support and sympathy, both domestically and internationally, was enormous.
    [Show full text]
  • JIHAD Pag 1-10 Revazut.Qxd
    JIHADUL ISLAMIC DE LA "|NFRÂNGEREA TERORII" {I "R+ZBOIUL SFÂNT" LA "SPERAN}A LIBERT+}II" JIHADUL ISLAMIC 1 Foto coperta I • SHEIKH MAWLANA MUHAMMAD HISHAM COD CNCSIS 270 ANDREESCU, ANGHEL Jihadul Islamic de la ''|nfrângerea terorii'' [i ''R=zboiul Sfânt''ANDREESCU, la ''speran]a ANGHEL libert=]ii'' / Anghel Andreescu, NicolaeJihadul Radu. Islamic - Bucure[ti: de la ''|nfrângerea Editura Ministerului terorii'' [i ''R=zboiulInternelor [iSfânt'' Reformei la Administrative,''speran]a libert=]ii'' 2008 / Anghel Andreescu, Bibliogr.Nicolae Radu. - Bucure[ti: Editura Ministerului Internelor ISBN[i Reformei 978-973-745-011-1 Administrative, 2008 Bibliogr. I.ISBN Radu, 978-973-745-011-1 Nicolae 329.7(¡411.21)I. Radu, Nicolae Jihad 329.7(¡411.21) Jihad Opera]ii editoriale: colectiv Editura MIRA Tip=rit: Tipografia Codex Anghel ANDREESCU, Nicolae RADU 2 Chestor general de poli]ie Comisar [ef prof. univ. dr. Anghel ANDREESCU conf. univ. dr. Nicolae RADU JIHADULJIHADUL ISLAMICISLAMIC DE LA "|NFRÂNGEREA TERORII" {I "R+ZBOIUL SFÂNT" LA "SPERAN}A LIBERT+}II" BUCURE{TI – 2008 – JIHADUL ISLAMIC 3 Cuprins Gând pentru toleran]= . 9 Prefa]= . 11 Introducere . 15 Introduction . 29 Introduction . 43 Lista abrevieri . 59 Capitolul 1 De la Islam la cunoa[terea Jihadului . 65 Cât de bine cunoa[tem Islamul? . 65 Unicitatea lui Allah . 79 |n numele credin]ei . 96 Calea spre Mecca . 98 Ebraismul confirmat . 103 Moartea Profetului . .104 Urma[ii lui Mahomed . 106 Dinastia Abbasida [i civiliza]ia islamic= . 109 |n=l]are [i dec=dere . 110 {ii]i [i suni]i . 111 Religia \ntre [ii]i [i suni]i . 113 Cartea Sfânt= a Islamului . 115 Nemurirea sufletului .
    [Show full text]
  • A Decade Lost I ABOUT the AUTHORS
    A DECADE LOST i ABOUT THE AUTHORS The Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) brings together and expands the rich array of teaching, research, clinical, internship, and publishing activities undertaken within New York University (NYU) School of Law on international human rights issues. Philip Alston and Ryan Goodman are the Center’s Faculty co-Chairs; Smita Narula and Margaret Satterthwaite are Faculty Directors; Jayne Huckerby is Research Director; and Veerle Opgenhaffen is Senior Program Director. The Global Justice Clinic (GJC) at NYU School of Law provides high quality, professional human rights lawyering services to individual clients and non-governmental and inter-governmental human rights organizations, partnering with groups based in the United States and abroad. Working as legal advisers, counsel, co-counsel, or advocacy partners, Clinic students work side-by-side with human rights activists from around the world. The Clinic is directed by Professor Margaret Satterthwaite and in Fall 2010 to Spring 2011 was co-taught with Adjunct Assistant Professor Jayne Huckerby; Diana Limongi is Clinic Administrator. All publications and statements of the CHRGJ can be found at its website: www.chrgj.org. This Report should be cited as: Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, A Decade Lost: Locating Gender in U.S. Counter-Terrorism (New York: NYU School of Law, 2011). © NYU School of Law Center for Human Rights and Global Justice A DECADE LOST 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Global Justice Clinic (GJC)/Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) at New York University (NYU) School of Law acknowledges the following individuals for their contributions in the preparation of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation Supporting the Appellee and Urging Affirmance ______
    __________________________________ No. 10-10038 __________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT __________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DAVID NOSAL, Defendant-Appellee __________________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTICT OF CALIFORNIA __________________________________ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION SUPPORTING THE APPELLEE AND URGING AFFIRMANCE __________________________________ Marcia Hofmann Electronic Frontier Foundation 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 (415) 436-9333 (415) 436-9993 – facsimile Attorney for Amicus Curiae ____________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................ii DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND OTHER ENTITIES WITH A DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST IN LITIGATION .................................................................................................................... iv STATEMENT OF AMICUS CURIAE.......................................................... v I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT....................... 1 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE.............................................................. 2 III. ARGUMENT....................................................................................... 5 A. The Computer Fraud And Abuse Act Does Not Prohibit Mere Violation Of Corporate Policies .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Insert Catchy Title
    Addressing Tomorrow’s Terrorists Andrew Peterson* American anti-terrorism laws are insufficient to address the next wave of global terrorism. When President Bush declared that the United States had begun a “war on terror,”1 the entire government began to reorient itself to tackle America’s newest “generational challenge.”2 The Department of Justice (DOJ) joined this massive effort, declaring in a new Strategic Plan that its focus was not simply to prosecute terrorists for crimes, but to “[p]revent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations before they occur.”3 Despite its constant talk of reorientation, however, DOJ has been limited in its ability to creatively address the war on terror for one simple reason: many of the relevant federal criminal statutes are poorly constructed. Prior to September 1994, there were no federal criminal prohibitions that specifically punished material support for terrorism. Prosecutors had to rely instead on generic federal crimes, such as murder and money laundering, or on a variety of statutes condemning specific acts of terrorism, such as air piracy or hostage taking. After the 1993 terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center, this situation rapidly changed. Legislators hastily drafted a number of statutes and amendments that sought to address the domestic terrorist threat. Acting in response to public demand for quick, decisive action, Congress generally maximized the scope of anti-terror prohibitions while overriding any legal obstacles to quick prosecution that were presented by the judiciary. Although it is difficult to fault Congress for acting decisively, the bedrock of counterterrorism enforcement laid down by these statutes is deeply flawed.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Terrorism: the Potential Chilling Effect on the Internet of Broad Law Enforcement Legislation
    St. John's Law Review Volume 80 Number 2 Volume 80, Spring 2006, Number 2 Article 5 Beyond Terrorism: The Potential Chilling Effect on the Internet of Broad Law Enforcement Legislation Todd M. Gardella Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BEYOND TERRORISM: THE POTENTIAL CHILLING EFFECT ON THE INTERNET OF BROAD LAW ENFORCEMENT LEGISLATION TODD M. GARDELLAt INTRODUCTION Terrorists manipulate themselves to society's center stage by exploiting the omnipresence of the media within the modern information age. It is generally understood that, for so much as the cause of modern international terrorism seems to cast itself as diametrically opposed to western values and modernity, its proponents are unafraid to utilize the Internet to further their goals of disruption and destruction. In many ways, the information age is the great enabler of terrorism, providing not only the channels for terrorists to communicate amongst themselves throughout the globe, but also providing them the opportunity to amplify their voice, spread their message, and permeate the homes of those plugged into the modern world of interconnectivity. Both the ubiquity of the Internet and its connection with terrorism distinguish the new millennial era from previous eras of war or crises. The United States' war on terrorism comprises a global effort; terrorism's war on the United States pervades the consciousness of the interconnected multitudes in an effort to shatter our political will.1 In many ways, the decentralized, networked, and amorphous characteristics of the Internet resemble those of the modern terrorist infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Librarians in Challenges to the USA PATRIOT Act Anne Klinefelter
    NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY Volume 5 Article 3 Issue 2 Spring 2004 3-1-2004 The Role of Librarians in Challenges to the USA PATRIOT Act Anne Klinefelter Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncjolt Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Anne Klinefelter, The Role of Librarians in Challenges to the USA PATRIOT Act, 5 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 219 (2004). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncjolt/vol5/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 5, ISSUE 2: SPRING 2004 The Role of Librarians in Challenges to the USA PATRIOT Act 1 Anne Klinefelter Librarians and library associations have been outspoken critics of the expanded surveillance powers granted law enforcement with passage of the USA PATRIOT Act in 200 1.2 Librarians' organized protests have given impetus to community and legislative efforts to curtail the expanded power, and librarians have also had a small role in lawsuits challenging the Act. The focus of librarians' concern has been nondisclosure requirements in section 215 and the general relaxing of standards and shrinking 3 of judicial review of applications for searches and seizures. Librarians have yet to identify publicly any particular uses of the Act against libraries, though they have reported some law enforcement requests for library records since September 11.4 1 Anne Klinefelter is Associate Director of the Law Library and Clinical Assistant Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • USA PATRIOT Act of 2001: We Deserve Less
    Critique: A worldwide journal of politics USA PATRIOT Act of 2001: We Deserve Less Kyle M. Groenewold Eureka College At what point does the cost to civil liberties from legislation designed to prevent terrorism outweigh the added security that [the] legislation provides? -Sandra Day O’Connor On 26 October 2001 President George W. Bush signed into law the USA Patriot Act of 2001: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (hereinafter referred to as USA Patriot Act, Patriot Act, or the Act). This new piece of legislation was intended to give intelligence and law enforcement agencies at both the federal and state levels new legal powers to gather information on prospective “enemies of the state.” The Patriot Act was proposed and pushed through Congress just six weeks after the events of 11 September with the fear, anxiety, and panic of the time. Such an atmosphere allowed for an act that includes surveillance powers that have overstepped the boundaries of civil liberty protected by the U.S. Constitution. The horrific events of September 11th left most Americans in a state of fear and shock. For most the questions immediately arose: Who is responsible for this? Why did they do it? How could this happen here? Next, after the assailants were identified (openly claimed responsibility), the questions came: Why had not the government seen this coming? Where was the lapse or misstep in intelligence? We knew these terrorist organizations were plotting against us, right? Why did not the government stop it from happening? Many in the intelligence communities of our nation were glad to see and hear these questions being asked.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    05-0570-cv UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ALBERTO GONZALES, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, ROBERT S. MUELLER III, in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and MARION E. BOWMAN, in his official capacity as Senior Counsel to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendants/Appellants, v. JOHN DOE, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, and AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Plaintiffs/Appellees ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BRIEF OF ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, ET AL., IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES AND AFFIRMATION OF JUDGMENT BELOW Lee Tien Kurt B. Opsahl Kevin S. Bankston Electronic Frontier Foundation 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 (415) 436-9333 (415) 436-9993 (fax) CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Amici Curiae certify that no publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity owns 10% or more of any Amicus Curiae. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ Lee Tien Kurt B. Opsahl Kevin S. Bankston Electronic Frontier Foundation 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 (415) 436-9333 (415) 436-9993 (fax) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTERESTS OF AMICI.....................................................................................1 II. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.........................................................................4 III. ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Balancing National Security Policy: Why Congress Must Assert Its Constitutional Check on Executive Power
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 42 Issue 1 Article 9 Fall 2014 Balancing National Security Policy: Why Congress Must Assert its Constitutional Check on Executive Power Rebecca Lightle Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the National Security Law Commons Recommended Citation Rebecca Lightle, Balancing National Security Policy: Why Congress Must Assert its Constitutional Check on Executive Power, 42 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 255 (2017) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol42/iss1/9 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BALANCING NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY: WHY CONGRESS MUST ASSERT ITS CONSTITUTIONAL CHECK ON EXECUTIVE POWER REBECCA LIGHTLE* I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 255 II. THE BALANCE OF NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORITY ......................................... 257 A. Constitutional Powers ................................................................................ 257 1. Text and Early Debates ........................................................................ 257 2. Judicial Deference to the Executive...................................................... 259 3. The War Powers Resolution and Congressional Acquiescence ............ 263 B. The War on Terrorism
    [Show full text]
  • Association Are You Guilty? Ask the FBI
    BEST POLITICAL DOCS • KOSHER GETS ETHICAL JANUARY 2011 Chicago's other community organizer How to manufacture a disease TERRORIST BY ASSOCIATION Are you guilty? Ask the FBI. BY JEREMY GANTZ PLUS Chris Lehmann takes down the Babbitt of the Bobos, David Brooks letters syrup does not appear isn’t subsidized because the to push the boundaries and to be a measureable manufacturer itself may not struggle to earn recognition contributor to mercury be directly on the dole. The in a marketplace dominated in foods. large agribusinesses that by four or five major labels Also, it is important to grow corn reap not only worldwide. note that manufacturers grain, but lavish government The article’s dramatic of corn sweeteners do not handouts through what I headline reflects the au- receive government support called “skewed government thor’s out-of-date viewpoint. payments. Our industry buys policies.” That means that tax Nostalgia blinds Lears to corn on the open market at dollars allow HFCS manu- the present. It’s a viewpoint the prevailing market price. facturers to take advantage clearly evident when she Audrae Erickson, President of artificially cheap corn writes: “Those of us avid Corn Refiners Association prices to produce artificially listeners who came of age Washington, D.C. cheap HFCS. in the 1990s and earlier re- member how much effort it The mercurial TERRY J. ALLEN Exorcising ‘90s nostalgia science of syrup took to learn about obscure RESPONDS With all due respect, Rachel bands and track down their The American public can rest You have confirmed in an Lears in “The End of Indie?,” recordings.” assured that high fructose email to ITT that Stopford’s (December 2010) misses the Indie music isn’t dead by a corn syrup is safe (“Let Them study was not independent: point.
    [Show full text]
  • The Jihadist Threat in France CLARA BEYLER
    The Jihadist Threat in France CLARA BEYLER INCE THE MADRID AND LONDON BOMBINGS, Europeans elsewhere— fearful that they may become the next targets of Islamist terrorism— are finally beginning to face the consequences of the long, unchecked Sgrowth of radical Islam on their continent. The July bombings in London, while having the distinction of being the first suicide attacks in Western Eu- rope, were not the first time terrorists targeted a major European subway system. Ten years ago, a group linked to the Algerian Armed Islamic Group (Groupe Islamique Armé—GIA) unleashed a series of bombings on the Paris metro system. Since 1996, however, France has successfully avoided any ma- jor attack on its soil by an extremist Muslim group. This is due not to any lack of terrorist attempts—(only last September, France arrested nine members of a radical Islamist cell planning to attack the metro system)—but rather to the efficiency of the French counterterrorist services.1 France is now home to between five to six million Muslims—the sec- ond largest religious group in France, and the largest Muslim population in any Western European country.2 The majority of this very diverse population practices and believes in an apolitical, nonviolent Islam.3 A minority of them, however, are extremists. Islamist groups are actively operating in France to- day, spreading radical ideology and recruiting for future terrorist attacks on French soil and abroad. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of France’s Islamist groups, the evolving threats they have posed and continue to pose to French society, and the response of the French authorities to these threats.
    [Show full text]