Search

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. Subsequent measures made most of the USA PATRIOT Act changes permanent. However, three authorities affecting the collection of foreign intelligence information are set to expire on February 28, 2011: the lone wolf, roving wiretap, and business record sections of FISA. The 111th Congress replaced an earlier expiration date with the 2011 date. Before that change was made, the impending expiration prompted legislative proposals which revisit changes made by the USA PATRIOT Act and related measures. Two such bills-the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2009 (S. 1692) and the USA PATRIOT Amendments Act of 2009 (H.R. 3845)-were reported from their respective judiciary committees. In addition to the expiring provisions, these and other bills introduced during the 111th Congress (e.g., S. 1686, S. 1725, S. 1726, S. 2336, H.R. 1800, H.R. 3846, H.R. 3969, and H.R. 4005) address a range of issues, including national security letters, minimization requirements, nondisclosure requirements (gag orders), interception of international communications, and retroactive repeal of communication provider immunity for Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) assistance. This report surveys the legal environment in which the legislative proposals arise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the report "Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress " by the U.S. Congressional Research Service as of March 25, 2010. Topics discussed include the issues of closing a detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Appropriations Act 2010 which restrict the use of federal funds to release detainees and the National Defense Authorization Act to assess risks of national security.

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. Subsequent measures made most of the USA PATRIOT Act changes permanent. However, three authorities affecting the collection of foreign intelligence information are set to expire on February 28, 2010: the lone wolf, roving wiretap, and business record sections of FISA. The impending expiration has prompted legislative proposals which revisit changes made by the USA PATRIOT Act and related measures. Examples of relevant bills include the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2009 (S. 1692) and the USA PATRIOT Amendments Act of 2009 (H.R. 3845), which were reported or ordered to be reported from their respective judiciary committees, as well as a number of additional bills, including S. 1686, S. 1725, S. 1726, S. 2336, H.R. 1800, H.R. 3846, H.R. 3969, and H.R. 4005. In addition to the expiring provisions, pending bills address a range of issues, including national security letters, minimization requirements, nondisclosure requirements (gag orders), interception of international communications, and retroactive repeal of communication provider immunity for Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) assistance. This report surveys the legal environment in which the legislative proposals arise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. Subsequent measures made most of the USA PATRIOT Act changes permanent. However, three authorities affecting the collection of foreign intelligence information are set to expire on December 31, 2009: the lone wolf, roving wiretap, and business record sections of FISA. The impending expiration date has prompted legislative proposals which revisit changes made by the USA PATRIOT Act and related measures. Examples of relevant bills include the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2009 (S. 1692) and the USA PATRIOT Amendments Act of 2009 (H.R. 3845), which were reported or ordered to be reported from their respective judiciary committees, as well as a number of additional bills, including S. 1686, S. 1725, S. 1726, S. 2336, H.R. 1800, H.R. 3846, H.R. 3969, and H.R. 4005. In addition to the expiring provisions, pending bills address a range of issues, including national security letters, minimization requirements, nondisclosure requirements (gag orders), interception of international communications, and retroactive repeal of communication provider immunity for Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) assistance. This report surveys the legal environment in which the legislative proposals arise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a report related to three amendments to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which will expire on February 28, 2010, released by the U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS) as of December 23, 2009. Topics discussed include Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, difference between FISA court orders and national security letters, and access to business records under FISA.

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 multi-pronged 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. In response to the CNCI and other proposals, questions have emerged regarding: (1) the adequacy of existing legal authoritiesstatutory or constitutionalfor responding to cyber threats; and (2) the appropriate roles for the executive and legislative branches in addressing cybersecurity. The new and emerging nature of cyber threats complicates these questions. Although existing statutory provisions might authorize some modest actions, inherent constitutional powers currently provide the most plausible legal basis for many potential executive responses to national security related cyber incidences. Given that cyber threats originate from various sources, it is difficult to determine whether actions to prevent cyber attacks fit within the traditional scope of executive power to conduct war and foreign affairs. Nonetheless, under the Supreme Court jurisprudence, it appears that the President is not prevented from taking action in the cybersecurity arena, at least until Congress takes further action. Regardless, Congress has a continuing oversight and appropriations role. In addition, potential government responses could be limited by individuals constitutional rights or international laws of war. This report discusses the legal issues and addresses policy considerations related to the CNCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]