米国愛国者法

出典: フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
移動: 案内、 検索
翻訳中途
 この項目「米国愛国者法」は途中まで翻訳されたものです。（原文：en:USA PATRIOT Act 00:22, 24 August 2007 ）
翻訳作業に協力して下さる方を求めています。ノートページや履歴、翻訳のガイドラインも参照してください。要約欄への翻訳情報の記入をお忘れなく。（2007年8月）

テロリズムの阻止と回避のために必要な適切な手段を提供することによりアメリカを統合し強化する2001年の法 (英: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 公立法107-56) は、2001年10月26日に米国大統領ジョージ・W・ブッシュが署名して発効したアメリカ合衆国の法律である。

一般には、正式名称の頭文字「USA PATRIOT」を取って「米国愛国者法」(USA PATRIOT Act) あるいは単に「愛国者法」(Patriot Act) とも呼ばれる。 [1]

目次

概要 [編集]

2001年9月11日のアメリカ同時多発テロ事件後45日間で成立し、米国内外のテロリズムと戦うことを目的として政府当局に対して権限を大幅に拡大させた法律である。この法律において電話やEメール、医療情報、金融情報や他の記録について当局に対し調査する権限を拡大し、アメリカ合衆国国内において外国人に対する情報収集の制限に対する権限を緩和し、財務省に対し金融資産の移転、とりわけ外国人や外国法人について規制する権限を強化し、テロに関係する行為をとったと疑われるものに対し司法当局や入国管理局に対し入国者を留置・追放する権限を高めることを規定している。さらに、「テロリズム」の定義を拡大し「国内テロ」をも含め、その結果本法は司法当局の拡大された権限を行使する場面が飛躍的に拡大している[2]。

2009年3月2日にアメリカ合衆国司法省が公開した、ブッシュ政権の政府高官達が作成した対テロ政策秘密メモ類によれば、“テロ容疑者”に対する捜索は大統領の政策であり憲法修正条項（第1条・第4条）の制約を受けず随時行なわれてよいし、また“戦時に人権は制限され得るべき”と記されていたという[3]。

経緯 [編集]

制定 [編集]

2001年10月26日、米国愛国者法にサインするブッシュ大統領。

草案は、米国司法次官のベト・D・ディン（Viet D. Dinh）と後の国土安全保障省長官、マイケル・チャートフ（Michael Chertoff）を中心にまとめられ、翌日の2001年10月23日、共和党のジェームズ・F・センセンブレナー（James F. Sensenbrenner）下院議員によって、この法案は下院3162号決議としてアメリカ合衆国下院に提出された。この法案は反対意見もほとんどなく議会を通過し、10月25日にはアメリカ合衆国上院も通過した。上院では民主のロス・ファインゴールド（Russ Feingold）上院議員が唯一反対票を投じ、民主のメアリー・ランドリュー（Mary Landrieu）上院議員が唯一棄権した。翌10月26日、ブッシュ大統領が法案にサインを行った。

「金融における反テロ法(The Financial Anti-Terrorism Act)」は2001年10月17日に両院議会で承認されたが、本法制定後は本法に組み込まれた。同法ではテロリズムに対する資金的な支援をしている疑いのある者に対して、資産の凍結、調査及び告訴に関する権限を認めている。憲法に基づいて議会がそのような権限を持つことができるのかどうかは、多くの訴訟の対象となっている。

この法律は両院とも圧倒的多数の差で成立しているが、当初から市民の自由の保護を弱めるおそれがあるものだとして批判されていた。特に、反対する者は理由として以下を挙げている[4]。

  • 入国者に対し無期限の留置が可能な権限を与えている
  • 司法当局によって行われる管理権者の承諾無く行われる家宅捜索「こっそり忍び寄り盗み見る」調査をできるようにしている
  • 連邦捜査局に対し令状抜きで電話、電子メール及び信書、金融取引の記録を利用することを拡大して認めている
  • 図書館の帯出記録や所得情報を含めて司法当局が調査できる

成立後、いくつかの訴訟がこの法律に対し提起されたが連邦裁判所は少なくとも1つの条項について違憲との判断を下した[5]。

再認証 [編集]

当初はこの法律の多くの条項は時限法（sunset provision）で4年後の2005年12月31日までであった[6]。しかし、恒久化の動きは強くなり、2005年7月、アメリカ合衆国上院は相当程度の改正をした恒久化法を可決し、アメリカ合衆国下院は大部分について存続させる法案を可決させた[7]。 両法案に対しては、市民の権利を無視していると批判する一部の両党上院議員から両院協議会で批判があったが、協議会での成案が、上院の修正部分の大部分を削除して、2006年3月2日にアメリカ合衆国議会を通過し、ジョージ・W・ブッシュ大統領により2006年3月9日に署名された[8]。

  1. Requiring High-Level Approval and Additional Reporting to Congress for Section 215 Requests for Sensitive Information Such as Library or Medical Records: Without the personal approval of one of these 3 officials (FBI Director, Deputy Director or Official-in-Charge of Intelligence), the 215 order for these sensitive categories of records may not be issued.
  2. Statement of Facts Showing Relevance to a Terrorism or Foreign Spy Investigation Required for Section 215 Requests: The conference report requires that a Section 215 application must include a statement of facts demonstrating that the records sought are "relevant" to an authorized investigation to obtain terrorism or foreign intelligence information. This statement of facts civil liberty safeguard contained in the conference report does NOT exist under current law.
  3. Explicitly Allowing a United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court Judge to Deny or Modify a Section 215 Request: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report explicitly provides a FISA Court judge the discretion not only to approve or modify a Section 215 application, but also to deny an application.
  4. Requiring Minimization Procedures to Limit Retention and Dissemination of Information Obtained About U.S. Persons From Section 215 Requests: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report requires that the Attorney General create minimization procedures for the retention and dissemination of this data and that the FBI use these procedures. This civil liberty safeguard is not contained in current law and was requested by Senator Leahy.
  5. Explicitly Providing for a Judicial Challenge to a Section 215 Order: Current law requires judicial review before a Section 215 can be issued. The pending USA PATRIOT Act conference report explicitly established a judicial review process after the 215 order has been issued, to allow the recipient of a 215 order to challenge the order before the FISA Court.
  6. Explicitly Clarifying that a Recipient of a Section 215 Order May Disclose Receipt to an Attorney or Others Necessary to Comply with or Challenge the Order: Current law is silent as to whether a 215 order recipient may disclose the receipt of such an order to an attorney to comply with the order. The pending USA PATRIOT Act conference report clarifies this issue by stating explicitly that the recipient of a 215 order may disclose receipt to an attorney or others necessary to comply with or challenge the order.
  7. Requiring Public Reporting of the Number of Section 215 Orders: At the request of Senator Leahy and other Senate Democratic conferees, the USA PATRIOT Act Conference report requires the Justice Department to report to the public annually the aggregate number of Section 215 applications submitted, approved, modified, and denied.
  8. Requiring the Justice Department's Independent Inspector General to Conduct an Audit of Each Justice Department Use of Section 215 Orders: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report provides additional public information and congressional oversight by requiring the Justice Department's independent Inspector General to conduct an audit for each Justice Department use of Section 215 orders.
  9. Explicitly Providing for a Judicial Challenge to a National Security Letter (NSL): Current Law does not specify that an NSL can be challenged in court and provides no process for challenging an NSL. The conference report provides explicit authority to challenge in court an NSL under all existing statutes authorizing NSLs. This civil liberty safeguard is stronger than the Senate-passed bill, which only addressed one of the NSL statutes, does not exist under current law, and was written by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).
  10. Explicitly Clarifying that a Recipient of a National Security Letter (NSL) May Disclose Receipt to an Attorney or Others Necessary to Comply with or Challenge the Order: Current law is silent as to whether an NSL may disclose the receipt of such an order to an attorney to comply with or challenge the order. The pending USA PATRIOT Act conference report clarifies this issue by stating explicitly that the recipient of an NSL may disclose receipt to an attorney or others necessary to comply with or challenge the order.
  11. Providing that a Nondisclosure Order Does Not Automatically Attach to a National Security Letter (NSL): Instead, a nondisclosure requirement will attach to an NSL only upon a certification by the government that disclosure could cause one of the harms specified in the conference report, such as endangering a witness or threatening national security.
  12. Providing Explicit Judicial Review of a Nondisclosure Requirement to a National Security Letter (NSL): The NSL recipient may challenge the nondisclosure requirement in the U.S. district court for the district in which the recipient does business or resides.
  13. Requiring Public Reporting of the Number of National Security Letters (NSLs): At the request of Senator Leahy and other Senate Democratic conferees, the USA PATRIOT Act conference report includes - for the first time - public reporting on the aggregate number of NSLs requested for information about U.S. persons.
  14. Requiring the Justice Department’s Independent Inspector General to Conduct Two Audits of the Use of National Security Letters (NSLs): The USA PATRIOT Act conference report provides additional public information and congressional oversight by requiring the Justice Department’s independent Inspector General to conduct two audits on the use of NSLs during the years 2003 - 2006.
  15. Requiring Additional Reporting to Congress by the Justice Department on Use of National Security Letters (NSLs): Specifically, the conference report requires the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to receive all classified reports regarding use of NSLs; currently these committees only receive classified reports under one of the five statutes authorizing NSLs.
  16. Requiring the Justice Department to Re-Certify that Nondisclosure of a National Security Letter (NSL) is Necessary: If an NSL recipient challenges the prohibition on disclosure more than a year after the NSL is issued, the Justice Department must re-certify that nondisclosure is necessary, or else the nondisclosure requirement lapses.
  17. Narrowing the Deference Given to the Justice Department on a National Security Letter (NSL) Nondisclosure Certification: At the request of Senator Leahy, this heightened degree of deference is only provided to certifications made by a few Senate-confirmed officials at the time the nondisclosure petition is filed.
  18. Requiring a Report to Congress on Any Use of Data-Mining Programs by the Justice Department: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report enhances congressional oversight of data-mining programs by requiring the Justice Department to report to Congress on the use or development of any of these programs by the Justice Department.
  19. Requiring Notice Be Given on Delayed-Notice Search Warrants Within 30 Days of the Search: The USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report narrows and clarifies the reasonable amount of time standard by providing a Court the discretion to delay notice for up to 30 days after the search is executed.
  20. Limiting Delayed-Notice Search Warrants Extensions to 90 Days or Less: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report narrows and clarifies the permissible delayed-notice extension period by providing a Court the discretion to extend the delay of notice for up to 90 days.
  21. Requiring an Updated Showing of Necessity in Order to Extend the Delay of Notice of a Search Warrant: To ensure that a Court considering extending a delay of notice has the best and most up-to-date information, the USA PATRIOT Act conference report requires an updated show of necessity by the applicant in order to extend the delay of notice of a search warrant.
  22. Requiring Annual Public Reporting on the Use of Delayed-Notice Search Warrant: Specifically, the annual public report will include the “number of applications for warrants and extensions of warrants authorizing delayed notice, and the number of such warrants and extensions granted or denied during the preceding fiscal year.”
  23. Requiring Additional Specificity from an Applicant Before Roving Surveillance May be Authorized: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report addresses concerns about vagueness in applications for “roving” wiretaps in foreign spying and terrorism investigations by requiring additional specificity in these applications in order for a FISA Court judge to consider authorizing a “roving” wiretap.
  24. Requiring Court Notification Within 10 Days of Conducting Surveillance on a New Facility Using a “Roving” Wiretap: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report addresses concerns the “roving” wiretap authority could be abused by requiring the investigators to inform the FISA Court within 10 days when the “roving” surveillance authority is used to target a new facility.
  25. Requiring Ongoing FISA Court Notification of the Total Number of Places or Facilities Under Surveillance Using a “Roving” Wiretap: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report enhances judicial oversight to address any concerns that the “roving” wiretap authority could be abused. Specifically, the conference report requires the FISA Court to be informed on an ongoing basis of the total number of places or facilities under surveillance using a “roving” wiretap authority.
  26. Requiring Additional Specificity in a FISA Court Judge’s Order Authorizing a “Roving” Wiretap: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report addresses concerns about vagueness about the target in a FISA Court judge’s order authorizing a “roving” wiretap in foreign spying and terrorism investigations by requiring additional specificity.
  27. Providing a Four-Year Sunset on FISA “Roving” Wiretap: Despite no evidence that the FISA “roving” wiretap authority has been abused, the USA PATRIOT Act conference report aggressively attempts to avoid any potential abuse of FISA “roving” wiretaps by providing a four-year sunset of this authority.

The Library of Congress' legislative history website, THOMAS, tracks the 45-day passage of the 300-plus page act, including links to successive versions.

構成 [編集]

当法は十章から成り、各章は複数の条に分かたれる。各章は以下のとおり。

  • 第1章 テロリズムに対する国内の安全性の向上 (Title I: Enhancing Domestic Security against Terrorism)(en) テロリズム対策について定める。
  • 第2章 監視手続の改善 (Title II: Enhanced Surveillance Procedures)(en) 政府のさまざまな部局の捜査権限を強化する。二十五条から成り、そのうちの一条 (224条) が時限法。
  • 第3章 国際マネーロンダリングの阻止及びテロリストへの資金供与防止のための2001年法 (Title III: International money laundering abatement and anti-terrorist financing act of 2001)(en)
  • 第4章 国境の保全 (Title IV: Protecting the border)(en)
  • 第5章 テロリズムの捜査に対する障害の除去 (Title V: Removing obstacles to investigating terrorism)(en)
  • 第6章 テロリズムの被害者、公共保安職員及びその家族に対する支援 (Title VI: Providing for victims of terrorism, public safety officers and their families)(en)
  • 第7章 重要基盤の防護のための地域的情報共有の増進 (Title VII: Increased information sharing for critical infrastructure protection)(en)
  • 第8章 テロリズムに対する刑法の強化 (Title VIII: Strengthening the criminal laws against terrorism)(en)
  • 第9章 諜報活動の改善 (Title IX: Improved intelligence)(en)
  • 第10章 雑則 (Title X: Miscellaneous)(en)

条項 [編集]

The Act mostly incorporates the provisions of the earlier anti-terrorism USA Act (H.R. 2975 and S. 1510). 2001年10月11日には上院を、翌12日には下院を通過した。従来法と愛国者法との基本的な違いは、

  • The inclusion of the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act (H.R. 3004), which expands money laundering abatement to international terrorism.
  • Immunity against prosecution for the providers of wiretaps in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
  • Request for a report on integrating automated fingerprint identification for ports of entry into the United States.
  • Start of a foreign student monitoring program.
  • Request for machine readable passports.
  • Prevention of consulate shopping.
  • Expansion of the Biological Weapons Statute.
  • Clearer definition of "Electronic Surveillance"
  • Miscellaneous benefits for victims of the September 11 attack and extra penalties for those who illegally file for such benefits.

Much criticism against the 2001 Act had been directed at the provisions for Sneak-and-Peek searches — a term coined by the FBI. Critics argued that Provision 213 authorizes "surreptitious search warrants and seizures upon a showing of reasonable necessity and eliminates the requirement of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that immediate notification of seized items be provided."[9]

In special cases covered by FISA (amended by the USA PATRIOT Act), the warrants may come from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) instead of a common Federal or State Court. FISC warrants are not public record and therefore are not required to be released. Other warrants must be released, especially to the person under investigation.

A second complaint against Sneak-and-Peek searches is that the owner of the property (or person identified in business/library records) does not have to be told about the search. There is a special clause that allows the Director of the FBI to request phone records for a person without ever notifying the person. For all other searches, the person must be notified, but not necessarily before the search. The judge providing the warrant may allow a delay in notification when there is risk of:

  • endangering the life or physical safety of an individual;
  • flight from prosecution;
  • destruction of or tampering with evidence;
  • intimidation of potential witnesses; or
  • otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial.

The delays are on average 7 days, but have been as long as 90 days. ACLU Ad On "Sneak-and-Peek" Searches: Overblown Section 213, which federal agencies report they have used 155 times since 2001, does not expire later this year like other USA PATRIOT Act provisions.

The American Civil Liberties Union argues that the term "serious jeopardy" is too broad "and must be narrowly curtailed."[10]

However, "sneak and peek" searches have been in use for a long time in criminal cases. Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act was intended to bring the monitoring of foreign powers and the agents of foreign powers into line with such criminal legislation. The main difference between criminal and FISA delayed notification on search warrants is that FISA warrants use a different legal standard when approving such orders (they use reasonable cause, not probable cause).

「:en:United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court」も参照

図書館の帯出記録への政府のアクセス [編集]

Perhaps the most controversial section of the original Act was Section 215, dealing with a very narrow, implied right of federal investigators to access library and bookstore records. Section 215 allows FBI agents to obtain a warrant in camera (in secret) from the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying. On its face, the section does not even refer to "libraries," but rather to business records and other tangible items in general.[11] Civil libertarians and librarians in particular, argue that this provision violates patrons' human rights and it has now come to be called the "library provision." The Justice Department defends Section 215 by saying that because it requires an order to be issued by a FISA Court judge, it provides better protection for libraries.

2005年8月26日, ニューヨーク・タイムス reported that according to アメリカ自由人権協会, 連邦捜査局 is demanding library records from a Connecticut institution as part of an intelligence investigation. This would be the first confirmed instance in which 連邦捜査局 has sought library records, federal officials and アメリカ自由人権協会 said. Interestingly, though, the government did not seek the records under section 215, but instead used "National Security Letters," which are the FISA equivalent of grand jury subpoenas and do not require a court order and thus are easier to use than section 215.[12]

措置 [編集]

ウィキニュースに関連記事があります。

It is uncertain how many individuals or organizations have been charged or convicted under the Act. Throughout 2002 and 2003, the Department of Justice refused to release numbers. 時のアメリカ合衆国司法長官、ジョン・アシュクロフト は2004年の司法省通達「アメリカを安全に保つ為」 reported that there have been 368 individuals criminally charged in terrorism investigations, and later used the numbers 372 and 375. Of these he stated that 194 (later 195) resulted in convictions or guilty pleas. (The original statement;[13] the statement is reduced to a bullet list in 2004 Criminal Division Annual Report on page 9.). In June 2005, President Bush stated terrorism investigations yielded over 400 charges, more than half of which resulted in convictions or guilty pleas. In some of these cases, federal prosecutors chose to charge suspects with non-terror related crimes for immigration, fraud and conspiracy.

アメリカ自由人権協会は2005年9月11日、 reported:[14]

30,000 National Security Letters Issued Annually Demanding Information about Americans: USA PATRIOT Act Removed Need for FBI to Connect Records to Suspected Terrorists
[...] According to the Washington Post, universities and casinos have received these letters and been forced to comply with the demands to turn over private student and customer information. Anyone who receives an NSL is gagged - forever - from telling anyone that the FBI demanded records, even if their identity has already been made public.
In New York and Connecticut, the ACLU has challenged the NSL provision that was dramatically expanded by Section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act. The legislation amended the existing NSL power by permitting the FBI to demand records of people who are not connected to terrorism and who are not suspected of any wrongdoing. [...]

米国愛国者法を制限しようとする動き [編集]

議会 [編集]

2003年7月31日, Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), introduced the "Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act" (S. 1552).[15] This bill would revise several provisions of the Act to increase judicial review. For example, instead of PEN/Trap warrants to track Internet usage being based on the claims of law-enforcement, they would be based on "specific and articulable facts that reasonably indicate that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed, and that information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to the investigation of that crime." However, the Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act doesn't address the portion of Sec. 216 of the Act which allows unnamed persons to be subject to a PEN/Trap warrant based on law-enforcement certifying that those individuals should have been named.

2003年9月24日, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus, introduced legislation into the U.S. House of Representatives to repeal more than ten sections of the Act. The bill, titled the "Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act", looks to review certain sections of the Act, including those that authorize sneak and peek searches, library, medical, and financial record searches, and the detention and deportation of non-citizens without full judicial review. Beyond the Act, the bill cements the right of attorney/client privilege and attempts to restore transparency in the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security by revoking FOIA secrecy orders, along with other important provisions.

Bernie Sanders (I-VT) with Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), C. L. Otter (R-Idaho), and Ron Paul (R-Texas) proposed an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill of 2005 which would cut off funding to the アメリカ司法省 for searches conducted under Section 215. The amendment initially failed to pass the House with a tie vote, 210–210. Although the original vote came down in favor of the amendment, the vote was held open and several House members were persuaded to change their votes. [1]

2005年6月15日, a second attempt to limit Section 215 was successful in the House of Representatives. The House voted 238-187 in favor of the Sanders amendment to an appropriations bill. The Sanders amendment prevents the funds provided by the bill from being used by the FBI and the Justice Department to search library and book store records as authorized by Section 215 of FISA. This vote was misreported in many media outlets as a vote against Section 215.[16]

The Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE) is legislation proposed by Senators Larry Craig (R-ID), John Sununu (R-NH) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) which would add checks and balances to the Act. This legislation, which was introduced in the アメリカ合衆国下院 on 2005年4月6日, would curtail some powers of the Act by requiring court reviews and reporting requirements.

司法 [編集]

Section 805 ruled vague [編集]

2004年1月23日, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins ruled that Section 805 (which classifies "expert advice or assistance" as material support to terrorism) was vague, but did not violate the First or Fifth Amendment. The ruling was one of the first legal decisions to set a part of the Act aside.[17] The lawsuit against the act was brought by the Humanitarian Law Project, representing five organizations and two U.S. citizens who wanted to provide expert advice to Kurdish refugees in Turkey. Groups providing aid to these organizations had suspended their activities for fear of violating the Act, and they filed a lawsuit against the Departments of Justice and State to challenge the law, claiming the phrase "expert advice or assistance" was too vague.[18]

Collins granted the plaintiff's motion that "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague, but denied a nationwide injunction against the provision. The plaintiffs were granted "enjoinment" from enforcement of the provision.

ACLU対アシュクロフト事件 [編集]

詳細は「:en:American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft (2004)」を参照

2004年4月9日、アメリカ自由人権協会 filed a lawsuit challenging the national security letter (NSL)[2] provisions of 1986年電子通信プライバシー法, which allows the 連邦捜査局長官 (or a designee not below Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI) to obtain customer records from phone and Internet companies in terrorism investigations. The ACLU successfully argued that phone companies and インターネットサービスプロバイダ should be able to disclose receiving a subpoena from the Director of the FBI, and that doing so outweighs the Director's need for secrecy in counter-terrorism investigations. The Act is only affected indirectly by this lawsuit because the case is about a terrorism investigation and the Act extends the use of NSLs to non-terrorism investigations, but the ACLU's argument would apply to investigations of both types.

2004年8月30日、アメリカ自由人権協会 ran a $1.52 million ad campaign against the Act. The ad claimed, "So the government can search your house... My house... Our house... Without notifying us. Treating us all like suspects. It's part of the USA PATRIOT Act."

2004年9月29日、連邦地裁のビクター・マレロ判事は、Section 505―which allowed the government to issue "National Security Letters" to obtain sensitive customer records from インターネットサービスプロバイダs and other businesses without judicial oversight―アメリカ合衆国憲法修正条項第1条及び第4条に違反する The court also found the broad gag provision in the law to be an "unconstitutional prior restraint" on free speech, so it was turned down.[3]

Since the ruling, Congress has amended Section 505, codified at 18 U.S.C. 2709. On appeal, the case was dismissed as moot.

州及び地方の抵抗 [編集]

8州（アラスカ州、カリフォルニア州、コロラド州、ハワイ州、アイダホ州、メイン州、モンタナ州、バーモント州）と396の市及び郡（ニューヨーク、ロサンゼルス、ダラス、シカゴ、ユージーン、フィラデルフィア、ケンブリッジを含む） have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties. Arcata, California was the first city to pass an ordinance that bars city employees (including police and librarians) from assisting or cooperating with any federal investigations under the Act that would violate civil liberties (Nullification). 権利章典防衛委員会 is helping coordinate local efforts to pass resolutions. Pundits question the validity of these ordinances, noting that under the Constitution's supremacy clause, federal law overrides state and local laws. However, others have opined that the federal employees, in using such procedures for investigations, violate the Constitution's clauses in the fourth amendment, and in these cases, the Constitution overrides the USA PATRIOT Act's provisions.

世論 [編集]

2002年の1月では47％のアメリカ人はたとえ市民の自由が減少しても政府にテロの減少を求めていた。By November 2003 this number had dropped to 31%2003年11月にはこの数字は31％に落ち込み、, indicating increasing concern about expanding government powers and/or reduced fear of terrorism. From 2003 to 2004, nearly a quarter of all Americans felt that the Act went too far, while most felt that it was either just right or did not go far enough. By 2005, the people polled were statistically divided half and half for and against the Act. This may be a result of the fact that the public had lost support for the President and his policies. Along with the dip in the approval rating of President Bush and the 103rd Congress was a dip in the approval of the policies that went along with them. People became fed up with the War in Iraq in the next few years and began to oppose more and more policies that removed civil liberties at the cost of possibly catching a terrorist.

At the same time, only half of the people polled claimed to know some of the provisions of the Act. After the 2004 elections, the number of people claiming to know some of the provisions fell sharply.

ギャラップ社による世論調査の統計[4][5][6]:

Does the USA PATRIOT Act go too far?
Date Too Far Not Too Far*
25 August-26 August 2003 22% 69%
10 November-12 November 2003 25% 65%
16 February-17 February 2004 26% 64%
13 April-16 April 2005 45% 49%
*Responded as it is a Necessary Tool, About Right, or Not Far Enough
What do you know about the USA PATRIOT Act?
Date A Lot Some Not Much Nothing
25 August-26 August 2003 10% 40% 25% 25%
10 November-12 November 2003 12% 41% 25% 22%
16 February-17 February 2004 13% 46% 27% 14%
13 April-16 April 2005 13% 28% 28% 29%
6 January-8 January 2006 17% 59% 18% 6%

期限切れと延長 [編集]

Under section 224, several of the surveillance portions (200-level sections) of the Act were originally to expire on December 31, 2005. The date was later extended to February 3, 2006. This extension was later extended again to March 10, 2006. The sunset provision excludes investigations that began before the expiration date. Those investigations may continue with the original Act's full powers.

The United States Senate voted to renew the Act on March 2 2006. On March 7 2006, the House gave its final vote in approval of renewing the act. [7] The legislation to extend the statute will make all but two of its provisions permanent. The provisions in question are the authority to conduct "roving" surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the authority to request production of business records under FISA (USA PATRIOT Act sections 206 and 215, respectively). These provisions will expire in 4 years.

Bush signed the reauthorization of the Act on March 9, 2006. After the public ceremony, he issued a "signing statement" to the effect that he would not feel bound to comply with some of the provisions of the law if they conflicted with other Constitutional laws. [8] This statement, though common throughout his Presidency, has been negatively covered by the media [9] and criticized for an apparent intention to withhold information that the Act required him to provide to Congress. [10]

Provisions that would expire (original version) [編集]

  • §201. Authority To Intercept Wire, Oral, And Electronic Communications Relating To Terrorism.
  • §202. Authority To Intercept Wire, Oral, And Electronic Communications Relating To Computer Fraud And Abuse Offenses.
  • §203(b), (d). Authority To Share Criminal Investigative Information.
  • §206. Roving Surveillance Authority Under The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Of 1978.
  • §207. Duration Of FISA Surveillance Of Non-United States Persons Who Are Agents Of A Foreign Power.
  • §209. Seizure Of Voice-Mail Messages Pursuant To Warrants.
  • §212. Emergency Disclosure Of Electronic Communications To Protect Life And Limb.
  • §214. Pen Register And Trap And Trace Authority Under FISA.
  • §215. Access To Records And Other Items Under FISA.
  • §217. Interception Of Computer Trespasser Communications.
  • §218. Foreign Intelligence Information. (Lowers standard of evidence for FISA warrants.)
  • §220. Nationwide Service Of Search Warrants For Electronic Evidence.
  • §223. Civil liability For Certain Unauthorized Disclosures.
  • §224. Sunset. (self-cancelling)
  • §225. Immunity For Compliance With FISA Wiretap.

Provisions that are permanent (original version) [編集]

議会での動き [編集]

2005年6月10日, during testimony at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the reauthorization of the Act, Chairman James Sensenbrenner,R-Wisconsin (one of the Act's authors) abruptly gaveled the proceedings to a close after Congressional Democrats and their witnesses launched into a broad denunciations of the War on Terror and the condition of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. In frustration, Sensenbrenner declared, "We ought to stick to the subject. The USA PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with Guantanamo Bay. The USA PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with enemy combatants. The USA PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with indefinite detentions." He then gaveled the meeting to a close and walked out with the gavel. However, Congressman Jerrold Nadler and other witnesses continued speaking despite Sensenbrenner's departure, and C-SPAN cameras continued to roll after microphones in the hearing room had been turned off. [11]

同年6月21日, the House of Representatives passed HR3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005, which would have removed certain sunset clauses entirely rather than renewing them or allowing them to be enacted. The act was introduced by Representative Sensenbrenner.

12月16日, the Senate refused to end debate on legislation to renew the Act. The Senate fell seven votes short of invoking closure on the matter, leaving the future of the Act in doubt. The vote went as follows: Fifty Republicans as well as two Democrats voted unsuccessfully to end debate; Five Republicans, 41 Democrats and one independent voted to block.

12月21日, the U.S. Senate came to a bipartisan agreement (S.2167) to extend by six months the expiring provisions of the Act. Under House rules, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner had the authority to block enactment of the six-month extension. On the following day, December 22 2005, the House rejected the six-month extension and voted for a one-month extension, which the U.S. Senate subsequently approved later that night. Pending President Bush's signature, the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act will remain in effect until February 3, 2006.

2006年2月17日, ワシントン・タイムスはこう報じた。

"先週, Republican Sens. John E. Sununu of ニューハンプシャー, Larry E. Craig of アイダホ, Lisa Murkowski of アラスカ and Chuck Hagel of ネブラスカ, all dropped their opposition to the bill after modifications were made that they said appeased their concerns about protecting civil liberties." [12]

Comparisons to historical laws and official acts [編集]

The Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State (Reichstag Fire Decree) and subsequent Enabling Act that empowered Adolf Hitler to seize control of Germany are often compared to the USA PATRIOT Act.[13] The similarities are that both were passed after an act of terrorism, both were passed quickly, both limited civil liberties with the expressed purpose of protecting the people, and both were used in excess of their expressed purpose. The English translation of Article 1 of the DRPPPS states that the decree intends "...to restrict the rights to personal freedom, freedom of speech, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of letters, mail, telegraphs and telephones, order searches and confiscations and restrict property, even if this is not otherwise provided for by present law." The USA Patriot Act is not as explicit about its intentions, often wording the act in terms of what civil liberties and safeguards people have left.
The Reichstag Fire Decree differs from the USA PATRIOT Act in that the DRPPPS more explicitly seizes states rights and associates the death penalty with many offenses. Additionally, some of the USA PATRIOT Act originally had a sunset provision, whereas the set expiration date of the Enabling Act was dependent upon a succession of power, and the DRPPPS did not have a set expiration date. The USA PATRIOT Act and the Enabling Act were both passed by a freely elected Congress, whereas the DRPPPS was a "emergency decree" by the German president made at the behest of Chancellor Hitler.
Although the USA PATRIOT Act differs in some respects, the Reichstag Fire Decree and subsequent Enabling Act are cited as examples of how giving up civil liberties in times of crisis can be used to legally overthrow a government's constitution from within.
  • The Sedition Act of 1918 is sometimes compared to the USA PATRIOT Act because of the latter's perceived chilling effect on free speech. However, the Sedition Act had the explicit and specific purpose of quelling anti-government speech while the nation was at war. The Sedition Act was repealed in 1921.
The AEDPA is the direct predecessor of the USA PATRIOT Act and contains many provisions that were maintained and expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act, including those relating to terrorism, FISA, immigration, and so on. See David Cole's book, listed below in the critics section.
  • COINTELPRO is thought of as similar to the USA PATRIOT Act in that it was allowed because of fear of an enemy (the Soviet Union in this case) and permitted actions that would not be acceptable during peacetime. The primary similarity in content was that invasion of privacy could be carried out in secrecy without probable cause if the investigator felt that it was necessary for national security.[14]

関連項目 [編集]

英語版記事

注釈 [編集]

  1. ^ 米国法令の日本語表記や条文の日本語訳は原則として次のものによった。 平野美惠子、土屋恵司、中川かおり (Nov. 2002). “米国愛国者法 (反テロ法) (上)”. 外国の立法 (国立国会図書館) (214): オンライン版. ISSN 1349-2071. http://www.ndl.go.jp/jp/data/publication/legis/214/21401.pdf.  平野美惠子、土屋恵司、中川かおり (Feb. 2003). “米国愛国者法 (反テロ法) (下)”. 外国の立法 (国立国会図書館) (215): オンライン版. ISSN 1349-2071. http://www.ndl.go.jp/jp/data/publication/legis/215/21501.pdf. 
  2. ^ Department of Justice Web site
  3. ^ 米司法省：前政権のテロ対策メモ公開「秘密主義」浮き彫り毎日jp2009年3月3日
  4. ^ Abramson, Larry. "The Patriot Act: Alleged Abuses of the Law." NPR.org. July 20, 2005. Retrieved April 9, 2007.
  5. ^ Reardon, Marguerite and Declan McCullagh. "ACLU Challenges Patriot Act". News.com, November 2, 2005. Retrieved on April 9, 2007.
  6. ^ http://judiciary.house.gov/Printshop.aspx?Section=232
  7. ^ "Senate gives Patriot Act six more months". CNN.com, December 22, 2005. Retrieved April 9, 2007.
  8. ^ "SAFE Act Co-Sponsors say PATRIOT Act Conference Report Unacceptable."
  9. ^ http://talkleft.com/new_archives/000279.html
  10. ^ Rights Groups Fight Vague Basis of ‘Sneak and Peak’ Powers
  11. ^ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/10/MN14634.DTL
  12. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/politics/26patriot.html
  13. ^ http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/usdojgov/www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2004/ag_successes_110904.htm Working to Keep America Safer
  14. ^ http://www.aclu.org/natsec/warpowers/21261prs20051107.html
  15. ^ http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s1552.html
  16. ^ http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.html?day=20050615
  17. ^ http://files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/hlpash12304ord.pdf
  18. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/27/patriot.act/

外部リンク・参考文献 [編集]

すべて英語

ウィキソースにUSA PATRIOT Actの原文があります。

政府資料 [編集]

  • The Act began as House Resolution (H.R.) 3162.

賛成意見 [編集]

反対意見 [編集]

その他 [編集]

法律研究資料 [編集]

関連書籍 [編集]

  • Cole, Dave, and James X. Dempsey. Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2002. ISBN 1-56584-782-2. (Full discussion of prior legislative history of the Act, going back more than ten years.)
  • Mailman, Stanley, Jeralyn E. Merritt, Theresa M. B. Van Vliet, and Stephen Yale-Loehr. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot Act) Act of 2001: An Analysis. Newark, NJ and San Francisco, CA: Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. (a member of the LexisNexis Group), 2002. (Rel.1-3/02 Pub. 1271) ("An expert analysis of the significant changes in the new USA Patriot Act of 2001 [which]...track[s] the legislation by section, explaining both the changes and their potential impact with respect to: enhanced surveillance procedures;money laundering and financial crimes; protecting the border; investigation of terrorism; information sharing among federal and state authorities; enhanced criminal laws and penalties for terrorism offenses, and more.")
  • Michaels, C. William. No Greater Threat: America Since September 11 and the Rise of the National Security State. Algora Publishing, 2002. ISBN 0-87586-155-5. (Covers all ten titles of the USA PATRIOT Act; an updated version, including discussion of amendments and complements to the Act, is just completed but not yet available.)
  • Van Bergen, Jennifer. The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America. Common Courage Press, 2004. ISBN 1-56751-292-5. (A constitutional analysis for the general public of the USA PATRIOT Act and other administrative measures, with the first half of the book spent on principles of democracy and constitutional law.)
  • Brasch, Walter. America's Unpatriotic Acts: The Federal Government's Violation of Constitutional and Civil Rights. Peter Lang Publishing , 2005. ISBN 0820476080 (A long list of civil rights abuse claims by the Bush Administration inside the United States and other countries.)
  • Kam C. Wong, "The Impact of USA Patriot Act on American Society: An Evidence Based Assessment" (N.Y.: Nova Press, 2007) (In print)
  • Kam C. Wong, "The Making of USA Patriot Act: Legislation, Implementation, Impact" (Beijing: China Law Press, 2007) (In print)
執筆の途中です この「米国愛国者法」は、アメリカ合衆国に関連した書きかけ項目です。この記事を加筆・訂正などして下さる協力者を求めています（P:北アメリカ/PJアメリカ合衆国）。
執筆の途中です この「米国愛国者法」は、法分野に属する書きかけ項目です。この記事を加筆・訂正などして下さる協力者を求めています（P:法学/PJ法学）。
「http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=米国愛国者法&oldid=47892035」から取得