Advanced search    Help

Clear all search criteria

Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).

• USA PATRIOT Act Sunset: Provisions That Expire on December 31, 2005 [Updated June 29, 2005]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Several sections of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act (the act) and one section of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act each relating to enhanced foreign intelligence and law enforcement surveillance authority expire on December 31, 2005. The authority remains in effect only with respect to foreign intelligence investigations begun before sunset or to offenses or potential offense begun or occurring before that date. Aside from the fact there may be some disagreement of whether a potential offense is a suspected crime, and/or an incomplete crime, and/or a future crime, after December 31, 2005 the law reverts to its previous form unless it has been amended or extended in the interim. The 9/11 Commission mentioned the approaching sunset and thought as a general matter that a full and informed debate on the PATRIOT Act would be healthy. The consequences of sunset are not the same for every expiring section. In some instances the temporary provision has been replaced with a permanent one; in some, other provisions have been made temporary by attachment to an expiring section; in still others, the apparent impact of termination has been mitigated by related provisions either in the act or elsewhere."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Doyle, Charles

  2005-06-29
• USA PATRIOT Act Sunset: A Sketch [Updated June 29, 2005]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Several sections of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act (the act) and one section of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, each relating to enhanced foreign intelligence and law enforcement surveillance authority, expire on December 31, 2005, unless they are extended. Thereafter, the authority remains in effect only as it relates to foreign intelligence investigations begun before sunset or to offenses or potential offenses begun or occurring before that date. The temporary provisions are: sections 201 (wiretapping in terrorism cases), 202 (wiretapping in computer fraud and abuse felony cases), 203(b) (sharing wiretap information), 203(d) (sharing foreign intelligence information), 204 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pen register/trap & trace exceptions), 206 (roving FISA wiretaps), 207 (duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power), 209 (seizure of voicemail messages pursuant to warrants), 212 (emergency disclosure of electronic surveillance), 214 (FISA pen register/ trap and trace authority), 215 (FISA access to tangible items), 217 (interception of computer trespasser communications), 218 (purpose for FISA orders), 220 (nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence), 223 (civil liability and discipline for privacy violations), and 225 (provider immunity for FISA wiretap assistance). This report is an abridged version--without footnotes or chart--of CRS Report RL32186, 'USA PATRIOT Act Sunset: Provisions That Expire on December 31, 2005."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Doyle, Charles

  2005-06-29
• SAFE Acts of 2005: H.R. 1526 and S. 737 - A Sketch [May 9, 2005]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Summary: "Somewhat different SAFE [Security and Freedom Ensured] Acts have been introduced in both the House and Senate: S. 737, the Security and Freedom Enhancement Act of 2005 (introduced by Senator Craig) and H.R. 1526, the Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2005 (introduced by Representative Otter). Although the Senate bill is more detailed, they address many of the same issues, most of which relate to the USA PATRIOT Act--roving Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) wiretaps, delayed notification of sneak and peek search warrants, library and similar exemptions from FISA tangible item orders and communications related to national security letters, the definition of domestic terrorism, and expansion of the sunset provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Doyle, Charles

  2005-05-09
• Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE Act) (H.R. 1526) and Security and Freedom Enhancement Act (SAFE Act) (S. 737): Section By Section Analysis [May 9, 2005]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Summary: "Two SAFE Acts, S. 737 and H.R. 1526 address some of the issues raised by the USA PATRIOT Act. They amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to require that FISA surveillance orders particularly identify either the target or the facilities or places targeted. They limit delayed notification of sneak and peek searches to cases involving exigent circumstances (injury, flight, destruction of evidence, witness intimidation risks) and cap the extent of permissible delay. Both bills restrict FISA access orders to instances where there are specific and articulable reasons to believe that the records pertain to a foreign power or one or more of its agents."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Doyle, Charles

  2005-05-09
• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: An Overview of the Statutory Framework and Recent Judicial Decisions [Updated April 21, 2005]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Summary: "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. 1801 'et seq.,' (FISA) as passed in 1978, provided a statutory framework for the use of electronic surveillance in the context of foreign intelligence gathering. In so doing, the Congress sought to strike a delicate balance between national security interests and personal privacy rights. Subsequent legislation expanded federal laws dealing with foreign intelligence gathering to address physical searches, pen registers and trap and trace devices, and access to certain business records. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, P.L. 107-56, made significant changes to some of these provisions. Further amendments were included in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, P.L. 107-108, and the Homeland Security Act of 2002, P.L. 107-296. In addressing international terrorism or espionage, the same factual situation may be the focus of both criminal investigations and foreign intelligence collection efforts. The changes in FISA under these public laws facilitate information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence elements. In its Final Report , the 9/11 Commission noted that the removal of the pre-9/11 'wall' between intelligence and law enforcement 'has opened up new opportunities for cooperative action within the FBI.'... This report will examine the detailed statutory structure provided by FISA and related provisions of E.O. 12333. In addition, it will discuss the decisions of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. Bills from the 108th Congress relating to FISA are addressed in CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report RL32608, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Selected Legislation from the 108th Congress."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Bazan, Elizabeth B.

  2005-04-21
• USA Patriot Act Sunset: Provisions that Expire on December 31, 2005 [Updated January 27, 2005]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Summary: "The consequences of sunset are not the same for every expiring section. In some instances the temporary provision has been replaced with a permanent one; in some, other provisions have been made temporary by attachment to an expiring section; in still others, the apparent impact of termination has been mitigated by related provisions either in the act or elsewhere. The temporary provisions are: sections 201 (wiretapping in terrorism cases), 202 (wiretapping in computer fraud and abuse felony cases), 203(b) (sharing wiretap information), 203(d) (sharing foreign intelligence information), 204 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pen register/trap & trace exceptions), 206 (roving FISA wiretaps), 207 (duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power), 209 (seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants), 212 (emergency disclosure of electronic surveillance), 214 (FISA pen register/ trap and trace authority), 215 (FISA access to tangible items), 217 (interception of computer trespasser communications), 218 (purpose for FISA orders), 220 (nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence), 223 (civil liability and discipline for privacy violations), and 225 (provider immunity for FISA wiretap assistance); and in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, section 6001 ("lone wolf" FISA orders)."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Doyle, Charles

  2005-01-27
• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Selected Legislation from the 108th Congress [Updated January 11, 2005]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Summary: "In the 108th Congress, a number of intelligence reform bills were introduced, including some which pre-dated the release of the Final Report of the 9/11 Commission, while others emerged after its release. On December 17, 2004, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, P.L. 108-458 (S. 2845), was signed into law. It included several provisions related to FISA. In addition to P.L. 108-458, a variety of other bills were introduced with FISA-related provisions. The FISA provisions of some of these measures were part of larger intelligence reform proposals. Still others were more narrowly focused measures that would also have impacted FISA investigations in the post-9/11 environment. This report briefly discusses the FISA-related aspects of these proposals. For purposes of this report, the bills addressed are divided generally into two categories: intelligence reform or reorganization proposals that have FISA provisions, including P.L. 108-458 (S. 2845), H.R. 10, H.R. 4104, H.R. 5040, H.R. 5150, S. 6, S. 190, S. 1520, S. 2811, S. 2840, and Senator Pat Roberts' draft bill; and other FISA-related bills, including H.R. 1157, H.R. 2242, H.R. 2429, H.R. 2800, H.R. 3179, H.R. 3352, H.R. 3552, H.R. 4591, H.Amdt. 652 to H.R. 4574, S. 113, S. 123, S. 410, S. 436, S. 578, S. 1158, S. 1507, S. 1552, S. 1709, S. 2528, and S.Amdt. 536 to S. 113. For a more detailed discussion of FISA, see CRS Report RL30465, The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: An Overview of the Statutory Framework and Recent Judicial Decisions, while a discussion of the amendment in P.L. 108-458 to the FISA definition of agent of a foreign power may be found in CRS Report RS22011, Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004: 'Lone Wolf' Amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Bazan, Elizabeth B.

  2005-01-11
• Serial No. 109-16: Implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act: Section 218 - Foreign Intelligence Information ('The Wall'): Hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress, April 28, 2005

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Steve Chabot: "This is this Committee's second hearing today on the USA PATRIOT Act. This hearing focuses on section 218 and its effect on 'The Wall' that prevented our law enforcement agencies and intelligence community from communicating. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act limited surveillance and physical search orders to instances where authorities certified that 'the purpose' of the order was for foreign intelligence gathering. Subsequent case law and agency guidance interpreted the 'purpose' requirement to mean that foreign intelligence gathering had to be the primary purpose. As a result, law enforcement and the intelligence community came to believe that sharing information or coordinating efforts would preclude the ability to obtain court approval for appropriate surveillance. The effect of this interpretation was that the metaphorical 'wall' was built; which prevented vital communications, that some argue contributed to the failure of Government officials to share vital information that could possibly have prevented the 9/11 attacks. The witnesses this afternoon will examine the effects of section 218 on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and 'The Wall.'" Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Steve Chabot, Robert C. Scott, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, David S. Kris, Kate Martin, Peter Swire, and William E. Moschella.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2005
• Serial No. 109-17: Implementation of the USA Patriot Act: Sections of the Act that Address the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ACT (FISA): Hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress, First Session, April 26 and April 28, 2005 - Part 1

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Howard Coble: "This week the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will continue to review its review of the USA PATRIOT Act by conducting three hearings. These hearings will examine the provisions that affected the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, popularly known as FISA. Today we will hear testimony on sections 204, 207, 214, and 225 of the PATRIOT Act. Additionally, we have asked the witnesses to address sections 6001 and 6002 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2001, which amended FISA." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: James A. Baker, Robert S. Khuzami, Gregory T. Nojeim, Robert C. Scott, John Conyers Jr., Jamie E. Brown, Daniel J. Bryant, and William E. Moschella.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2005
• Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004: 'Lone Wolf' Amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, P.L. 108-458, amended the definition of 'agent of a foreign power' in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(1), to add a new category of covered individuals. Under the new 'lone wolf' provision, a non-United States person who engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation for international terrorism is deemed to be an 'agent of a foreign power' under FISA. The new provision does not change the procedures to be used to apply for a court order authorizing electronic surveillance or a physical search under FISA. If an order is sought under this definition of an 'agent of a foreign power,' however, the applicant is not required to demonstrate a connection between the target of the electronic surveillance or the physical search and a foreign nation, foreign group, or international terrorist group. Nor does the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), in approving such an order, have to find probable cause to believe that such a connection existed. Rather, if the court authorizes such a surveillance or physical search using this new definition of 'agent of a foreign power,' the FISC judge has to find, in pertinent part, that, based upon the information provided by the applicant for the order, the target had engaged in or was engaging in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Bazan, Elizabeth B.

  2004-12-29
• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Selected Legislation from the 108th Congress [Updated September 30, 2004]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., (FISA) as passed in 1978, provided a statutory framework for the use of electronic surveillance in the context of foreign intelligence gathering. In so doing, Congress sought to strike a delicate balance between national security interests and personal privacy rights...In the 108th Congress, a variety of bills have been introduced with provisions related to the FISA. The FISA provisions of some of these measures are part of larger intelligence reform proposals. Some of these pre-dated the release of The 9/11 Commission Report, Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (W. W. Norton 2004) (Final Report), while others have emerged since the release of the Final Report. Still others are more narrowly focused measures that would also impact FISA investigations in the post-9/11 environment. This report will briefly discuss the FISA-related aspects of these proposals. For purposes of this report, the bills addressed will be divided generally into two categories: intelligence reform or reorganization proposals that have FISA provisions..."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Bazan, Elizabeth B.

  2004-09-30
• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: An Overview of the Statutory Framework and Recent Judicial Decisions [Updated September 22, 2004]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., (FISA) as passed in 1978, provided a statutory framework for the use of electronic surveillance in the context of foreign intelligence gathering. In so doing, the Congress sought to strike a delicate balance between national security interests and personal privacy rights. Subsequent legislation expanded federal laws dealing with foreign intelligence gathering to address physical searches, pen registers and trap and trace devices, and access to certain business records. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, P.L. 107-56, made significant changes to some of these provisions. Further amendments were included in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, P.L. 107-108, and the Homeland Security Act of 2002, P.L. 107-296. In addressing international terrorism or espionage, the same factual situation may be the focus of both criminal investigations and foreign intelligence collection efforts. The changes in FISA under these public laws facilitate information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence elements. In its Final Report, the 9/11 Commission noted that the removal of the pre-9/11 'wall' between intelligence and law enforcement 'has opened up new opportunities for cooperative action within the FBI.'... This report will examine the detailed statutory structure provided by FISA and related provisions of E.O. 12333. In addition, it will discuss the decisions of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. Bills from the 108th Congress relating to FISA are addressed in CRS Report RL32608, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Selected Legislation from the 108th Congress."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Bazan, Elizabeth B.

  2004-09-22
• Legal Barriers to Information Sharing: The Erection of a Wall between Intelligence and Law Enforcement Investigations

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "As the threat of terrorism from radical Islamic groups developed, the FBI had both law enforcement and intelligence responsibilities in response to the threat. And it had different tools to use depending on whether its investigation was designated as an intelligence matter or a criminal matter. For criminal matters it could apply for and use traditional criminal warrants. For intelligence matters it could apply to a special court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), for warrants pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. This law governs electronic surveillance and physical searches of foreign powers and their agents within the United States. This divergence in purposes for the respective types of investigations and concerns about using intelligence techniques to advance law enforcement interests led to information sharing barriers being erected between the investigations. This paper will describe the history and development of the various barriers and their impact on the 9/11 story."

  National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

  Grewe, Barbara A.

  2004-08-20
• Proposed Change to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) under S.113 [Updated August 9, 2004]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Summary: "In order to facilitate the surveillance of possible 'lone wolf' terrorists, whose links to an international terrorist organization may be difficult to ascertain, several bills have been introduced to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ('FISA'). The Senate passed S. 113, a bill to extend the coverage of FISA to non-U.S. persons who engage in international terrorism or activities in preparation for terrorist acts, without a showing of membership in or affiliation with an international terrorist group. While the Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) does not call for such a measure, the Bush Administration has indicated its support. FISA provides the government authority to conduct electronic surveillance (wiretap) and other searches with respect to a foreign power or its agents to obtain intelligence related to espionage, terrorism, or other matters involving national security. Related proposals include H.R. 3179, 304 of S. 2386, H.R. 3552, and S. 123."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Elsea, Jennifer

  2004-08-09
• Federal Bureau of Investigation's Foreign Language Program - Translation of Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence Foreign Language Material

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Critical to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) success in protecting national security is its ability to prioritize, translate, and understand in a timely fashion the information to which it has access. In this regard, the Foreign Language Program's support to the FBI's law enforcement function is substantial. In addition to supporting the FBI's two highest priorities of counterterrorism and counterintelligence, increasing demands have been placed on the Foreign Language Program to support the FBI's criminal and cybercrimes programs, international training, international deployments, and interpreting/interviewing assignments. The Foreign Language Program presents significant management challenges for the FBI, including prioritizing workload and balancing limited resources. As a result, the Office of the Inspector General initiated this audit to assess the FBI's ability to translate critical foreign language material and success at meeting linguist hiring goals and examine whether the FBI's procedures ensure the appropriate prioritization of work, accurate and timely translations of pertinent information, and adequate pre- and post-hire security screening of linguists. With regard to our prioritization tests, we focused on the FBI's counterterrorism Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) audio material."

  United States. Department of Justice. Office of the Inspector General

  2004-07
• USA Patriot Act Sunset: Provisions that Expire on December 31, 2005 [Updated June 10, 2004]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Several sections of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act (the Act) relating to enhanced foreign intelligence and law enforcement surveillance authority expire on December 31, 2005. Thereafter, the authority remains in effect only as it relates to foreign intelligence investigations begun before sunset or to offenses or potential offense begun or occurring before that date. There may be some disagreement of whether a 'potential offense' is a suspected crime, an incomplete crime, or both. The consequences of sunset are not the same for every expiring section. In some instances the temporary provision has been replaced with a permanent one; in some, other provisions have been made temporary by attached to an expiring section; in still others, the apparent impact of termination has been mitigated by related provisions either in the Act or elsewhere… This report is available in an abridged version (without its footnotes, chart, and most of its citations to authority) as CRS Report RS21704, 'USA PATRIOT Act Sunset: A Sketch.'"

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Doyle, Charles

  2004-06-10
• Two Years After 9/11: Keeping America Safe

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This report addresses a wide range of national security issues. Sections in the report have the following subjects: Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia, Radical Islamist Influence Over U.S. Military and Prison Chaplains, First Responders, Keeping Terrorists Out of the United States, Narco-Terrorism, Database Security, Document Security, Cyber Terrorism, "Lone Wolf" Fix to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and Pretrial Detention of Terrorists.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2004-03
• USA PATRIOT Act Sunset: A Sketch [January 7, 2004]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Several sections of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act (the Act) relating to enhanced foreign intelligence and law enforcement surveillance authority expire on December 31, 2005. Thereafter, the authority remains in effect only as it relates to foreign intelligence investigations begun before sunset or to offenses or potential offenses begun or occurring before that date. The temporary provisions are: sections 201 (wiretapping in terrorism cases), 202 (wiretapping in computer fraud and abuse felony cases), 203(b) (sharing wiretap information), 203(d) (sharing foreign intelligence information), 204 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pen register/trap & trace exceptions), 206 (roving FISA wiretaps), 207 (duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power), 209 (seizure of voicemail messages pursuant to warrants), 212 (emergency disclosure of electronic surveillance), 214 (FISA pen register/ trap and trace authority), 215 (FISA access to tangible items), 217 (interception of computer trespasser communications), 218 (purpose for FISA orders), 220 (nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence), 223 (civil liability and discipline for privacy violations), and 225 (provider immunity for FISA wiretap assistance). The sunset provision suggests two types of interpretative challenges: (1) what is a potential offense? (2) what is the impact of amendments enacted after the Act?"

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Doyle, Charles

  2004-01-07
• USA Patriot Act Sunset: Provisions That Expire on December 31, 2005 [January 2, 2004]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  Several sections of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act (the Act) relating to enhanced foreign intelligence and law enforcement surveillance authority expire on December 31, 2005. Thereafter, the authority remains in effect only as it relates to foreign intelligence investigations begun before sunset or to offenses or potential offense begun or occurring before that date. There may be some disagreement of whether a "potential offense" is a suspected crime, an incomplete crime, or both. The consequences of sunset are not the same for every expiring section. In some instances the temporary provision has been replaced with a permanent one; in some, other provisions have been made temporary by being attached to an expiring section; in still others, the apparent impact of termination has been mitigated by related provisions either in the Act or elsewhere. The temporary provisions are examined in this report. The unimpaired provisions of Title II are also discussed. This report is available in an abridged version as CRS Report RS21704, USA PATRIOT Act Sunset: A Sketch.

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Doyle, Charles

  2004-01-02
• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Before and After the USA PATRIOT Act

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, left an indelible mark upon America and an overshadowing feeling of vulnerability. They also created a determination to respond to the new national security threats they represented. Congress reacted to these threats by passing laws providing new tools to fight terrorism. Perhaps, the most controversial recent act of Congress is the United and Strengthening of America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 20011 (USA PATRIOT Act) and its impact upon the use of electronic surveillance and physical searches authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA)2 to combat foreign threats. Some Americans fear the actions taken by Congress may infringe upon basic American liberties. Benjamin Franklin warned that " those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."3 The government must use its new tools in a way that preserves the rights and freedoms guaranteed by America's democracy, but, at the same time, ensure that the fight against terrorism is vigorous and effective. No American should be forced to seek safety over liberty. This article briefly examines FISA and the impact of the USA PATRIOT Act upon it.

  United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation

  Bulzomi, Michael J.

  2003-06
• FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin: June 2003

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin is a collection of criminal justice stories, reports and project findings. It provides a forum for the exchange of information, news, and commentary on various aspects of the field of law enforcement. The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin is an official publication of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Justice. Topics discussed in this issue include: Police work addiction; New VICAP; Four-domain model for detecting deception; Foreign intelligence surveillance act; Career criminals, Security threat groups, and Prison gangs; Practical law enforcement management.

  United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation

  2003-06
• Proposed Change to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Under S. 113 [Updated May 19, 2003]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Senate recently passed S. 113, a bill in the 108th Congress to extend the coverage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ('FISA') to non-United States persons who engage in international terrorism or activities in preparation for international terrorism, without a showing of membership in or affiliation with an international terrorist group. FISA provides a means by which the government can obtain approval to conduct electronic surveillance (wiretap) and other searches with respect to a foreign power or its agents in order to obtain intelligence related to espionage, terrorism, or other matters involving national security."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Elsea, Jennifer

  2003-05-19
• U.S. Department of Justice Report on USA Patriot Act Implementation

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act added the current version of 50 U.S.C. § 1861 to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In order to obtain business records, section 1861(b)(2) requires the Department to demonstrate to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that the records are sought "for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution." The Guidelines do not impose a probable cause requirement over and above the requirements Congress set forth in the statute.

  United States. Department of Justice

  2003-05-13
• S. Rept. 108-40: Amendment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to Allow Surveillance of Non-United States Persons Who Engage in or Prepare for International Terrorism without Affiliation with a Foreign Government or International Terrorism Group, Report together with Additional Views to Accompany S. 113, April 29, 2003

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  The following report was submitted by Orin Hatch and it is to accompany S. 113. "The purpose of S. 113 is to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), title 50, United States Code, to permit surveillance of so-called ''lone wolf'' foreign terrorists. S. 113 would allow a FISA warrant to issue upon probable cause that a non- United States person is engaged in or preparing for international terrorism, without requiring a specific showing that the non-United States person also is affiliated with a foreign power. By eliminating the requirement of a foreign-power link for FISA warrants in such cases, S. 113 would allow U.S. intelligence agencies to monitor foreign terrorists who, though not affiliated with a group or government, pose a serious threat to the people of the United States. In light of the significant risk of devastating attacks that can be carried out by non-United States persons acting alone, individual terrorists must be monitored and stopped, regardless of whether they operate in coordination with other individuals or organizations."

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2003-04-29
• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: An Overview of the Statutory Framework and Recent Judicial Decisions [Updated March 31, 2003]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., as passed in 1978, provided a statutory framework for the use of electronic surveillance in the context of foreign intelligence gathering. In so doing, the Congress sought to strike a delicate balance between national security interests and personal privacy rights. Subsequent legislation expanded federal laws dealing with foreign intelligence gathering to address physical searches, pen registers and trap and trace devices, and access to certain business records. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, P.L. 107-56, made significant changes to some of these provisions. Further amendments were included in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, P.L. 107-108, and the Homeland Security Act of 2002, P.L. 107-296."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Bazan, Elizabeth B.

  2003-03-31
• Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: S. 113, A Bill to Amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to Cover Individuals, Other Than United States Persons, Who Engage in International Terrorism Without Affiliation with an International Terrorist Group

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "CBO [Congressional Budget Office] estimates that implementing S. 113 would not result in any significant cost to the federal government. Enacting S. 113 could affect direct spending and receipts, but CBO estimates that any such effects would not be significant. S. 113 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. S. 113 would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to expand the definition of 'agent of a foreign power.' Under the bill, this designation would include persons (other than U.S. persons) who engage in or prepare for international terrorist acts on their own. This would enable the Attorney General to use electronic surveillance to acquire information on such individuals. CBO expects that any increase in costs for law enforcement, court proceedings, or prison operations would not be significant because of the small number of cases likely to be affected. Any such additional costs would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Because those prosecuted and convicted under S. 113 could be subject to criminal fines, the federal government might collect additional fines if the bill is enacted. Collections of such fines are recorded in the budget as governmental receipts (revenues), which are deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and later spent. CBO expects that any additional receipts and direct spending would be negligible because of the small number of cases involved."

  United States. Congressional Budget Office

  2003-03-14
• FBI Oversight in the 107th Congress by the Senate Judiciary Committee: FISA Implementation Failures

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is an Interim report by Senators Patrick Leahy, Charles Grassley and Arlen Specter. "This report is focused on our FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] oversight for three reasons. First, the FISA is the law governing the exercise of the DOJ's [Department of Justice] and FBI's [Federal Bureau of Investigation] surveillance powers inside the United States to collect foreign intelligence information in the fight against terrorism and, as such, is vitally important to our national security. Second, the concerns revealed by our FISA oversight highlight the more systemic problems facing the FBI and the importance of close congressional oversight and scrutiny in helping to provide the resources and attention to correct such problems before they worsen. Third, members of this Committee led the effort to amend key provisions of the FISA in the USA PATRIOT Act, and the sunset or tennination of those amendments in four years makes it imperative that the Committee carefully monitor how the FISA changes are being implemented. This report is in no way intended to be a comprehensive study of what did, or did not, 'go wrong' before the 9/11. attacks. That important work was commenced by the Joint Intelligence Committee in the 107th Congress and will be continued by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks (the '9/11 Commission') established by an act of Congress at the end of the last session. The focus of this report is different than these other important inquiries. We have not attempted to analyze each and every piece of intelligence or the performance of each and every member of the Intelligence Community prior to the 9/11 attacks. Nor have we limited our inquiry to matters relating only to the 9/11 attacks. Rather, we have attempted, based upon an array of oversight activities related to the performance of the FBI over an extended period of time, to highlight broader and more systemic problems within the DOJ and FBI and to ascertain whether these systemic shortcomings played a role in the implementation of the FISA prior to the 9/11 attacks. […] The oversight review this Committee has conducted during the 107th Congress has uncovered a number of problems in the FISA process: a misunderstanding of the rules governing the application procedure, varying interpretations of the law among key participants, and a break-down of communication among all those involved in the FISA application process. Most disturbing is the lack of accountability that has permeated the entire application procedure."

  United States. Congress. Senate

  Leahy, Patrick; Grassley, Charles; Specter, Arlen

  2003-02
• Interim Report on FBI Oversight in the 107th Congress by the Senate Judiciary Committee: FISA Implementation Failures, Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Charles Grassley, and Senator Arlen Specter, February 2003

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Working in a bipartisan manner in the 107th Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee conducted the first comprehensive oversight of the FBI in nearly two decades. That oversight was aimed not at tearing down the FBI but at identifying any problem areas as a necessary first step to finding constructive solutions and marshaling the attention and resources to implement improvements. The overarching goal of this oversight was to restore confidence in the FBI and make the FBI as strong and as great as it must be to fulfill this agency's multiple and critical missions of protecting the United States against crime, international terrorism, and foreign clandestine intelligence activity, within constitutional and statutory boundaries. Shortly after the Committee initiated oversight hearings and had confirmed the new Director of the FBI, the Nation suffered the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the most serious attacks on these shores since Pearl Harbor. While it is impossible to say what could have been done to stop these attacks from occurring, it is certainly possible in hindsight to say that the FBI, and therefore the Nation, would have benefitted [sic] from earlier close scrutiny by this Committee of the problems the agency faced, particularly as those problems affected the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ('FISA') process. Such oversight might have led to corrective actions, as that is an important purpose of oversight. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the Congress and, in particular, the Senate Judiciary Committee responded to demands by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI for greater powers to meet the security challenges posed by international terrorism. We worked together to craft the USA PATRIOT Act to provide such powers. With those enhanced powers comes an increased potential for abuse and the necessity of enhanced congressional oversight. Our oversight has been multi-faceted. We have held public hearings, conducted informal briefings, convened closed hearings on matters of a classified nature, and posed written questions in letters in connection with hearings to the DOJ and FBI. Although our oversight has focused primarily on the FBI, the Attorney General and the DOJ have ultimate responsibility for the performance of the FBI. Without both accountability and support on the part of the Attorney General and senior officials of the DOJ, the FBI cannot make necessary improvements or garner the resources to implement reforms."

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2003-02
• Privacy: An Overview of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping [Updated January 13, 2003]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "This report provides an overview of federal law governing wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping. It also surveys state law in the area and contains a bibliography of legal commentary. It is a federal crime to wiretap or to use a machine to capture the communications of others without court approval, unless one of the parties has given their prior consent. It is likewise a federal crime to use or disclose any information acquired by illegal wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping. Violations can result in imprisonment for not more than 5 years; fines up to $250,000 (up to $500,000 for organizations); in civil liability for damages, attorneys fees and possibly punitive damages; in disciplinary action against any attorneys involved; and in suppression of any derivative evidence. Congress has created separate but comparable protective schemes for electronic mail (e-mail) and against the surreptitious use of telephone call monitoring practices such as pen registers and trap and trace devices. Each of these protective schemes comes with a procedural mechanism to afford limited law enforcement access to private communications and communications records under conditions consistent with the dictates of the Fourth Amendment. The government has been given even more narrowly confined authority to engage in wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping in the name of foreign intelligence gathering in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Doyle, Charles; Stevens, Gina Marie

  2003-01-13
• USA PATRIOT Act in Practice: Shedding Light on the FISA Process, Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Second Session, September 10, 2002

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Patrick J. Leahy: "Today in Vermont, my own State, and also in Arizona, North Carolina, New York, Wisconsin, Maryland, and a number of other States, Americans are making our democracy work by casting votes in primary ballots. This Committee meets today as part of its role in that same democratic process, focusing oversight on one of the most important but least understood functions of our government. We are examining how the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is working, and we are asking how it works not just in theory but in practice. We had begun our oversight hearings last summer, as soon as the Senate majority shifted. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, we focused on expedited consideration of what became the USA PATRIOT Act, providing legal tools and resources to better protect our nation's security. We continue our efforts to ensure that the law is being implemented effectively and in ways that are consistent with preserving the liberties enshrined in the Constitution. Much of our focus today will be on process issues in a secret system. In a nation of equal justice under law, process is important." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Mike DeWine, Richard J. Durbin, Russell D. Feingold, Dianne Feinstein, Charles E. Grassley, Orrin G. Hatch, Jon Kyl, Patrick J. Leahy, Charles E. Schumer, Arlen Specter, Strom Thurmond, William C. Banks, Kenneth C. Bass, Morton H. Halperin, David Kris, Daniel J. Bryant, and Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2003