PATRIOT ACT

The general conversation today about the USA PATRIOT Act and its historical and legal significance must be contextualized with reference to a series of 1970s U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the U.S. Border Patrol that directly undergird the PATRIOT Act. The Supreme Court long ago turned the U.S. borderlands adjoining Mexico into a permanent racial camp, and the borderlands is the "home," as it were, of the permanent state of legal, racial exceptionalism. This problem must be theorized as structural in nature, rather than historical or contingent, in order to confront the matter of exceptional sovereignty at its constitutional foundations. Readings of the Supreme Court decisions regarding Japanese American internment and of Charles Mills's Racial Contract provide a context for the elaboration of this problem. A final reflection on José Antonio Burciaga's poem "Green Nightmares" suggests an idea for justice at the limit of sovereign authority that must be relentlessly exposed in order to begin to imagine a future deracialized polity.

The research question investigated in this Politics Extended Essay is: To What Extent is the U.S Justified in Using the PATRIOT Act to Protect National Security? First, the PATRIOT Act was studied by browsing through summaries of the act as well as the official act itself. Every title and subsection were looked at, but only the useful information was reported in the investigation due to the word constraint. Secondly, a framework needed to be established to study the question. The modern social contract theory was chosen for its recurring, reasonable judgment on the function between a government and its citizens. Specifically, John Locke’s and Thomas Hobbes’ perspectives of modern social contract theory was chosen. These two were chosen for their more modern approach on the social contract theory, as well as their similarities and differences from each other. Despite their differences, both theories prove the conclusion the U.S should weigh their citizens safety over their privacy rights. Besides just looking at political theories, both sides of the PATRIOT Act debate were uncovered. Arguments and examples were evaluated to ensure that the topic was completely covered. A diversity of sources from official court documentation to news articles were used to analyze PATRIOT Act incidents. In the duration of the research, two lawsuits involving the PATRIOT Act were filed. Both cases were closely examined by looking through official timelines of the court. Lists and descriptions of twenty-nine foiled terrorist plots from 2001 through 2011 and fifty foiled terrorist plots between 2001 and 2012 were evaluated to understand the positive results of the PATRIOT Act.

The examination of US counterterrorism policies and the US’s shift towards a preventive security paradigm routinely overlook the contributions of the Judicial Branch.  This dissertation addresses this oversight by introducing two new theoretical mechanisms, the invisible judicial hand and norm confirmation, to analyze how the judiciary influences policy.  Using these mechanisms and key judicial norms like the doctrine of precedent and deference on national security matters, the post-9/11 surveillance and detention regimes are critically deconstructed to show how they were molded by pre-9/11 judicial decisions.  This analysis concludes that post-9/11 US counterterrorism policies were path dependent because of judicial precedents dating back to the American Civil War, and that the focus on the Executive and Legislative branches may be misplaced.  This conclusion raises new questions about how international relations and security scholars study US national security policies, and suggests that the US judiciary indirectly influences global security norms.

This essay looks at why terrorism is a contested concept and its disability in providing institutions, the public and states with a reliable definition that can be applied anywhere. There are particular issues associated with defining terrorism, it relates to multiple models such as communication and religion, particular terms associated with ‘terrorism’ may be misconstrued, the lack of historical validity terrorism does not possess, how state terrorism is ignored in larger terrorism studies and formations of terrorism may appear unreliable. In practice, this essay will look at how terrorism as a contested concept has lead to innocent civilian deaths, the ‘acceptable’ of state terrorism and brushed under the rug topics such as terrorist groups turned political parties.

The purpose of this paper is to identify and compare the evolution of key counterterrorism
legislations passed into law by the governments of the United States and
United Kingdom after 9/11 that have allowed for enhanced surveillance methods to be
carried out. To begin, the debate surrounding a ‘definition of terrorism’ and the
influence it has in the development and implantation of counter-terror laws has been
discussed. Moving on, the legislations primarily scrutinized within are the PATRIOT
Act of the US and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of the UK. This paper
goes further to investigate the relationship and effects these new laws have had in
regards to human rights privacy provisions in both states, legal cases that have
challenged them and the debate between state security over the protection of rights, as
well as public opinion on this debate. This study is a literature-based review that has
highlighted contributions made to this area by academic experts, as well as judicial
outcomes and opinions, statistical research conducted by human right activist groups
and scholarly articles. The conclusion of this paper draws on the point that without
the ECtHR as an external regulator, the UK might well place state security of human
rights, as the US is perceived in doing. The concluding remarks also provide
recommendations for future research on this topic.

Why do states respond to terrorism in the particular ways they do? The problematic of understanding the causes of the modalities taken by counterterrorism policies is central but seldom addressed by the rare counterterrorism studies. For the Realist school of thought, the differences among state responses depend on the origin of the risk and the capabilities of the state. For decision-making theorists, decision-makers are forced by a strong demand for security from the public opinion to adopt costly measures of dubious effectiveness. However, states having risks of different origin and different capabilities may have similar policies (like France and the United States) and the reverse is true too (like France and the United Kingdom). Similarly, studies on the opinion toward terrorism suggest a partial disconnection between supply and demand of security.

This dissertation postulate an influence of norms and institutions in the making of counterterrorism et asks the general question : what has been the impact of strategic culture on the making of American counterterrorist laws since 9/11 ? Since this date, constantly strengthening bills have been adopted (Patriot act in 2001and its reauthorizations), stopped one time by a partially relaxing bill (Freedom act in 2015).

This dissertation has a qualitative, explicative and rationalist scientific ambition. It aims at establishing causal inferences in order to explain the constant strengthening then the partial relaxing of counterterrorism legislation regarding civil liberties.

Theoretically, this dissertation is grounded in historical institutionalism. It shows the existence of two conflicting strategic cultures in the congressional debates on counterterrorism bills. The hypothesis explaining the resolution of this conflict is : the strategic culture of the American legislator encourages, in case it detects a security breach, the passage of a strengthening bill and, in case it detects a major legitimacy breach, the passage of a moderately relaxing bill.

The process-tracing methodology leads to the construction of a causal mechanism tracing the manifestations of this hypothesis. The mechanism is identical for the two strategic cultures. From the identification by the members of Congress of a security / legitimacy breach, we observe : (1) the strengthening / relaxing supporters produce an injunction to action ; (2) lacking quantification and data about the discussed measures, the members of Congress move the debate on the paralogic domain (invocation of identity markers, « common sense », etc.) ; and (3) they promote a principle of coercion / accountability. Then strengthening / relaxing ensues.

The method used is a manual content analysis, done with the Nvivo software, of the debates for three bills (Patriot act, Patriot sunsets extension act and Freedom act), roughly 219,000 words or 377 pages.

The dissertation shows the structuring role played by triggers (security / legitimacy breaches), which give the members of Congress a pretext to act (security / liberty), which translate into the promotion of a principle of action (coercion / accountability), action that fulfils a double function of political action : control and legitimation. Thus, the evolution of legislation cannot be desribed as a bottom-up process (irrational pressure of the public opinion on decision-makers) but as a top-down process : the members of Congress are the origin of the legislative change, which is partially matching the opinion’s leading attitudes. In this parcimonious and sufficient model offered, the main motive leading the legislator is the irreversible extension of a simulation of legitimate control by the application of powers of exception.

The scientific contribution of this dissertation is double. Empirically, it offers a (1) systematic analysis (2) of a vast overlooked corpus. Theoretically, it shows counterterrorism policy (1) is partially disconnected from security demand and security furthering but that it (2) matches the government’s desire to extend the means of its control on an environment perceived as more and more dangerous, a policy schematized as a hysteresis with a ratchet effect.


Keywords : terrorism, counterterrorism, security, legitimacy, historical institutionalism, strategic culture, process-tracing.

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS):
Extradition of Julian Assange Threatens Us All,
in: Consortium News, 30.04.2019

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/04/30/vips-extradition-of-julian-assange-threatens-us-all/


Retaliation against Julian Assange over the past decade plus replicates a pattern of ruthless political retaliation against whistleblowers, in particular those who reveal truths hidden by illegal secrecy, VIPS says.

Lone wolf terrorism has emerged as the new face of violent terrorist attacks. The solitary nature of the attackers helps to isolate their plans from incursion by law enforcement or intelligence analysts. These attacks can be sudden, grievous, and often times happen without warning. By looking at historical and recent events of lone wolf style attacks, it is clear that this phenomenon is not a modern creation. Thus, finally figuring out how to preemptively combat this issue is of great importance.

Edited by: Colin King and Clive Walker

Adopting a multi-disciplinary and comparative approach, this book focuses on the emerging and innovative aspects of attempts to target the accumulated assets of those engaged in criminal and terrorist activity, organized crime and corruption. It examines the ‘follow-the-money’ approach and explores the nature of criminal, civil and regulatory responses used to attack the financial assets of those engaged in financial crime in order to deter and disrupt future criminal activity as well as terrorism networks. With contributions from leading international academics and practitioners in the fields of law, economics, financial management, criminology, sociology and political science, the book explores law and practice in countries with significant problems and experiences, revealing new insights into these dilemmas. It also discusses the impact of the ‘follow-the-money’ approach on human rights while also assessing effectiveness.

The resurgence in recent years of domestic and international finance crimes like money laundering is being addressed through the enactment of laws aimed at combatting such behavior.  Heba Shams, The World Bank External Affairs Manager for North Africa and the Middle East, discusses in her book Legal Globalization: Money Laundering Law and Other Cases, that this type of activity is rarely confined to the borders of a particular nation in today’s international banking and business environment...

US-Regierung und Kongress haben auf die traumatischen Ereignisse des 11. Septembers 2001 (9/11) mit Strategien der Rückversicherung reagiert, die eine Reihe von Paradigmenwechseln in der Innen- und Außenpolitik bewirkten. Anhand der Beispiele veränderter Praktiken und Diskurse in der innerstaatlichen Sicherheits- und der nuklearen Rüstungskontrollpolitik nach 9/11 lässt sich zeigen, dass der Administration von Präsident George W. Bush insbesondere eine Erweiterung der eigenen Handlungsspielräume gelang. Das alles überlagernde neue Paradigma des Counterterrorism führte zu einer Neujustierung der normativen Ordnung der amerikanischen Sicherheitspolitik.

COINTELPRO--Counter-Intelligence-Program— Beginning in 1956 was a series of clandestine and, at times, unlawful schemes aimed at discrediting individuals through psychological warfare, surveilling, infiltrating, misleading reports in the media, smearing through counterfeit letters, harassment, unjust imprisonment, extralegal violence and assassination all the while imbedding character lies in the media and the intimidation of Americans exercising their First Amendment rights of speech and association. It included surveilling, infiltrating, organizations the FBI deemed subversive: The Communist Party, The Anti-War Movement, The American Indian Movement, The Feminist Movement, The Socialist Workers Party, The Black Panther Party, The Puerto Rican Independence Party. Immersed in its own racism, without necessary checks or balances, the Federal Bureau of Investigation dedicated more money and manpower to target and discredit the Civil Rights Movement than any other charge in its purview. COINTELPRO signifies the nation-state’s stratagem to prevent movements and communities from upsetting or overturning the establishment of white supremacy while seeking to terminate movements for self-determination and liberation for Black, Brown, Asian, and Indigenous struggles, as well as mount an institutionalized war against progressive organizations. Covert operations under COINTELPRO would stop in 1972; however, the U.S. Government’s covert operations continues to this day under the Patriot Act.

Passed in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the U.S.A. Patriot Act has many provisions which could be called into question under the Constitution. The main question at issue is whether it violates the 4th Amendment provisions requiring probable cause or a warrant for search and seizure, or can suspicion of terrorism become a new standard by which law enforcement can tap phone lines, search and seize private property, and not even notify the person that their property has been searched. The 6th Amendment right to a speedy and public trial is also in question because of the long period of time allowed to detain suspected terrorists without charging them. It raises the issue of whether it is constitutional for congress to pass a law that allows the FBI to confiscate property in order to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities@ and to prohibit the owner of the property from telling anyone it has been confiscated. This pertains to the due process clause of the 5th Amendment and the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. It also raises 14th Amendment concerns of equal protection under the law because it proscribes a lower level of legal protection to foreigners than it does to native citizens.

Bridging from a flyer incident at Harvard University to the influence and chilling effects of mass surveillance on free speech to the origins of public opinion and the construction of political correctness, this essay rethinks the interconnectivity between surveillance, political correctness and Noelle-Neumanns's theory of the spiral of silence.

Based on the findings in this essay, an analogy of the spiral of silence between the chilling effect of free speech in modern public and private spaces through perceived surveillance and the chilling effect on free speech in academic spaces through university administrations in the shadow of political correctness can be anticipated. Thus, the essay provides a basis for the hypothesis that academic debates might get chilled through increasing PC at universities, since PC can possibly serve as a perceived mask for a more liberal ideology and thus construct a hostile environment for other ideologies. Especially in the light of chilled free speech in hostile online environments, the hypothesis implies a pressing issue in academic spaces, even if based upon rather liberal than neoconservative ideologies.

Since the early 2000s, the apparatus of surveillance
and intelligence gathering in the U.S. has followed a
preemptive approach instead of a reactive one. The
surveillance of private correspondence in cyberspace has
been no exception to this rule. However, while the Patriot
Act has resulted in a looser legal framework for
intelligence gathering as a whole, the legislation on
cyberspace surveillance dates back to President Clinton’s
first term, and the 111th Congress (2009-2011) seems to
have undertaken minimal efforts to protect the citizens’
rights to privacy. By exploring the legal framework of the
surveillance apparatus from the mid-twentieth century to
today, this article attempts to show that the definition of
the surveillance legislation has intensified the
government’s infringement on civil liberties, and has
prompted an imbalance between the executive and the
legislative branches. Lastly, it argues that the
government’s tendency to encroach on individual rights,
rather than the opposition between Democrats and
Republicans, accounts for such a phenomenon.

Bypassing the often-discussed question of the legality of the USA PATRIOT Act, this paper addresses the question of whether the Act is congruent with the American values of liberty, freedom and a government restrained by checks and balances. The discussion centers around the work of several legal scholars who identify the controversial provisions of the Act, discuss their historical contexts and address their shortcomings. In particular, this paper discusses Sections 206, 213, 218, and 802, which address roving surveillance authority, delayed warrant notification, the grounds for collecting foreign intelligence data, and the new category of “domestic terrorism,” respectively. The essay concludes on a somber note, observing that while previous “extreme acts” enacted by the US government were declared unconstitutional and/or repealed, that is unlikely to happen to the USA PATRIOT Act anytime soon.

The university setting is supposed to be a haven for idea sharing and expression. However, such freedoms are inhibited where “Big Brother” watches over you, questioning your every word, your every move, and in the academic setting—your every thought.

As students began to exercise their First Amendment rights to speak, associate, and protest in the mid-twentieth century, the government deployed invasive tactics to spy on students, professors, and academia at large. In the following decades, rules were codified that protected students in response to surveillance concerns. But most, if not all, of the championed laws were either distorted or reversed in the name of national security as a response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This drastic shift involves various groups, including, but not limited to the CIA, FBI, NSA, state police departments, and the universities themselves. Together they form what I call the National Security Fraternity—a network of agencies and university administrations that spy on college students on campuses across the country.

This Article addresses the distinctive issue of government surveillance on college campuses for the purposes of national security. Accordingly, it proceeds as follows. Section I discusses the history of government surveillance on college campuses, highlighting the FBI program COINTELPRO (COunter INTELligence PROgram), and developments in the university-student relationship under common law. Section II evaluates federal statutory and Constitutional laws in place that govern surveillance, its scope, and its limitations. Section III reveals the relationship between the university and the government that compromises the university-student relationship and jeopardizes the future of American universities.

By assessing the past and current state of government surveillance on college campuses, this Article encourages American universities to reevaluate its National Security Fraternity membership.