Even More Articles

Author: Sievert, Ronald J. Source: Texas Review of Law & Politics; Spring2007, Vol. 11 Issue 2, p319-351, 33p Title: Patriot 2005-2007: Truth, Controversy, and Consequences
Patriot 2005-2007: Truth, Controversy, and Consequences by Ronald J. Sievert discusses the Patriot Act, its origins, amendments to it, controversy, and consequences of the act and its legal status. It begins with an introduction showing some causes of the Patriot Act, from a lack of communication between the CIA and FBI, FISA, and 9/11. It then goes into recent looks at the Patriot Act, and the publicity it received which caused the Act to be placed under relevant review. It then goes on to show how the Patriot Act has amended certain sections of FISA in order for the intelligence branches of the government to obtain information regarding terrorism. It then goes into how new technology is being targeted, (computers mainly), because there are few acts defending them. It then goes into further detail of how provisions of the Patriot Act which restrict National Security Letters from appearing in court obviously violate the First Amendment. After this discussion is the use of warrants. It shows how warrants issued by the Patriot Act are far different from the standard warrant, in that the subject of the warrant is uninformed about the search until long after the information is obtained, whereas a standard warrant allows the subject to be knowledgeable about the search. The author concludes by pointing out that the Patriot Act has been the subject of politics and emotion, where it really should be examined as a much greater threat, and seen as something more serious than a political stance.

Author: McNeil, Christopher B. Source: Widener Law Journal; 2005, Vol. 15 Issue 1, p109-133, 25p. Title: Shifts in Policy and Power: Calculating the Consequences of Increased Prosecutorial Power and Reduced Judicial Authority in Post-September 11 America
Shifts in Policy and Power: Calculating the Consequences of Increased Prosecutorial Power and Reduced Judicial Authority in Post-September 11 America by Christopher B. McNeil discusses the Patriot Act and the shift of power from the judicial branch to the executive branch. The article dives right into acts that are “amended” by the Patriot Act. One such example is the requirement that the INS bring an arrested person before an officer within a set time. The article goes on to show a history of the shift of power even before the Patriot Act. It also delves into laws and requiring minimum sentences for standards which came from the pressure of the executive branch. Next, the article compares the U.S. legal system to the Japanese, where the U.S. is evolving into the less natural rights granting government of Japan. The secrecy involved in obtaining information through the Patriot Act is then further compared to the government of Japan. The article concludes by noting that we can learn a lot by simply examining the Japanese prosecuting system of government, and realize that the Patriot Act is pushing us towards it.

Title: Challenging the Legality of Section 106 of the USA Patriot Act Author: Flint, Charles A. Source: Albany Law Review; 2004, Vol. 67 Issue 3, p1183-1205, 23 p.
Challenging the Legality of Section 106 of the USA Patriot Act by Charles A. Flint shows the violations of our natural rights and legal violations involved with section 106 of the Patriot Act. The introduction points out the hasty passing of the Act in front of Congress. It then shows numerous cases and other acts of congress which the Patriot Act disregards and violates. It then shows how its definition of an enemy is not properly defined and how the vague wording of the document allow for an almost limitless use of power by the government. After going into a history of International law from WWII and the 1800’s, it shows how the Patriot Act could contradict property rights set forth by international law. It then shows how the International emergency Economic Powers Act has been reinstated with the power behind section 106 of the Patriot Act. It concludes by pointing out how the government was too quick to grant the executive power to prevent more events after 9/11, and in doing so violated the law with the passing of the Patriot Act.