DOCSLIB.ORG

Civil Liberties in Jeopardy: from the Patriot Act to the Freedom Act

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Civil Liberties in Jeopardy: from the Patriot Act to the Freedom Act Civil Liberties in Jeopardy: From the Patriot Act to the Freedom Act Anna Gyori New York University 1 I. Introduction September 11th, 2001 was a defining moment in the history of the United States. The damage that the terrorist attacks inflicted on the population caused emotional, political, and legal responses. The fear that festered after the attack created a tense environment in which many Americans demanded government action against Al Qaeda. Therefore, it was predictable that the president during this time, George W. Bush, took action in the form of war and in the form of legislation. One piece of legislation passed in response to 9/11 was the U.S. Patriot Act which sought to protect Americans from the potential of another attack. The Patriot Act provided the government with extensive and expanded powers of surveillance and detention of terrorism suspects. The provisions included in the Patriot Act were added to make finding, apprehending, and punishing potential terrorists on U.S soil easier. The argument surrounding protection was accepted by most Americans because they lived in fear of another attack. But some other Americans, especially many legal scholars, thought that many of the provisions within the Patriot Act expanded governmental powers beyond what was constitutional. The Act was considered by some to be in breach of the civil liberties provided to American citizens through the Bill of Rights. And as time progressed, more evidence was presented in favor of this argument, specifically in the form of cases litigated under the Patriot Act. In addition to the language of the statute, the actions taken under its provisions became problematic. In 2014, thirteen years after the 9/11 attacks, Edward Snowden leaked thousands of NSA documents. The documents added to the aforementioned narrative of governmental overreach into individual civil liberties under the Patriot Act. Many people were angry at the government because they felt that the Patriot Act allowed government sponsored invasions of privacy. With this heightened tension, the Patriot Act became a political controversy. With a new president and the members of Al Qaeda caught and punished, the government's original arguments rooted in 9/11 seemed out of date. In response to this anger over the revelations of Snowden, President Barack Obama signed the Freedom Act of 2015 into law. The Freedom Act was a revised version of the Patriot Act and Obama claimed it was supposed to “strengthen civil liberty safeguards and provide greater public confidence in these programs, including by prohibiting bulk collection [of data] through the use of Section 215, FISA pen registers, and National 1 Security Letters and by providing the American people with additional transparency measures.” This apparent course correction by President Obama appeared to be an appropriate response to the concerns of many Americans. As time went on, however, it became evident that The Freedom Act only addressed a portion of the debated issues of the Patriot Act. It managed to strike down most of the programs that Snowden revealed. But, it did not address all of the constitutional concerns raised about the contents of the Patriot Act. Although the Freedom Act improved on the Patriot Act, it can still be argued that it includes violations of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. II. The First Amendment In the United States, one of the most cherished constitutional values is the freedom of speech. This freedom is derived from the First Amendment of the Constitution which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people 1 Obama, B.H. (2015). Statement by the President on the USA FREEDOM Act [Press Release]. Retrieved ​ ​ fromhttps://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/06/02/statement-president-usa-freedom-act 2 2 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The right to freedom of speech grants citizens of the United States the ability to speak and write their opinions without being regulated by the government or having to fear punishment for speaking out. The Patriot Act of 2001 violates this right by allowing private discussions to be surveilled. Private conversations are allowed to be surveilled if the government fears that the discussions are concerning an impending terror attack. In other words, law enforcement agencies may look at emails, cell phone records, or search histories if they can point to any communication that could concern potential terrorist activity. This could mean that innocent conversation, such as those about the devastation of terror attacks on the news, can be accessed because of certain trigger words about terrorism they may include. For instance, research for a paper similar to this one could be flagged and seen as relevant enough to search the writer’s communications. The government could argue that research into this topic shows a potential interest in learning how to circumvent anti-terrorism laws. It is a slippery slope when these types of intrusions into the lives of private citizens are allowed because it is hard to determine if communications are genuinely related to an impending attack. However this potential mistake is not the main issue, it is the constitutionality of listening to private discussions in the first place that is troubling. Intrusions like these can cause citizens to question their right to free speech and can subsequently incite fear. Fear can inhibit individuals from engaging in their right to free speech in the future, thereby 3 infringing upon the First Amendment. The Patriot Act specifically affected the First Amendment by restricting the disclosure of searches, specifically by allowing the government to force telephone and internet companies to hide their data collection for law enforcement from their customers. The document that companies receive informing them of the secrecy required for the data collection is called a National Security Letter. In order to do this, the Patriot Act amended Title 18, § 2709 of the U.S Federal Code to state “no wire or electronic communication service provider that receives a request under subsection (b), or officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records 4 under this section.” Sometimes referred to as “gag orders,” these limitations on free speech were not addressed in the Freedom Act in 2015. This is a direct breach of the First Amendment because it allows the federal government to restrict speech of individuals and companies, thereby “prohibiting the free exercise” of speech. There have been several cases in relation to this specific provision and its effect on free 5 speech. One case of note is Doe v. Gonzales. Occurring in 2005 as a response to a gag order ​ ​ placed by the federal government on a library employee, the ACLU argued that the the provision was unconstitutional. Despite their initial victory in the Southern District of New York, after 6 appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the ACLU’s argument was rejected. This case never reached the Supreme Court and the gag order provision stayed intact. There are many other 2 U.S. Const. amend. I. ​ 3 Hughes, S. S. (2012). US Domestic Surveillance after 9/11: An Analysis of the Chilling Effect on First Amendment Rights in Cases Filed against the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Canadian Journal of Law and ​ Society, 27(03), 399-425. doi:10.1017/s0829320100010577 ​ ​ ​ 4 USA Freedom Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-23, 129 Stat. 268 (2015) 5 U.S. Const. amend. I. 6 United States District Court Southern District of New York. Doe v. Gonzales. 6 Sept. 2007, ​ ​ www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/safefree/nsldecision.pdf. 3 cases like this one that ruled the provision as constitutional. Therefore, to this day, some Americans are being ordered to stay silent by the federal government despite there First Amendment right. The reasoning behind these decisions lies in the desire to protect national security. But, it is important to inquire as to how far this concern impedes upon the constitution and the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens therein before it is considered a sufficient argument. III. Fourth Amendment Many of the concerns surrounding the constitutionality of the Patriot Act were related to the Fourth Amendment which states “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, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly 7 describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” It was fairly pointed out that the Patriot Act allowed the government to essentially circumvent many of the rights enumerated in the Fourth Amendment. President Obama’s Freedom Act did make some improvements; it restricted the government from being able to conduct bulk searches of multiple individual’s internet browsing histories or telephone call logs from their service providers. This improvement makes searches conducted under the act more individual. These searches are more amenable to the Fourth Amendment because they can be based off individual charges or investigations, instead of gathering information from citizens unrelated to the crimes being investigated. The Freedom Act also amended the Patriot Act to limit the powers of surveillance by restricting the ability of the government to continuously surveil an individual who disposes of or change devices from the device that is listed on their original warrant. These are both steps in the right direction. However, not all of Title II of the Patriot Act was amended in the revisions that resulted in the Freedom Act.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NSA Fact Sheet on Section 215 of the PATRIOT
    Section 215 Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, which amended Title V, Section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), “Access to Certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence and International Terrorism Investigations” (50 U.S.C. sec. 1861) x This program concerns the collection only of telephone metadata. Under this program, the government does not acquire the content of any communication, the identity of any party to the communication, or any cell-site locational information. x This metadata is stored in repositories within secure networks, must be uniquely marked, and can only be accessed by a limited number of authorized personnel who have received appropriate and adequate training. x This metadata may be queried only when there is a reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulated facts, that the identifier that will be used as the basis for the query is associated with specific foreign terrorist organizations. x The basis for these queries must be documented in writing in advance. x Fewer than two dozen NSA officials may approve such queries. x The documented basis for these queries is regularly audited by the Department of Justice. x Only seven senior officials may authorize the dissemination of any U.S. person information outside of NSA (e.g. to the FBI) after determining that the information is related to and is necessary to understand counterterrorism information, or assess its importance. x Every 30 days, the government must file with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court a report describing the implementation of the program, to include a discussion of the application of the Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) standard, the number of approved queries and the number of instances that query results that contain U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hidden Costs of Terrorist Watch Lists
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2013 The Hidden Costs of Terrorist Watch Lists Anya Bernstein Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Anya Bernstein, "The Hidden Costs of Terrorist Watch Lists," 61 Buffalo Law Review 461 (2013). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BUFFALO LAW REVIEW VOLUME 61 MAY 2013 NUMBER 3 The Hidden Costs of Terrorist Watch Lists ANYA BERNSTEIN† INTRODUCTION The No Fly List, which is used to block suspected terrorists from flying, has been in use for years. But the government still appears “stymied” by the “relatively straightforward question” of what people who “believe they have been wrongly included on” that list should do.1 In recent months, courts have haltingly started to provide their own answer, giving some individuals standing to sue to remove their names or receive additional process.2 This step is particularly important as the No Fly List continues † Bigelow Fellow and Lecturer in Law, The University of Chicago Law School. J.D., Yale Law School; Ph.D., Anthropology, The University of Chicago. Thanks to Daniel Abebe, Ian Ayres, Alexander Boni-Saenz, Anthony Casey, Anjali Dalal, Nicholas Day, Bernard Harcourt, Aziz Huq, Jerry Mashaw, Jonathan Masur, Nicholas Parrillo, Victoria Schwartz, Lior Strahilevitz, Laura Weinrib, Michael Wishnie, and James Wooten for helpful commentary.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the Media, Law, and National Resolve in the War on Terror
    Denver Journal of International Law & Policy Volume 33 Number 1 Winter - 2004 Sutton Colloquium Article 10 April 2020 The Role of the Media, Law, and National Resolve in the War on Terror Robert Hardaway Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/djilp Recommended Citation Robert Hardaway, The Role of the Media, Law, and National Resolve in the War on Terror, 33 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 104 (2004). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Journal of International Law & Policy by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA, LAW, AND NATIONAL RESOLVE IN THE WAR ON TERROR ROBERT HARDAWAY* I. INTRODUCTION In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the govern- ment of the United States took unprecedented steps to protect American lives and property.' Measures imposed included tightened security at nuclear power plants,2 airports,3 and numerous other government and private installations around the United States.4 Debate over an appropriate U.S. response centered on whether there was proof of a foreign state's complicity in the attacks. On September 15, 2001, a New York Times/CBS News poll revealed that eighty-five percent of Americans would Professor of Law, University of Denver Sturm College of Law. 1. See, e.g., Michael R. Gordon, After the Attacks: An Assessment, U.S. Force vs, Terrorists: From Reactive to Active, N.Y.
    [Show full text]
  • The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism)
    The Department of Justice's first priority is to prevent future terrorist attacks. Since its passage following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Patriot Act has played a key part - and often the leading role - in a number of successful operations to protect innocent Americans from the deadly plans of terrorists dedicated to destroying America and our way of life. While the results have been important, in passing the Patriot Act, Congress provided for only modest, incremental changes in the law. Congress simply took existing legal principles and retrofitted them to preserve the lives and liberty of the American people from the challenges posed by a global terrorist network. The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Congress enacted the Patriot Act by overwhelming, bipartisan margins, arming law enforcement with new tools to detect and prevent terrorism: The USA Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House, with the support of members from across the political spectrum. The Act Improves Our Counter-Terrorism Efforts in Several Significant Ways: 1. The Patriot Act allows investigators to use the tools that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking. Many of the tools the Act provides to law enforcement to fight terrorism have been used for decades to fight organized crime and drug dealers, and have been reviewed and approved by the courts. As Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) explained during the floor debate about the Act, "the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists.
    [Show full text]
  • Tom Eagleton and the "Curse to Our Constitution"
    TOM EAGLETON AND THE “CURSE TO OUR CONSTITUTION” By William H. Freivogel Director, School of Journalism, Southern Illinois University Carbondale Associate Professor, Paul Simon Public Policy Institute This paper is scheduled for publication in St. Louis University Law Journal, Volume 52, honoring Sen. Eagleton. Introduction: If my friend Tom Eagleton had lived a few more months, I’m sure he would have been amazed – and amused in a Tom Eagleton sort of way - by the astonishing story of Alberto Gonzales’ late night visit to John Aschroft’s hospital bed in 2004 to persuade the then attorney general to reauthorize a questionable intelligence operation related to the president’s warrantless wiretapping program. No vignette better encapsulates President George W. Bush’s perversion of the rule of law. Not since the Saturday Night Massacre during Watergate has there been a moment when a president’s insistence on having his way resulted in such chaos at the upper reaches of the Justice Department. James Comey, the deputy attorney general and a loyal Republican, told Congress in May, 2007 how he raced to George Washington hospital with sirens blaring to beat Gonzeles to Ashcroft’s room.1 Comey had telephoned FBI Director Robert S. Mueller to ask that he too come to the hospital to back up the Justice Department’s view that the president’s still secret program should not be reauthorized as it then operated.2 Ashcroft, Comey and Mueller held firm in the face of intense pressure from White House counsel Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card. Before the episode was over, the three were on the verge of tendering their resignations if the White House ignored their objections; the resignations were averted by some last-minute changes in the program – changes still not public.3 Before Eagleton’s death, he and I had talked often about Bush and Ashcroft’s overzealous leadership in the war on terrorism.
    [Show full text]
  • USA Patriot Act"
    Understanding Title III of the "USA Patriot Act" "United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001” Candice Greenberg Federal Reserve Bank of New York USA Patriot Act zHR 3162: yThe "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" or "USA Patriot Act" or "Act" xEnacted October 26, 2001. z Most comprehensive AML legislation since 1970 Bank Secrecy Act. yMoney Laundering Control Act of 1986, Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering of 1992. Title III: The "International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti- Terrorism Financing Act of 2001" z Broadly: Strengthening tools to prevent, detect, and prosecute international money laundering and the financing of terrorism. z Focus: Correspondent banking facilities, private banking services, and transactions involving offshore jurisdictions. z Goal: to prevent the U.S. financial system and U.S. clearing mechanisms to be used by parties suspected of terrorism, terrorist financing and money laundering. yUnique problems associated with detecting “terrorist financing”. Remember KYC? It's back. z Flashback - 1999 yTitle III - clear congressional mandate for subjecting certain high-risk jurisdictions, institutions, and classes of accounts and transactions to increased scrutiny and supervision. yLaw calls it "due diligence" and "enhanced due diligence". z Useful Definitions (with respect to banks only) yAccount yCorrespondent Account yPayable Through Account ySecretary
    [Show full text]
  • Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act
    [Billing Code: 4810-02] DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 31 CFR Part 103 RIN 1506-AA31 Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; Customer Identification Programs for Certain Banks (Credit Unions, Private Banks and Trust Companies) That do not Have a Federal Functional Regulator AGENCIES: The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: FinCEN is issuing a proposed regulation to implement section 326 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001(the Act) for credit unions and trust companies that do not have a federal functional regulator. The proposed rule provides the same rules for these financial institutions as are provided in a companion notice of proposed rulemaking being issued jointly by FinCEN and the Federal bank regulators published elsewhere in this separate part of this issue of the Federal Register. DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted on or before [INSERT DATE 45 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ADDRESSES: Because paper mail in the Washington area may be subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to e-mail comments. Comments should be sent by one method only. Comments may be mailed to FinCEN, Section 326 Certain Credit Union and Trust Company Rule Comments, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183 or sent by e-mail to [email protected] with the caption “Attention: Section 326 Certain Credit Union and Trust Company Rule Comments” in the body of the text. Comments may be inspected at FinCEN between 10 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO Legal Gazette Issue 41
    Issue 41 October 2020 Legal Gazette Legal Aspects of Innovation 1 PAGE 2 NATO LEGAL GAZETTE, Issue 41 Contents Introduction, by Sherrod Lewis Bumgardner……………………………...….……......... 4 Preface, by Geoffrey S. Corn and Gary Corn..……………………………………... 6 Innovation for peaceful purposes only: Where there is the will, there is ITER, by Antoaneta Boeva …………………………………………………………………………… 14 Partnership, Not Pivot: NATO’s Legal Answer to the China Question, by Lauren Brown ………………………………………………………………………………………... 27 Responsibility, Liability and Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, by Theodora Vassilika Ogden ………………………………………………………………. 46 Autonomous Weapon Systems: A Pragmatic Approach to an Emerging Capability, by Major Gregg F. Curley..………………………………………………… 61 U.S. Export Controls: The Future of Disruptive Technologies, by Christopher Timura, Judith Alison Lee, R.L. Pratt and Scott Toussaint …………………………... 96 The Relevance and Benefits of Integrated Compliance Strategy (ICS) for NATO Defence Forces, by Martijn Antzoulatos-Borgstein …………………..…...…. 125 Legal Operations: The Use of Law as an Instrument of Power in the Context of Hybrid Threats and Strategic Competition, by Rodrigo Vázquez Benítez……….. 138 The Road to Hell is Paved with Bad Contractors: Vendor Vetting is a Better Path, by Brett Sander ……………………………………………………………………… 145 Publisher: Monte DeBoer, ACT Legal Advisor Editor-in-Chief: Sherrod Lewis Bumgardner, ACT SEE Legal Advisor Editors: Mette Prassé Hartov, HQ SACT Deputy Legal Advisor Galateia Gialitaki, ACT SEE Legal Assistant Copy Editors: Robert ‘Butch’Bracknell, HQ SACT Staff Legal Advisor Col Xavier Labarriere, HQ SACT Staff Legal Advisor Miles S. Porter, HQ SACT Legal Extern Malia Kenza Chenaoui, ACT SEE Legal Extern Copy Proofreader: Caitlin Fendon, HQ SACT Legal Intern Lola Chanfreau, ACT SEE Legal Extern 2 NATO LEGAL GAZETTE, Issue 41 PAGE 3 Disclaimer: The NATO Legal Gazette is produced and published by Headquarters Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (HQ SACT).
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Gazette
    Special Issue for NATO School Oberammergau , Germany August 2016 Legal Gazette Articles Collection for the NATO Legal Advisor Course (M5-34-A16) and the NATO Operational Law Course (N5-68-A16) PAGE 2 NATO LEGAL GAZETTE- Special Issue Contents NATO Origins and Structure 1 Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty: The Cornerstone of the Alliance, by Sylvain Fournier and Sherrod Lewis Bumgardner, Issue 34 (July 2014), pag. 17-30 ...……….. 6 2 What is NATO HQ?, by Antoaneta Boeva, Issue 31 (August 2013), pag. 7-12…………… 20 The Role of the Legal Advisor in NATO 3 Command Responsibility, by Andrés B. Muñoz Mosquera, Issue 9 (November 2007), pag. 2-4……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26 4 17th March 2008 in Mitrovica, North Kosovo, by Col Gilles Castel, Issue 15 (July 2008), pag. 2-4………………………………………………………………………………………………. 31 5 The Evolving Role of the Legal Advisor in Support of Military Operations, by Thomas E. Randall, Issue 28 (July 2012), pag. 28-40………………………………………………… 36 6 Legal Authority of NATO Commanders, by Thomas E. Randall, Issue 34 (July 2014), pag. 39-45……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 48 International Agreements & NATO Practice 7 NATO Status Agreements, by Mette Prassé Hartov, Issue 34 (July 2014), pag. 46-54…. 55 8 Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU): A Philosophical and Empirical Approach (Part I), by Andrés B. Muñoz Mosquera, Issue 34 (July 2014), pag. 55-69….... 64 9 Allegations, Denials and Investigations-Preparing for the Inevitable, by Professor Charles Garraway, Issue 30 (May 2013), pag. 11-17…………………………………… 79 10 Capturing NATO Knowledge Through Information Management-Policy, Process, and Procedure, by Catherine Gerth, Ineke Deserno, Dr. Petra Ochmannova, Issue 30 (May 2013), pag.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Before the Select Committee on Intelligence United States Senate Concerning
    U.S. Department of Justice Seal Department of Justice STATEMENT OF ALBERTO R. GONZALES ATTORNEY GENERAL BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATE CONCERNING THE TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BY THE PRESIDENT PRESENTED ON FEBRUARY 9,2006 PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES We cannot forget the threat that the al Qaeda terrorist network poses to our Nation. Long before September 11th, al Qaeda promised to attack the United States. In 1998, Osama bin Laden declared a jihad against our country, and incited "every Muslim who can do it" "[t]o kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military" "in any country in which it is possible to do it." Statement of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, et al., Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans, published in Al-Quds al-'Arabi (Feb. 23, 1998). Al Qaeda members and agents have carried out bin Laden's orders with a vengeance; al Qaeda attacked the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and then, of course, the United States itself on September 11, 2001. On September 11th, the al Qaeda terrorist network executed the most deadly foreign attacks on this Nation's soil in history. Al Qaeda planners and operatives carefully selected and hijacked four commercial jetliners, each fully loaded with fuel for a transcontinental flight. Within hours, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center lay in ruin. The terrorists also managed to strike the headquarters of the Nation's Armed Forces, the Pentagon.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 United States District Court for the District Of
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT JOHN DOE, et al., : Plaintiffs : : v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. : 3:05-cv-1256 (JCH) ALBERTO GONZALES, in his official : capacity as Attorney General of the : United States, et al., : Defendants. : SEPTEMBER 9, 2005 RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Dkt. No. 33]1 I. INTRODUCTION On August 9, 2005, the plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 2709. One of the plaintiffs is John Doe, the recipient of a National Security Letter (“NSL”) issued pursuant to § 2709. That section requires any "wire or electronic communication service provider" to comply with requests by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") for information. 18 U.S.C. § 2709(a)(2001). Specifically, the statute permits the FBI to "request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” Id. at § 2709(b)(2). 1 This case was originally filed under seal. While the case itself is no longer under seal, many of pleadings are sealed. The parties have agreed to file redacted pleadings on the public docket. In this Ruling, where court documents are referenced, the court cites the unsealed, redacted pleadings. 1 In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim, first, that § 2709 violates
    [Show full text]
  • A Breakdown of Selected Government Surveillance Programs
    Are They Allowed to Do That? A Breakdown of Selected Government Surveillance Programs Here are answers to some widely-asked questions about the FBI’s and National Security Agency’s surveillance programs revealed last week. Q: What is the National Security Agency doing? A: Two major surveillance programs have been revealed: 1. Since 2006, the National Security Agency (NSA) has been secretly collecting the phone records of millions of Americans from some of the largest telecommunications providers in the United States, via a series of regularly renewed requests by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Although the NSA is not collecting the contents of all phone calls, it is collecting records of who called whom, when and for how long. There are also reports that the NSA has been collecting similar information about e-mails, internet searches, and credit card transactions. The government has acknowledged some aspects of this collection program, but claims that officials do not actually look at the collected data in more detail without reasonable suspicion that some element of it concerns a foreign terrorist organization. 2. Over the past six years, the NSA has obtained unprecedented access to the data processed by nine leading U.S. internet companies. This was facilitated by a computer network named PRISM. The companies involved include Google, Facebook, Skype, and Apple. Limitations on the NSA’s access are the source of current debate. Initial reports, which have since been qualified, said that the NSA can “pull anything it likes” from the companies’ servers. Government officials and corporate executives have responded that the NSA only obtains data with court approval and with the knowledge of the companies.
    [Show full text]