The Patriot Act is a U.S. law passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Its goals are to strengthen domestic security and broaden the powers of law-enforcement agencies with regards to identifying and stopping terrorists. The passing and renewal of the Patriot Act has been extremely controversial. Supporters claim that it's been instrumental in a number of investigations and arrests of terrorists, while critics counter the act gives the government too much power, threatens civil liberties and undermines the very democracy it seeks to protect. Let's take a look at what the Patriot Act is, the support and criticism behind it and if the Patriot Act is really working.

Main Provisions of the Patriot Act

The Patriot Act's full title is Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. It's split into 10 parts, and it covers a lot of ground. Here is a summary.

Title I - This section pertains to the protection of civil liberties. It authorizes federal money to accomplish much of the act's provisions and authorizes the Secret Service to create a nationwide electronic crime task force. This section also gives the president the authority to confiscate the property of any foreign person who is believed to have aided in a war or attack on the United States. Such seizures can be submitted secretly to courts as evidence. Title II - This section broadens the ability of law-enforcement agencies to conduct surveillance on "agents of foreign powers." It allows the interception of communications if they're related to terrorist activities and allows law-enforcement agencies to share information related to terrorist activities with federal authorities. In addition, Title II authorizes roving surveillance -- that is, a court order allowing surveillance on a particular person allows officers to use any means available to intercept that person's communications, regardless of where the person goes. Previously, a court order would only allow a wiretap on a specific line in one location. Further, it allows the government to order files from the providers of communications services with details about specific customers' use of the service. For example, an Internet service provider can be ordered to provide information on IP addresses, login times and sites visited. Title II also allows delayed notification of search warrants, meaning a suspect's house could be searched while the suspect isn't present, and the suspect would not be notified of the search until after it was carried out. The wide-ranging Title II included many other relatively minor clauses. Title II also contained the sunset clause that would have caused many of the act's provisions to expire in 2005 had they not been renewed. We'll discuss more on the sunset clause later. Titles III-X of the Patriot Act Title III - This section of the Patriot Act is aimed at cutting off the financial support of terrorist groups. It has provisions requiring banks to take steps to prevent money laundering, allows law-enforcement agencies to gather information from banks and creates longer prison terms for money laundering and smuggling.

Title IV - This section has provisions intended to strengthen border security. It authorizes increased funding for border patrols, customs officials and immigration officials. Foreigners with ties to terrorist organizations are banned from entering the United States, and the monitoring of foreign students is expanded by Title IV.

Title V - The most important part of Title V is the use of National Security Letters (NSL). An NSL is a demand for the release of information and paperwork related to a person under investigation. The Patriot Act makes NSLs much stronger, allows them to be used against U.S. citizens and contains a gag order preventing the target of the NSL from ever knowing about it or telling anyone else about it. There is no judicial review or need for probable cause when an NSL is requested and issued.

Title VI - This section contains provisions for providing financial compensation to victims of terrorism and their families.

Title VII - Authorization and budgeting for increased sharing of information between law-enforcement agencies and jurisdictions are contained in this section.

Title VIII - This portion of the Patriot Act adds several crimes to the list of things considered acts of terrorism, including attacking a mass transit system, using a biological weapon, supporting terrorism and computer hacking. The penalties for terrorist crimes are also increased.

Title IX - This section creates a method for the sharing of national intelligence information between government agencies.

Title X - The final section of the Patriot Act contains a number of relatively minor, miscellaneous provisions.

NPR examines the act's most controversial provisions:


Information Sharing

Sec. 203(b) and (d): Allows information from criminal probes to be shared with intelligence agencies and other parts of the government. Would be permanently renewed under deal.

Pro:

Supporters say the provisions have greatly enhanced information sharing within the FBI, and with the intelligence community at large.

Con:

Critics warn that unrestricted sharing could lead to the development of massive databases about citizens who are not the targets of criminal investigations.

 

Roving Wiretaps

Sec. 206: Allows one wiretap authorization to cover multiple devices, eliminating the need for separate court authorizations for a suspect's cell phone, PC and Blackberry, for example. Would expire in 4 years under deal.

Pro:

The government says roving wiretaps are needed to deal with technologically sophisticated terrorists.

Con:

Critics say the language of the act could lead to privacy violations of anyone who comes into casual contact with a suspect.

 

Access to Records

Sec. 215: Allows easier access to business records in foreign intelligence investigations. Would expire in 4 years under deal.

Pro:

The provision allows investigators to obtain books, records, papers, documents and other items sought "in connection with" a terror investigation.

Con:

Critics attack the breadth of the provision, saying the law could be used to demand the reading records of library or bookstore patrons.

 

Foreign Intelligence Wiretaps and Searches

Sec. 218: Lowers the bar for launching foreign intelligence wiretaps and searches. Would be permanently renewed under deal.

Pro:

Allows investigators to get a foreign intelligence wiretap or search order, even if they end up bringing criminal charges instead.

Con:

Because foreign intelligence probes are conducted in secret, with little oversight, critics say abuses could be difficult to uncover.

 

“Sneak & Peek” Warrants

Sec. 213: Allows "Sneak and peek" search warrants, which let authorities search a home or business without immediately notifying the target of a probe.Does not expire.

Pro:

Supporters say this provision has already allowed investigators to search the houses of drug dealers and other criminals without providing notice that might have jeopardized an investigation.

Con:

Critics say the provision allows the use of "sneak and peek" warrants for even minor crimes, not just terror and espionage cases.

 

Material Support

Sec. 805: Expands the existing ban on giving "material support" to terrorists to include "expert advice or assistance." Does not expire.

Pro:

Supporters say it helps cut off the support networks that make terrorism possible.

Con:

Critics say the provision could lead to guilt by association.

 

National Security Letters (NSLs)

Sec. 505: Expands the FBI's authority to use NSLs, a type of administrative subpoena that does not require judicial approval. The FBI can use NSLs to request sensitive records so long as the information sought is "relevant" to a national security probe. Does not expire.

Pro:

Supporters say the expanded use of National Security Letters allows the FBI to cast a much wider net to generate leads about potential terrorists plots and to pursue them.

Con:

Critics say these subpoenas can be used to demand the private records of people who are not suspected terrorists or spies. And they note that the FBI does not need a judge's permission to make these requests.