Search

The detention of alleged enemy combatants at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, together with proposals to transfer some such individuals to the United States for prosecution or continued detention, has been a subject of considerable interest for Congress. Several authorization and appropriations measures enacted during the 111th Congress, and various pending bills, address the disposition and treatment of Guantanamo detainees., CRS Report for Congress

The detention of alleged enemy combatants at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, together with recent proposals to transfer some such individuals to the United States for prosecution or continued detention, has been a subject of considerable interest for Congress. Several authorization and appropriations measures enacted during the 111th Congress, and various pending bills, address the disposition and treatment of Guantanamo detainees. Recently legislative activity has focused on the possible transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States. The Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-32) and five FY2010 measures place general restrictions on the use of federal funds to release or transfer a Guantanamo detainee into the United States. The relevant FY2010 measures include the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-83); the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84); the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-88); the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117); and the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-118). Each of the enacted laws provides an exception which permits transfers when effected 45 days after specified reporting requirements have been fulfilled. However, in most of the measures, the 45-day exceptions apply only to transfers for the purpose of prosecution or detention during legal proceedings. The public laws and pending proposals address additional issues related to the treatment and disposition of Guantanamo detainees. For example, Title XVIII of P.L. 111-84 establishes new procedures for military commissions. Section 552 of P.L. 111-83 requires that former Guantanamo detainees be included on the "No Fly List" in most circumstances and restricts their access to immigration benefits. This report analyzes relevant provisions in enacted legislation and selected pending bills., Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress.

Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT Act soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The most controversial sections of the act facilitate the federal government's collection of more information, from a greater number of sources, than had previously been authorized in criminal or foreign intelligence investigations. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and the national security letter (NSL) statutes were all bolstered. With the changes came greater access to records showing an individual's spending and communication patterns as well as increased authority to intercept e-mail and telephone conversations and to search homes and businesses. In some cases, evidentiary standards required to obtain court approval for the collection of information were lowered. Other approaches included expanding the scope of information subject to search, adding flexibility to the methods by which information could be collected, and broadening the purposes for which information may be sought. Some perceived the changes as necessary to unearth terrorist cells and update investigative authorities to respond to the new technologies and characteristics of ever-shifting threats. Others argued that authorities granted by the USA PATRIOT Act and subsequent measures could unnecessarily undermine constitutional rights over time. In response to such concerns, sunset provisions were established for many of the changes., CRS Report for Congress.

The detention of alleged enemy combatants at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, together with recent proposals to transfer some such individuals to the United States for prosecution or continued detention, has been a subject of considerable interest for Congress. Several authorization and appropriations measures enacted during the 111th Congress, and various pending bills, address the disposition and treatment of Guantanamo detainees. Recently legislative activity has focused on the possible transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States. The Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-32), and five FY2010 measures place general restrictions on the use of federal funds to release or transfer a Guantanamo detainee into the United States. The relevant FY2010 measures include the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-83), the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84), the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-88), the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117), and the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-118). Each of the enacted laws provides an exception which permits transfers when effected 45 days after specified reporting requirements have been fulfilled. However, in most of the measures, the 45-day exceptions apply only to transfers for the purpose of prosecution or detention during legal proceedings. The public laws and pending proposals address additional issues related to the treatment and disposition of Guantanamo detainees. For example, Title XVIII of P.L. 111-84 establishes new procedures for military commissions. Section 552 of P.L. 111-83 requires that former Guantanamo detainees be included on the "No Fly List" in most circumstances and restricts their access to immigration benefits. This report analyzes relevant provisions in enacted legislation and selected pending bills, CRS Report for Congress.

Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT Act soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The most controversial sections of the Act facilitate the federal government's collection of more information, from a greater number of sources, than had previously been authorized in criminal or foreign intelligence investigations. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and the national security letter (NSL) statutes were all bolstered. With the changes came greater access to records showing an individual's spending and communication patterns as well as increased authority to intercept e-mail and telephone conversations and to search homes and businesses. In some cases, evidentiary standards required to obtain court approval for the collection of information were lowered. Other approaches included expanding the scope of information subject to search, adding flexibility to the methods by which information could be collected, and broadening the purposes for which information may be sought. Some perceived the changes as necessary to unearth terrorist cells and update investigative authorities to respond to the new technologies and characteristics of ever-shifting threats. Others argued that authorities granted by the USA PATRIOT Act and subsequent measures could unnecessarily undermine constitutional rights over time. In response to such concerns, sunset provisions were established for many of the changes., CRS Report for Congress.

Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT Act soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The most controversial sections of the Act facilitate the federal government's collection of more information, from a greater number of sources, than had previously been authorized in criminal or foreign intelligence investigations. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and the national security letter (NSL) statutes were all bolstered. With the changes came greater access to records showing an individual's spending and communication patterns as well as increased authority to intercept e-mail and telephone conversations and to search homes and businesses. In some cases, evidentiary standards required to obtain court approval for the collection of information were lowered. Other approaches included expanding the scope of information subject to search, adding flexibility to the methods by which information could be collected, and broadening the purposes for which information may be sought., CRS Report for Congress

Three amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) are set to expire (sunset) on February 28, 2010. S. 1692, a bill reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, would extend the sunset date by four years and make various modifications to existing authorities. H.R. 3845 would likewise establish a new sunset of December 31, 2013, but it would reauthorize only two of the three expiring provisions. The three sunsetting amendments expanded the scope of federal intelligence-gathering authority following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Two were enacted as part of the USA PATRIOT Act. Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act amended FISA to permit multipoint, or "roving," wiretaps by adding flexibility to the degree of specificity with which the location or facility subject to electronic surveillance under FISA must be identified. Section 215 enlarged the scope of materials that could be sought under FISA to include "any tangible thing." It also lowered the standard required before a court order may be issued to compel their production. The third amendment was enacted in 2004, as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act (IRTPA). Section 6001(a) of the IRTPA changed the rules regarding the types of individuals who may be targets of FISA-authorized searches. Also known as the "lone wolf" provision, it permits surveillance of non-U.S. persons engaged in international terrorism without requiring evidence linking those persons to an identifiable foreign power or terrorist organization. Although these provisions are set to sunset, grandfather clauses permit them to remain effective with respect to investigations that began, or potential offenses that took place, before the sunset date., CRS Report for Congress.

Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), which granted the President the authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those ... [who] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" against the United States. Many persons subsequently captured during military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere were transferred to the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for detention and possible prosecution before military tribunals. Although nearly 800 persons have been transferred to Guantanamo since early 2002, the substantial majority of Guantanamo detainees have ultimately been transferred to another country for continued detention or release. The 215 detainees who remain fall into three categories: (1) persons placed in non-penal, preventive detention to stop them from rejoining hostilities; (2) persons who have faced or are expected to face criminal charges; and (3) persons who have been cleared for transfer or release, whom the United States continues to detain pending transfer. Although the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that Guantanamo detainees may seek habeas corpus review of the legality of their detention, several legal issues remain unsettled, including the extent to which other constitutional provisions apply to noncitizens held at Guantanamo., CRS Report for Congress

Three amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) are set to expire (sunset) on December 31, 2009. S. 1692, a bill reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, would extend the sunset date by four years and make various modifications to existing authorities. H.R. 3845 would likewise establish a new sunset of December 31, 2013, but it would reauthorize only two of the three expiring provisions. The three sunsetting amendments expanded the scope of federal intelligence-gathering authority following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Two were enacted as part of the USA PATRIOT Act. Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act amended FISA to permit multipoint, or "roving," wiretaps by adding flexibility to the degree of specificity with which the location or facility subject to electronic surveillance under FISA must be identified. Section 215 enlarged the scope of materials that could be sought under FISA to include "any tangible thing." It also lowered the standard required before a court order may be issued to compel their production. The third amendment was enacted in 2004, as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act (IRTPA). Section 6001(a) of the IRTPA changed the rules regarding the types of individuals who may be targets of FISA-authorized searches. Also known as the "lone wolf" provision, it permits surveillance of non-U.S. persons engaged in international terrorism without requiring evidence linking those persons to an identifiable foreign power or terrorist organization. Although these provisions are set to sunset on December 31, 2009, grandfather clauses permit them to remain effective with respect to investigations that began, or potential offenses that took place, before the sunset date., CRS Report for Congress.

Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), which granted the President the authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those ... [who] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" against the United States. Many persons subsequently captured during military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere were transferred to the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for detention and possible prosecution before military tribunals. Although nearly 800 persons have been transferred to Guantanamo since early 2002, the substantial majority of Guantanamo detainees have ultimately been transferred to another country for continued detention or release. The 226 detainees who remain fall into three categories: (1) persons placed in non-penal, preventive detention to stop them from rejoining hostilities; (2) persons who have faced or are expected to face criminal charges; and (3) persons who have been cleared for transfer or release, whom the United States continues to detain pending transfer. Although the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that Guantanamo detainees may seek habeas corpus review of the legality of their detention, several legal issues remain unsettled, including the extent to which other constitutional provisions extend to noncitizens held at Guantanamo., CRS Report for Congress

Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), which granted the President the authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those ... [who] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" against the United States. As part of the subsequent "war on terror," many persons captured during military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere were transferred to the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for detention and possible prosecution before military tribunals. Although nearly 800 persons have been transferred to Guantanamo since early 2002, the substantial majority of Guantanamo detainees have ultimately been transferred to a third country for continued detention or release. The 229 detainees who remain fall into three categories: (1) persons placed in non-penal, preventive detention to stop them from rejoining hostilities; (2) persons who have faced or are expected to face criminal charges; and (3) persons who have been cleared for transfer or release, whom the United States continues to detain pending transfer. Although the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that Guantanamo detainees may seek habeas corpus review of the legality of their detention, several legal issues remain unsettled, including the scope of habeas review available to Guantanamo detainees, the remedy available for those persons found to be unlawfully held by the United States, and the extent to which other constitutional provisions extend to noncitizens held at Guantanamo., CRS Report for Congess.

Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), which granted the President the authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those ... [who] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks against the United States." As part of the subsequent "war on terror," many persons captured during military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere were transferred to the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for detention and possible prosecution before military tribunals. Although nearly 800 persons have been transferred to Guantanamo since early 2002, the substantial majority of Guantanamo detainees have ultimately been transferred to a third country for continued detention or release. The roughly 240 detainees who remain fall into three categories: (1) persons placed in non-penal, preventative detention to stop them from rejoining hostilities; (2) persons who have been brought, or are expected to be brought, before a military tribunal to face criminal charges for alleged war crimes; and (3) persons who have been cleared for transfer or release to a third country, whom the United States continues to detain pending transfer. Although the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that Guantanamo detainees may seek habeas corpus review of the legality of their detention, several legal issues remain unsettled, including the scope of habeas review available to Guantanamo detainees, the remedy available for those persons found to be unlawfully held by the United States, and the extent to which other constitutional provisions extend to noncitizens held at Guantanamo. On January 22, 2009, President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order requiring the Guantanamo detention facility to be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than a year from the date of the Order., CRS Report for Congress.

Federal agencies report increasing cyber-intrusions into government computer networks, perpetrated by a range of known and unknown actors. In response, the President, legislators, experts, and others have characterized cybersecurity as a pressing national security issue. Like other national security challenges in the post-9/11 era, the cyber threat is multi-faceted and lacks clearly delineated boundaries. Some cyber attackers operate through foreign nations? military or intelligence-gathering operations, whereas others have connections to terrorist groups or operate as individuals. Some cyber threats might be viewed as international or domestic criminal enterprises. In January 2008, the Bush Administration established the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (the CNCI) by a classified joint presidential directive. The CNCI establishes a multipronged approach the federal government is to take in identifying current and emerging cyber threats, shoring up current and future telecommunications and cyber vulnerabilities, and responding to or proactively addressing entities that wish to steal or manipulate protected data on secure federal systems. On February 9, 2009, President Obama initiated a 60-day interagency cybersecurity review to develop a strategic framework to ensure the CNCI is being appropriately integrated, resourced, and coordinated with Congress and the private sector.

As a general rule, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires government-conducted searches and seizures to be supported by probable cause and a warrant. Federal courts have long recognized that there are many exceptions to this presumptive warrant requirement, one of which is the border search exception. The border search exception permits government officials, in most "routine" circumstances, to conduct searches based on no suspicion of wrongdoing whatsoever. On the other hand, warrantless searches are permissible in some "nonroutine" and particularly invasive situations only when customs officials have "reasonable suspicion" to conduct the search. The federal courts have universally held that the border search exception applies to laptop computer searches conducted at the border. Although the Supreme Court has not directly addressed the degree of suspicion needed to conduct a warrantless laptop border search, the federal appellate courts that have addressed the issue appear to have concluded that reasonable suspicion is not needed to justify such a search. The Ninth Circuit, in United States v. Arnold, explicitly held that reasonable suspicion is not required to conduct a warrantless search of a laptop at the border. A bill introduced in the 111th Congress, H.R. 239, would impose more rigorous standards for laptop searches than those the federal courts have determined are constitutionally required., CRS Report for Congress.

Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), which granted the President the authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those ... [who] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" against the United States." As part of the subsequent "war on terror," many persons captured during military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere were transferred to the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for detention and possible prosecution before military tribunals. Although nearly 800 persons have been transferred to Guantanamo since early 2002, the substantial majority of Guantanamo detainees have ultimately been transferred to a third country for continued detention or release. The roughly 250 detainees who remain fall into three categories: (1) persons placed in non-penal, preventative detention to stop them from rejoining hostilities; (2) persons who have been brought, or are expected to be brought, before a military tribunal to face criminal charges for alleged war crimes; and (3) persons who have been cleared for transfer or release to a third country, whom the United States continues to detain pending transfer. Although the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene V. Bush that Guantanamo detainees may seek habeas corpus review of the legality of their detention, several legal issues remain unsettled, including the scope of habeas review available to Guantanamo detainees, the remedy available for those persons found to be unlawfully held by the United States, and the extent to which other constitutional provisions extend to noncitizens held at Guantanamo., CRS Report for Congress