Page 30 - Freedom in the world_Neat

Title VII of the PATRIOT Act allows federal and state law enforcement agencies to share
more information with one another than they previously could, and to "make grants and
enter into contracts" with nonprofit organizations to stop criminal activities that cross
jurisdictional boundaries.
Almost six years after it was passed, the nation remains divided over the PATRIOT Act.
Eight states and 396 cities and counties have passed resolutions condemning the law as a
violation of civil liberties. At least one city has passed a law barring city employees from
complying with federal investigations that would violate civil liberties, although some
experts question the legality of such an ordinance. Surveys have reported that at least half
of Americans are concerned that tactics used in fighting terrorism may violate civil liberties.

National Security Agency Wiretapping Controversy

The PATRIOT Act is not the only post-9/11 measure to have awakened concerns about
civil liberties. In December 2005, the New York Times reported that the National Security
Agency (NSA) was eavesdropping on telephone calls between people in the United States
and associates in foreign nations.5 Under an ongoing program, the NSA was monitoring
certain calls without obtaining a FISA warrant either in advance or retroactively. Bush had
secretly authorized the program, claiming that the Constitution afforded him broad,
inherent powers that superseded legislation like FISA. He also cited a resolution passed by
Congress shortly after 9/11 that authorized him to use force in combating terrorism.
In response to the revelation of the NSA program, the Bush administration has asserted
that the FISA warrant requirement is slow and cumbersome and had been hindering
terrorism investigations. Some administration officials have said that if the NSA program
had been in effect in 2001, it might have caught some of the 9/11 hijackers and averted
the attacks.6 But critics of the program note that FISA permits the NSA to seek retroactive
warrants up to three days after it conducts surveillance, so that no surveillance need be
delayed by the warrant process. Indeed, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth,
presiding judge of the FISA court from 1995 to 2002, has in recent public remarks
vigorously defended the court's speed, efficiency, and responsiveness, including specifically
on the morning of September 11, 2001.7 Furthermore, and notwithstanding Lamberth's
insistence that the FISA court is not a pro formaprocess, the warrants are obtainable;
through 2004, the court had denied only five of the 18,766 warrants the government had
requested.
Despite the president's sweeping legal assertions, on August 17, 2006, a U.S. District
Court judge found the NSA wiretapping program to be illegal under FISA and
unconstitutional under the First and Fourth amendments, and ordered warrants to be
obtained for all wiretaps. The judge's ruling has been stayed pending appeal.8 On January
17, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced that the special presidential
authorization allowing the warrantless surveillance would not be renewed, and that all
future surveillance of terrorism suspects would be subject to the approval of a FISA court.
In August 2007, Congress enacted legislation, to remain in force for only six months, that
legalized warrantless wiretaps of American citizens in terrorism cases. As Congress was
debating whether and how to amend that legislation in the autumn of 2007, the
Democratic majority supported provisions that would require court approval for a number

Page 30 of 168