|Stat.||115 Stat. 272 (2001)|
2001年の米国愛国者法（英: The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001）は、2001年10月26日、ジョージ・W・ブッシュ大統領によって署名され、発効したアメリカ合衆国の議会制定法である。法律の頭字語の10文字（USA PATRIOT）は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)を意味する。通常は愛国者法（英: the Patriot Act）と呼ばれる。
- 1 概要
- 2 経緯
- 3 詳細
- 4 背景
- 5 構成
- 6 再認証
- 7 条項
- 8 措置
- 9 米国愛国者法を制限しようとする動き
- 10 世論
- 11 期限切れと延長
- 12 議会での動き
- 13 Comparisons to historical laws and official acts
- 14 論争
- 15 関連項目
- 16 注釈
- 17 外部リンク・参考文献
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。
愛国者法は多くのアメリカの法律に変化を与えた。重要な法律には、1978年の外国情報活動監視法（Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978、FISA）、1986年の電子通信におけるプライバシー保護法（Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986、ECPA）、1986年の資金洗浄規制法（Money Laundering Control Act of 1986）、1970年の銀行秘密法（Bank Secrecy Act of 1970、BSA）、と1952年の移民国籍法（Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952）がある。愛国者法それ自体は9月11日のニューヨーク市とペンタゴンに対する攻撃によるものである。これらの攻撃のあと、司法省が2001年の反テロリズム法（Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001）と呼ばれる法案を提出する前に、議会はただちにテロリスト対策の法案を作成するために動きだした。この法案は2001年の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ための法律（the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001）として下院に提出され、のちにアメリカを統合し強化するための法（the Uniting and Strengthening America (USA) Act）H.R. 2975として10月12日に下院を通過した。 そしてそれはラス・ファインゴールド上院議員が提案した多くの修正が加えられたあと、上院にUSA法'（'the USA Act、S. 1510）、として提出され、それらはすべて通過した。法案は最終的に、米国愛国者法（the USA PATRIOT Act）として10月23日に下院に提出され、 下院2975号法案H.R. 2975、上院1510号法案S. 1510と下院3004号決議（2001年の反金融テロリズム法、the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001、H.R. 3004）の多くの条文と併合された。 それはラス・ファインゴールド上院議員ただひとりだけが激しく抵抗し、反対票を投じた。パトリック・リーヒ上院議員もまたいくつかの懸念を表明した。 しかしながら、反対する者も批判する者も法案の大部分は必要なものであると考えていた。 最終的な法案には、2005年の12月15日の日没に期限を迎える多くの条項が含まれていた。
論争のために数多くの法案は通過しなかったが、それらは米国愛国者法の改正を提案した。これらのなかには個人の権利を保護するための法律（Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act）、ベンジャミン・フランクリン真実の愛国者法（Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act）や安全保障と自由を守るための法律（Security and Freedom Ensured Act、SAFE）が含まれる。2003年1月下旬、社会の健全性のためのセンターの創設者であるチャールズ・ルイスは、政府が成立を目指していた2003年の国内の安全保障の充実を図るための法律、Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003のコピーを暴露した。この大いに議論となった書類はすぐに、メディアや電子フロンティア財団のような組織によって「第2の愛国者法」または「愛国者法の息子」とに呼ばれた。 法案の内容は司法省の10の部門にわたり、さらに米国愛国者法の改善と拡大を提案していた。 司法省はそれがただの法案であり、さらなる提案は含まれていないと主張したが、それは幅広く非難された。
第1章はテロリズムを予防するため、国内の安全保障の対処能力を向上させることを目的とするものである。この章によって、FBIが所轄するテロリズム活動対策とテロリストを識別するための本部を設置するための基金が設けられた。司法長官による要求があったとき、大量破壊兵器が関わる状況において、軍が支援を提供することが認められた。テロリズムが発生した場合において、大統領の権限とともに、国家電子犯罪タスクフォース（The National Electronic Crime Task Force）の権限が拡大された。この章はまた、9月11日のテロリストによる攻撃の直後に、アラブ人やムスリムのアメリカ人を差別するものであると非難された。さきの法案で多くの条項のきっかけとなり、差別の非難となった一例は、かたちは違っていたが、トム・ハーキン上院議員(D-IA)がもともと提案した2001年のテロリズム退治法（the Combatting Terrorism Act of 2001）による修正である。それはもともと「ニューヨーク市、ワシントンD.C.とペンシルベニアで起こったテロリストによるハイジャックと攻撃の直後に行われた、2001年9月12日のミサにおけるわが国と犠牲者のためのワシントン大司教区のセオドア・マキャリック枢機卿の祈りは、すべてのアメリカ人に『我々は犯人を探し出し、無辜の民を傷つけてはならず、また我々は道徳を欠き、正しい道に導こうとしないような人々のようになってはならないことを思い起こさせる』」という表現を含んでいた。特定の人種に対するさらなる中傷や暴力への非難もまた、第10章において、9月11日のテロリストによる攻撃後に、ムスリムと間違えられ、そのような行為への非難があったシク教徒のアメリカ人の例が詳細に説明されている。
第2章は「監視手続きの改善」と題され、コンピューターを利用した不正または悪用行為を行うテロリストの疑いがある人物や外国勢力の秘密活動と関係のあるエージェントへの監視におけるすべての観点を網羅している。それは先に制定されていた外国情報活動監視法との電子通信におけるプライバシー保護法を改正するものであり、米国愛国者法で論争となったほとんどの多くはこの章によるものである。特に、この章は政府の組織によるアメリカ人と非アメリカ人への「外国の諜報機関の情報」の収集を許可し、 外国情報活動監視法による外国の諜報機関の情報の獲得を、以前は初歩的な目的だったが、重要な目的に変化させた。定義の変化は、犯罪の捜査と外国の諜報機関の監視が重なったとき、犯罪の捜査と外国の諜報機関の情報を収集するための監視との間の法的な「壁」を取り除くことを意味した。 しかしながら、外国情報活動監視再審裁判所が明らかにした、長く続いてきた政府の組織による誤った解釈が実際に存在していることによってこの壁はそれでも存在していることが分かった。Also removed was the statutory requirement that the government prove a surveillance target under FISA is a non-U.S. citizen and agent of a foreign power, though it did require that any investigations must not be undertaken on citizens who are carrying out activities protected by the First Amendment.この章はまた、外国情報活動監視法の物理的な捜索と監視の命令の期間を延長し、また他の組織や連邦大陪審の前に、当局が収集された情報を共有する能力を与えた。
範囲と盗聴の可用性と監視の命令は第2章によって拡大された。パケット通信ネットワークの監視によって監視対象の位置と経路を特定することが可能になり、電子プライバシー情報センター（EPIC）はこれに反対するため、それがしばしばアドレスの情報が含まれる電子メールやホームページのアドレスに配慮していないと主張した。愛国者法はアメリカのすべて地方の裁判所の裁判官にそのような監視の命令とテロリズムの捜査のための令状を出すことを可能にした。捜査令状は愛国者法の第3章の蓄積された通信へのアクセス法（Stored Communications Access Act）によって拡大され、FBIは捜査令状を通じて捜査のために蓄積されたボイスメールにアクセスすることが可能になり、より厳しい盗聴のための法律よりもむしろ踏み込んだものとなった。
法執行機関は様々な条項によって電子通信の公開することが可能になった。それらの「保護されたコンピュータ」を操作または所持する人はコンピュータを操作することによって通信を傍受しする当局に権限を認め、こうして盗聴のために求められる法律は簡素化された。 「保護されたコンピュータ」の定義は合衆国法典第18編1030条(e)項(2) で定義され、国際的または外国との商取引において広く利用されているそのようなコンピュータは、アメリカ国外に存在するものも含まれる。愛国者法は、ケーブルテレビ局に、合衆国法典第18章の電子機器による監視の情報の公開（第119章）、電子登録と盗聴と追跡のための装置（第206章）、蓄積された通信記録（第121章）に基づいた、顧客との通信の義務的および自主的な情報の公開を、登録された利用者の視聴習慣の情報の公開は除外されているが、求めている。
|202||Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses|
|203(b)||Authority to share electronic, wire and oral interception information|
|204||Clarification of intelligence exceptions from limitations on interception and disclosure of wire, oral, and electronic communications|
|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 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.|
|217||Interception of computer trespasser communications|
|218||Foreign intelligence information|
|220||Nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence|
|223||Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures|
|225||Immunity for compliance with FISA wiretap|
Title III of the Act, titled "International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001," is intended to facilitate the prevention, detection and prosecution of international money laundering and the financing of terrorism. It primarily amends portions of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 (MLCA) and the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA). It was divided into three subtitles, with the first dealing primarily with strengthening banking rules against money laundering, especially on the international stage. The second attempts to improve communication between law enforcement agencies and financial institutions, as well as expanding record keeping and reporting requirements. The third subtitle deals with currency smuggling and counterfeiting, including quadrupling the maximum penalty for counterfeiting foreign currency.
The first subtitle tightened the record keeping requirements for financial institutions, making them record the aggregate amounts of transactions processed from areas of the world where money laundering is a concern to the U.S. government. It also made institutions put into place reasonable steps to identify beneficial owners of bank accounts and those who are authorized to use or route funds through payable-through accounts. The U.S. Treasury was charged with formulating regulations intended to foster information sharing between financial institutions to prevent money-laundering. Along with expanding record keeping requirements it put new regulations into place to make it easier for authorities to identify money laundering activities and to make it harder for money launderers to mask their identities. If money laundering was uncovered, the subtitle legislated for the forfeiture of assets of those suspected of doing the money laundering. In an effort to encourage institutions to take steps that would reduce money laundering, the Treasury was given authority to block mergers of bank holding companies and banks with other banks and bank holding companies that had a bad history of preventing money laundering. Similarly, mergers between insured depository institutions and non-insured depository institutions that have a bad track record in combating money-laundering could be blocked.
Restrictions were placed on accounts and foreign banks. It prohibited shell banks that are not an affiliate of a bank that has a physical presence in the U.S. or that are not subject to supervision by a banking authority in a non-U.S. country. It also prohibits or restricts the use of certain accounts held at financial institutions. Financial institutions must now undertake steps to identify the owners of any privately owned bank outside the U.S. who have a correspondent account with them, along with the interests of each of the owners in the bank. It is expected that additional scrutiny will be applied by the U.S. institution to such banks to make sure they are not engaging in money laundering. Banks must identify all the nominal and beneficial owners of any private bank account opened and maintained in the U.S. by non-U.S. citizens. There is also an expectation that they must undertake enhanced scrutiny of the account if it is owned by, or is being maintained on behalf of, any senior political figure where there is reasonable suspicion of corruption. Any deposits made from within the U.S. into foreign banks are now deemed to have been deposited into any interbank account the foreign bank may have in the U.S. Thus any restraining order, seizure warrant or arrest warrant may be made against the funds in the interbank account held at a U.S. financial institution, up to the amount deposited in the account at the foreign bank. Restrictions were placed on the use of internal bank concentration accounts because such accounts do not provide an effective audit trail for transactions, and this may be used to facilitate money laundering. Financial institutions are prohibited from allowing clients to specifically direct them to move funds into, out of, or through a concentration account, and they are also prohibited from informing their clients about the existence of such accounts. Financial institutions are not allowed to provide any information to clients that may identify such internal accounts. Financial institutions are required to document and follow methods of identifying where the funds are for each customer in a concentration account that co-mingles funds belonging to one or more customers.
The definition of money laundering was expanded to include making a financial transaction in the U.S. in order to commit a violent crime; the bribery of public officials and fraudulent dealing with public funds; the smuggling or illegal export of controlled munition and the importation or bringing in of any firearm or ammunition not authorized by the U.S. Attorney General and the smuggling of any item controlled under the Export Administration Regulations. It also includes any offense where the U.S. would be obligated under a mutual treaty with a foreign nation to extradite a person, or where the U.S. would need to submit a case against a person for prosecution because of the treaty; the import of falsely classified goods; computer crime; and any felony violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. It also allows the forfeiture of any property within the jurisdiction of the United States that was gained as the result of an offense against a foreign nation that involves the manufacture, importation, sale, or distribution of a controlled substance. Foreign nations may now seek to have a forfeiture or judgment notification enforced by a district court of the United States. This is done through new legislation that specifies how the U.S. government may apply for a restraining order to preserve the availability of property which is subject to a foreign forfeiture or confiscation judgement. In taking into consideration such an application, emphasis is placed on the ability of a foreign court to follow due process. The Act also requires the Secretary of Treasury to take all reasonable steps to encourage foreign governments make it a requirement to include the name of the originator in wire transfer instructions sent to the United States and other countries, with the information to remain with the transfer from its origination until the point of disbursement. The Secretary was also ordered to encourage international cooperation in investigations of money laundering, financial crimes, and the finances of terrorist groups.
The Act also introduced criminal penalties for corrupt officialdom. An official or employee of the government who acts corruptly—as well as the person who induces the corrupt act—in the carrying out of their official duties will be fined by an amount that is not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the bribe in question. Alternatively they may be imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or they may be fined and imprisoned. Penalties apply to financial institutions who do not comply with an order to terminate any corresponding accounts within 10 days of being so ordered by the Attorney General or the Secretary of Treasury. The financial institution can be fined $US10,000 for each day the account remains open after the 10 day limit has expired.
The second annotation made a number of modifications to the BSA in an attempt to make it harder for money launderers to operate and easier for law enforcement and regulatory agencies to police money laundering operations. One amendment made to the BSA was to allow the designated officer or agency who receives suspicious activity reports to notify U.S. intelligence agencies. A number of amendments were made to address issues related to record keeping and financial reporting. One measure was a new requirement that anyone who does business file a report for any coin and foreign currency receipts that are over US$10,000 and made it illegal to structure transactions in a manner that evades the BSA's reporting requirements. To make it easier for authorities to regulate and investigate anti-money laundering operations Money Services Businesses (MSBs)—those who operate informal value transfer systems outside of the mainstream financial system—were included in the definition of a financial institution. The BSA was amended to make it mandatory to report suspicious transactions and an attempt was made to make such reporting easier for financial institutions. FinCEN was made a bureau of the United States Department of Treasury and the creation of a secure network to be used by financial institutions to report suspicious transactions and to provide alerts of relevant suspicious activities was ordered. Along with these reporting requirements, a considerable number of provisions relate to the prevention and prosecution of money-laundering. Financial institutions were ordered to establish anti-money laundering programs and the BSA was amended to better define anti-money laundering strategy. Also increased were civil and criminal penalties for money laundering and the introduction of penalties for violations of geographic targeting orders and certain record-keeping requirements. A number of other amendments to the BSA were made through subtitle B, including granting the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System power to authorize personnel to act as law enforcement officers to protect the premises, grounds, property and personnel of any U.S. National reserve bank and allowing the Board to delegate this authority to U.S. Federal reserve bank. Another measure instructed United States Executive Directors of international financial institutions to use their voice and vote to support any country that has taken action to support the U.S.'s War on Terrorism. Executive Directors are now required to provide ongoing auditing of disbursements made from their institutions to ensure that no funds are paid to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism.
The third subtitle deals with currency crimes. Largely because of the effectiveness of the BSA, money launders had been avoiding traditional financial institutions to launder money and were using cash-based businesses to avoid them. A new effort was made to stop the laundering of money through bulk currency movements, mainly focusing on the confiscation of criminal proceeds and the increase in penalties for money laundering. Congress found that a criminal offense of merely evading the reporting of money transfers was insufficient and decided that it would be better if the smuggling of the bulk currency itself was the offense. Therefore, the BSA was amended to make it a criminal offense to evade currency reporting by concealing more than US$10,000 on any person or through any luggage, merchandise or other container that moves into or out of the U.S. The penalty for such an offense is up to 5 years imprisonment and the forfeiture of any property up to the amount that was being smuggled. It also made the civil and criminal penalty violations of currency reporting cases be the forfeiture of all a defendant's property that was involved in the offense, and any property traceable to the defendant. The Act prohibits and penalizes those who run unlicensed money transmitting businesses. In 2005, this provision of the USA PATRIOT Act was used to prosecute Yehuda Abraham for helping to arrange money transfers for British arms dealer Hermant Lakhani, who was arrested in August 2003 after being caught in a government sting. Lakhani had tried to sell a missile to an FBI agent posing as a Somali militant. The definition of counterfeiting was expanded to encompass analog, digital or electronic image reproductions, and it was made an offense to own such a reproduction device. Penalties were increased to 20 years imprisonment. Money laundering "unlawful activities" was expanded to include the provision of material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations. The Act specifies that anyone who commits or conspires to undertake a fraudulent activity outside the jurisdiction of the United States, and which would be an offense in the U.S., will be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1029, which deals with fraud and related activity in connection with access devices.
Title IV amends the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to give more law enforcement and investigative power to the United States Attorney General and to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The Attorney General was authorized to waive any cap on the number of full-time employees (FTEs) assigned to the INS on the Northern border of the United States. Enough funds were set aside to triple the maximum number of Border Patrol personnel, Customs Service personnel and INS inspectors along with an additional US$50,000,000 funding for the INS and the U.S. Customs Service to improve technology for monitoring the Northern Border and acquiring additional equipment at the Canadian northern border. The INS was also given the authority to authorize overtime payments of up to an extra US$30,000 a year to INS employees. Access was given to the Department of State and the INS to criminal background information contained in the National Crime Information Center's Interstate Identification Index (NCIC-III), Wanted Persons File and any other files maintained by the National Crime Information Center to determine whether visa applicants and applicants could be admitted to the U.S. The Department of State was required to form final regulations governing the procedures for taking fingerprints and the conditions with which the department was allowed to use this information. Additionally, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was ordered to develop a technology standard to verify the identity of persons applying for a United States visa. The reason was to make the standard the technology basis for a cross-agency, cross-platform electronic system used for conducting background checks, confirming identities and ensuring that people have not received visas under different names. This report was released on November 13, 2002, however, according to NIST, this was later "determined that the fingerprint system used was not as accurate as current state-of-the-art fingerprint systems and is approximately equivalent to commercial fingerprint systems available in 1998." This report was later superseded by section 303(a) of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002.
Under subtitle C, various definitions relating to terrorism were altered and expanded. The INA was retroactively amended to disallow aliens who are part of or representatives of a foreign organization or any group who endorses acts of terrorism from entering the U.S. This restriction also included the family of such aliens. The definition of "terrorist activity" was strengthened to include actions involving the use of any dangerous device (and not just explosives and firearms). To "engage in terrorist activity" is defined as committing, inciting to commit or planning and preparing to undertake an act of terrorism. Included in this definition is the gathering of intelligence information on potential terrorist targets, the solicitation of funds for a terrorist organization or the solicitation of others to undertake acts of terrorism. Those who provide knowing assistance to a person who is planning to perform such activities are defined as undertaking terrorist activities. Such assistance includes affording material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training to perform the terrorist act. The INA criteria for making a decision to designate an organization as a terrorist organization was amended to include the definition of a terrorist act. Though the amendments to these definitions are retroactive, it does not mean that it can be applied to members who joined an organization, but since left, before it was designated to be a terrorist organization under 8 U.S.C. § 1189 by the Secretary of State.
The Act amended the INA to add new provisions enforcing mandatory detention laws. These apply to any alien who is engaged in terrorism, or who is engaged in an activity that endangers U.S. national security. It also applies to those who are inadmissible or who must be deported because it is certified they are attempting to enter to undertake illegal espionage; are exporting goods, technology, or sensitive information illegally; or are attempting to control or overthrow the government; or have, or will have, engaged in terrorist activities. The Attorney General or the Attorney General's deputy may maintain custody of such aliens until they are removed from the U.S., unless it is no longer deemed they should be removed, in which case they are released. The alien can be detained for up to 90 days but can be held up to six months after it is deemed that they are a national security threat. However, the alien must be charged with a crime or removal proceedings start no longer than seven days after the alien's detention, otherwise the alien will be released. However, such detentions must be reviewed every six months by the Attorney General, who can then decide to revoke it, unless prevented from doing so by law. Every six months the alien may apply, in writing, for the certification to be reconsidered. Judicial review of any action or decision relating to this section, including judicial review of the merits of a certification, can be held under habeas corpus proceedings. Such proceedings can be initiated by an application filed with the United States Supreme Court, by any justice of the Supreme Court, by any circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, or by any district court otherwise having jurisdiction to entertain the application. The final order is subject to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Provisions were also made for a report to be required every six months of such decisions from the U.S. Attorney General to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.
A sense of Congress was given that the U.S. Secretary of State should expedite the full implementation of the integrated entry and exit data system for airports, seaports, and land border ports of entry specified in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). They also found that the U.S. Attorney General should immediately start the Integrated Entry and Exit Data System Task Force specified in section 3 of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 2000. Congress wanted the primary focus of development of the entry-exit data system was to be on the utilization of biometric technology and the development of tamper-resistant documents readable at ports of entry. They also wanted the system to be able to interface with existing law enforcement databases. The Attorney General was ordered to implement and expand the foreign student monitoring program that was established under section 641(a) of the IIRIRA. which records the date and port of entry of each foreign student. The program was expanded to include other approved educational institutions, including air flight schools, language training schools or vocational schools that are approved by the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of State. US$36,800,000 was appropriated for the Department of Justice to spend on implementing the program.
The Secretary of State was ordered to audit and report back to Congress on the Visa waiver program specified under 8 U.S.C. § 1187 for each fiscal year until September 30, 2007. The Secretary was also ordered to check for the implementation of precautionary measures to prevent the counterfeiting and theft of passports as well as ascertain that countries designated under the visa waiver program have established a program to develop tamper-resistant passports. The Secretary was also ordered to report back to Congress on whether consulate shopping was a problem.
The last subtitle, which was introduced by Senators John Conyers and Patrick Leahy, allows for the preservation of immigration benefits for victims of terrorism, and the families of victims of terrorism. They recognized that some families, through no fault of their own, would either be ineligible for permanent residence in the United States because of being unable to make important deadlines because of the September 11 terrorist attacks, or had become ineligible to apply for special immigration status because their loved one died in the attacks.
It allows the U.S. Attorney General to pay rewards pursuant of advertisements for assistance to the Department of Justice to combat terrorism and prevent terrorist acts, though amounts over $US250,000 may not be made or offered without the personal approval of the Attorney General or President, and once the award is approved the Attorney General must give written notice to the Chairman and ranking minority members of the Committee on Appropriations and the Judiciary of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. The State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 was amended to allow the Department of State to offer rewards, in consultation with the Attorney General, for the full or significant dismantling of any terrorist organization and to identify any key leaders of terrorist organizations. The Secretary of State was given authority to pay greater than $US5 million if he so determines it would prevent terrorist actions against the United States and Canada. The DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act was amended to include terrorism or crimes of violence in the list of qualifying Federal offenses. Another perceived obstacle was to allow Federal agencies to share information with Federal law enforcement agencies. Thus, the act now allows Federal officers who acquire information through electronic surveillance or physical searches to consult with Federal law enforcement officers to coordinate efforts to investigate or protect against potential or actual attacks, sabotage or international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power.
Secret Service jurisdiction was extended to investigate computer fraud, access device frauds, false identification documents or devices, or any fraudulent activities against U.S. financial institutions. The General Education Provisions Act was amended to allow the U.S. Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General to collect and retain educational records relevant to an authorized investigation or prosecution of an offense that is defined as a Federal crime of terrorism and which an educational agency or institution possesses. The Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General must "certify that there are specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the education records are likely to contain information [that a Federal crime of terrorism may be being committed]." An education institution that produces education records in response to such a request is given legal immunity from any liability that rises from such a production of records.
One of the most controversial aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act is in title V, and relates to National Security Letters (NSLs). An NSL is a form of administrative subpoena used by the FBI, and reportedly by other U.S. government agencies including the CIA and the Department of Defense (DoD). It is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various records and data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight and also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued. Title V allowed the use of NSLs to be made by a Special Agent in charge of a Bureau field office, where previously only the Director or the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI were able to certify such requests. This provision of the Act was challenged by the ACLU on behalf of an unknown party against the U.S. government on the grounds that NSLs violate the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because there is no way to legally oppose an NSL subpoena in court, and that it was unconstitutional not to allow a client to inform their Attorney as to the order because of the gag provision of the letters. The court's judgement found in favour of the ACLU's case, and they declared the law unconstitutional. Later, the USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized and amendments were made to specify a process of judicial review of NSLs and to allow the recipient of an NSL to disclose receipt of the letter to an attorney or others necessary to comply with or challenge the order. However, in 2007 the U.S. District Court struck down even the reauthorized NSLs because the gag power was unconstitutional as courts could still not engage in meaningful judicial review of these gags.
Title VI made amendments to the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA) in order to make changes to how the U.S. Victims of Crime Fund was managed and funded. Changes were made to VOCA to improve the speedy provision of aid to families of public safety officers by expedited payments to officers or the families of officers. Under the changes, payments must be made no later than 30 days after the officer is injured or killed in the line of duty. The Assistant Attorney General was given expanded authority under section 614 of the USA PATRIOT Act to make grants to any organization that administers any Office of Justice Programs, which includes the Public Safety Officers Benefits Program. Further changes to the Victims of Crime Fund increased the amount of money in the Fund, and changed the way that funds were distributed. The amount available for grants made through the Crime Victim Fund to eligible crime victim compensation programs were increased from 40 percent to 60 percent of the total in the Fund. A program can provide compensation to U.S. citizens who were adversely affected overseas. Means testing was also waived for those who apply for compensation. Under VOCA, the Director may make an annual grant from the Crime Victims Fund to support crime victim assistance programs. An amendment was made to VOCA to include offers of assistance to crime victims in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and any other U.S. territory. VOCA also provides for compensation and assistance to victims of terrorism or mass violence. This was amended to allow the Director to make supplemental grants to States for eligible crime victim compensation and assistance programs, and to victim service organizations, public agencies (including Federal, State, or local governments) and non-governmental organizations that provide assistance to victims of crime. The funds could be used to provide emergency relief, including crisis response efforts, assistance, compensation, training and technical assistance for investigations and prosecutions of terrorism.
Title VII has one section. The purpose of this title is to increase the ability of U.S. law enforcement to counter terrorist activity that crosses jurisdictional boundaries. It does this by amending the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to include terrorism as a criminal activity.
Title VIII alters the definitions of terrorism, and establishes or re-defines rules with which to deal with it. It redefined the term "domestic terrorism" to broadly include mass destruction as well as assassination or kidnapping as a terrorist activity. The definition also encompasses activities that are "dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State" and are intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population," "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," or are undertaken "to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping" while in the jurisdiction of the United States. Terrorism is also included in the definition of racketeering. Terms relating to cyber-terrorism are also redefined, including the term "protected computer," "damage," "conviction," "person," and "loss."
New penalties were created to convict those who attack mass transportation systems. If the offender committed such an attack while no passenger was on board, they are fined and imprisoned for a maximum of 20 years. However, if the activity was undertaken while the mass transportation vehicle or ferry was carrying a passenger at the time of the offense, or the offense resulted in the death of any person, then the punishment is a fine and life imprisonment. The title amends the biological weapons statute to define the use of a biological agent, toxin, or delivery system as a weapon, other than when it is used for "prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purposes." Penalties for anyone who cannot prove reasonably that they are using a biological agent, toxin or delivery system for these purposes are 10 years imprisonment, a fine or both.
A number of measures were introduced in an attempt to prevent and penalize activities that are deemed to support terrorism. It was made a crime to harbor or conceal terrorists, and those who do are subject to a fine or imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both. U.S. forfeiture law was also amended to allow authorities to seize all foreign and domestic assets from any group or individual that is caught planning to commit acts of terrorism against the U.S. or U.S. citizens. Assets may also be seized if they have been acquired or maintained by an individual or organization for the purposes of further terrorist activities. One section of the Act (section 805) prohibited "material support" for terrorists, and in particular included "expert advice or assistance." This was struck down as unconstitutional by a U.S. Federal Court after the Humanitarian Law Project filed a civil action against the U.S. government. The court found that it violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the provision was so vague it would cause a person of average intelligence to have to guess whether they were breaking the law, thus leading to a potential situation where a person was charged for an offense that they had no way of knowing was illegal. The court found that this could potentially have the effect of allowing arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law, as well as possible chilling effects on First Amendment rights. Congress later improved the law by defining the definitions of the "material support or resources," "training," and "expert advise or resources."
Cyberterrorism was dealt with in various ways. Penalties apply to those who either damage or gain unauthorized access to a protected computer and then commit a number of offenses. These offenses include causing a person to lose an aggregate amount greater than US$5,000, as well as adversely affecting someone's medical examination, diagnosis or treatment. It also encompasses actions that cause a person to be injured, a threat to public health or safety, or damage to a governmental computer that is used as a tool to administer justice, national defense or national security. Also prohibited was extortion undertaken via a protected computer. The penalty for attempting to damage protected computers through the use of viruses or other software mechanism was set to imprisonment for up to 10 years, while the penalty for unauthorized access and subsequent damage to a protected computer was increased to more than five years imprisonment. However, should the offense occur a second time, the penalty increases up to 20 years imprisonment. The act also specified the development and support of cybersecurity forensic capabilities. It directs the Attorney General to establish regional computer forensic laboratories that have the capability of performing forensic examinations of intercepted computer evidence relating to criminal activity and cyberterrorism, and that have the capability of training and educating Federal, State, and local law enforcement personnel and prosecutors in computer crime, and to "facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law enforcement expertise and information about the investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer-related crime with State and local law enforcement personnel and prosecutors, including the use of multijurisdictional task forces." The sum of $50,000,000 was authorized for establishing such labs.
Title IX amends the National Security Act of 1947 to require the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) to establish requirements and priorities for foreign intelligence collected under FISA and to provide assistance to the United States Attorney General to ensure that information derived from electronic surveillance or physical searches is disseminated for efficient and effective foreign intelligence purposes. With the exception of information that might jeopardize an ongoing law enforcement investigation, it was made a requirement that the Attorney General, or the head of any other department or agency of the Federal Government with law enforcement responsibilities, disclose to the Director any foreign intelligence acquired by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Attorney General and Director of Central Intelligence were directed to develop procedures for the Attorney General to follow in order to inform the Director, in a timely manner, of any intention of investigating criminal activity of a foreign intelligence source or potential foreign intelligence source based on the intelligence tip-off of a member of the intelligence community. The Attorney General was also directed to develop procedures on how to best administer these matters. International terrorist activities were made to fall within the scope of foreign intelligence under the National Security Act.
A number of reports were commissioned relating to various intelligence-related government centers. One was commissioned into the best way of setting up the National Virtual Translation Center, with the goal of developing automated translation facilities to assist with the timely and accurate translation of foreign intelligence information for elements of the U.S. intelligence community. The USA PATRIOT Act required this to be provided on February 1, 2002, however the report, entitled "Director of Central Intelligence Report on the National Virtual Translation Center: A Concept Plan to Enhance the Intelligence Community's Foreign Language Capabilities, April 29, 2002" was received more than two months late, which the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported was "a delay which, in addition to contravening the explicit words of the statute, deprived the Committee of timely and valuable input into its efforts to craft this legislation." Another report was commissioned on the feasibility and desirability of reconfiguring the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center and the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury. It was due by February 1, 2002 however, it was never written. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later complained that "[t]he Director of Central Intelligence and the Secretary of the Treasury failed to provide a report, this time in direct contravention of a section of the USA PATRIOT Act" and they further directed "that the statutorily-directed report be completed immediately, and that it should include a section describing the circumstances which led to the Director's failure to comply with lawful reporting requirements."
Other measures allowed certain reports on intelligence and intelligence-related matters to be deferred until either February 1, 2002 or a date after February 1, 2002 if the official involved certified that preparation and submission on February 1, 2002, would impede the work of officers or employees engaged in counterterrorism activities. Any such deferral required congressional notification before it was authorized. The Attorney General was charged with training officials in identifying and utilizing foreign intelligence information properly in the course of their duties. The government officials include those in the Federal Government who do not normally encounter or disseminate foreign intelligence in the performance of their duties, and State and local government officials who encounter, or potentially may encounter in the course of a terrorist event, foreign intelligence in the performance of their duties. A sense of Congress was expressed that officers and employees of the intelligence community should be encouraged to make every effort to establish and maintain intelligence relationships with any person, entity, or group while they conduct lawful intelligence activities.
Title X created or altered a number of miscellaneous laws that did not really fit into the any other section of the USA PATRIOT Act. Hazmat licenses were limited to drivers who pass background checks and who can demonstrate they can handle the materials. The Inspector General of the Department of Justice was directed to appoint an official to monitor, review and report back to Congress all allegations of civil rights abuses against the DoJ. It amended the definition of "electronic surveillance" to exclude the interception of communications done through or from a protected computer where the owner allows the interception, or is lawfully involved in an investigation. Money laundering cases may now be brought in the district the money laundering was committed or where a money laundering transfer started from. Aliens who committed money laundering were also prohibited from entering the U.S. Grants were provided to first responders to assist them with responding to and preventing terrorism. US$5,000,000 was authorized to be provided to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to train police in South and East Asia. The Attorney General was directed to commission a study on the feasibility of using biometric identifiers to identify people as they attempt to enter the United States, and which would be connected to the FBI's database to flag suspected criminals. Another study was also commissioned to determine the feasibility of providing airlines names of suspected terrorists before they boarded flights. The Department of Defense was given temporary authority to use their funding for private contracts for security purposes. The last title also created a new Act called the Crimes Against Charitable Americans Act which amended the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act to require telemarketers who call on behalf of charities to disclose the purpose and other information, including the name and mailing address of the charity the telemarketer is representing. It also increased the penalties from one year imprisonment to five years imprisonment for those committing fraud by impersonating a Red Cross member.
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。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。 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。
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. The USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized by three bills. The first, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005, was passed by both houses of Congress in July 2005. This bill reauthorized provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It created new provisions relating to the death penalty for terrorists, enhancing security at seaports, new measures to combat the financing of terrorism, new powers for the Secret Service, anti-methamphetamine initiatives and a number of other miscellaneous provisions. The second reauthorization act, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006, amended the first and was passed in February 2006.
The first act reauthorized all but two of the provisions of Title II that would have expired. Two sections were changed to sunset on December 31, 2009: section 206—the roving wiretap provision—and section 215, which allowed access to business records under FISA. Section 215 was amended further regardless so as to give greater judicial oversight and review. Such orders were also restricted to be authorized by only the FBI Director, the FBI Deputy Director, or the Executive Assistant Director for National Security, and minimization procedures were specified to limit the dissemination and collection of such information. Section 215 also had a "gag" provision, which was changed to allow the defendant to contact their Attorney. However, the change also meant that the defendant was also made to tell the FBI who he (or she) was disclosing the order to—this requirement was removed by the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act.
On Saturday, February 27, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law legislation that would temporarily extend for one year, three controversial provisions of the Patriot Act that had been set to expire:  
- Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.
- Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.
- Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.
In a vote on February 8, 2011, the House of Representatives considered a further extension of the Act through the end of 2011. House leadership moved the extension bill under suspension of the rules, which is intended for noncontroversial legislation and requires two-thirds majority to pass. After the vote, the extension bill did not pass; 277 members voted in favor, which was less than the 290 votes needed to pass the bill under suspension of the rules. Without an extension, the Act was set to expire on February 28, 2011. However, it eventually passed, 275-144. The FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 was signed into law February 25, 2011.
On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama used an Autopen to sign the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, a four-year extension of three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act while he was in France:roving wiretaps, searches of business records (the "library records provision"), and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves"—individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups. Republican leaders questioned if the use of the Autopen met the constitutional requirements for signing a bill into law.
As NSL provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act had been struck by the courts the reauthorization Act amended the law in an attempt to make them lawful. It provided for judicial review and the legal right of a recipient to challenge the validity of the letter. The reauthorization act still allowed NSLs to be closed and all evidence to be presented in camera and ex parte. Gag provisions were maintained, but were not automatic. They only occurred when the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office certified that disclosure would result in "a danger to the national security of the United States, interference with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interference with diplomatic relations, or danger to the life or physical safety of any person". However, should there be no non-disclosure order, the defendant can disclose the fact of the NSL to anyone who can render them assistance in carrying out the letter, or to an attorney for legal advice. Again, however, the recipient was ordered to inform the FBI of such a disclosure. Because of the concern over the chilling effects of such a requirement, the Additional Reauthorization Amendments Act removed the requirement to inform the FBI that the recipient spoke about the NSL to their Attorney. Later, the Additional Reauthorization Amendments Act excluded libraries from receiving NSLs, except where they provide electronic communications services. The reauthorization Act also ordered the Attorney General submit a report semi-annually to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and the House Committee on Financial Services and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on all NSL request made under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Changes were made to the roving wiretap provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. Applications and orders for such wiretaps must describe the specific target of the electronic surveillance if the identity of the target is not known. If the nature and location of each of the facilities or places targeted for surveillance is not known, then after 10 days the agency must provide notice to the court. The notice must include the nature and location of each new facility or place at which the electronic surveillance was directed. It must also describe the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify the applicant's belief that each new surveillance place or facility under surveillance is or was being used by the target of the surveillance. The applicant must also provide a statement detailing any proposed minimization procedures that differ from those contained in the original application or order, that may be necessitated by a change in the facility or place at which the electronic surveillance is directed. Applicants must detail the total number of electronic surveillances that have been or are being conducted under the authority of the order.
Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act was modified. Previously it stated that delayed notifications would be made to recipients of "sneak and peek" searches in a "reasonable period". This was seen as unreasonable, as it was undefined and could potentially be used indefinitely. Thus, the reauthorization act changed this to a period not exceeding 30 days after the date of the execution of the search warrant. Courts were given the opportunity to extend this period if they were provided good cause to do so. Section 213 states that delayed notifications could be issued if there is "reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result". This was criticized, particularly by the ACLU, for allowing potential abuse by law enforcement agencies and was later amended to prevent a delayed notification "if the adverse results consist only of unduly delaying a trial.". On September 26, 2007 the Sneak and Peak provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT were struck down, however, by an Oregon US District Court in an opinion indicating the provisions gave too much power to the Executive in the face of the 4th Amendment.
The reauthorization act also legislates increased congressional oversight for emergency disclosures by communication providers undertaken under section 212 of the USA PATRIOT Act. The duration of FISA surveillance and physical search orders were increased. Surveillance performed against "lone wolf terrorists" under section 207 of the USA PATRIOT Act were increased to 120 days for an initial order, while pen registers and trap and trace device extensions under FISA were increased from 90 days to a year. The reauthorization act also increased congressional oversight, requiring a semi-annual report into physical searches and the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices under FISA. The "lone wolf terrorist" provision (Section 207) was a sunset provision that also was to have expired, however this was enhanced by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The reauthorization act extended the expiration date to December 31, 2009. The amendment to material support law done in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act was also made permanent. The definition of terrorism was further expanded to include receiving military-type training from a foreign terrorist organization and narcoterrorism. Other provisions of the reauthorization act was to merge the law outlawing train wrecking (18 U.S.C. § 992) and the law outlawing attacks on mass transportation systems (18 U.S.C. § 1993) into a new section of Title 18 of the U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. § 1992) and also to criminalize the act of planning a terrorist attack against a mass transport system. Forfeiture law was further changed and now assets within U.S. jurisdiction will be seized for illegally trafficking in nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons technology or material, if such offense is punishable under foreign law by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. Alternatively, this applies if similar punishment would be so punishable if committed within the U.S. A sense of Congress was further expressed that victims of terrorism should be entitled to the forfeited assets of terrorists.
- 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."
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."
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).
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. 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.
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; 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.
- 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. [...]
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). 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. 
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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) 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.
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.
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.
|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%|
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.  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.  This statement, though common throughout his Presidency, has been negatively covered by the media  and criticized for an apparent intention to withhold information that the Act required him to provide to Congress. 
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]
- §203(a), (c). Authority To Share Criminal Investigative Information.
- §205. Employment of Translators by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
- §208. Designation Of Judges.
- §210. Scope Of Subpoenas For Records Of Electronic Communications.
- §211. Clarification Of Scope (privacy provisions of Cable TV Privacy Act overridden for communication services offered by cable providers, but not for records relating to cable viewing.)
- §213. Authority For Delaying Notice Of The Execution Of A Warrant—"Sneak and Peek"
- §216. Modification Of Authorities Relating To Use Of Pen Registers And Trap And Trace Devices.
- §219. Single-Jurisdiction Search Warrants For Terrorism.
- §221. Trade sanctions.
- §222. Assistance To law enforcement agencies.
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. 
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.
- "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." 
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. 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.
The USA PATRIOT Act has generated a great deal of controversy since its enactment.
Opponents of the Act have been quite vocal in asserting that it was passed opportunistically after the September 11 attacks, believing there to have been little debate. They view the Act as one that was hurried through the Senate with little change before it was passed. (Senators Patrick Leahy and Russell Feingold proposed amendments to modify the final revision.)
The sheer magnitude of the Act itself was noted by Michael Moore in his controversial film Fahrenheit 9/11. In one of the scenes of the movie, he records Congressman Jim McDermott alleging that no Senator read the bill and John Conyers, Jr. as saying, "We don't read most of the bills. Do you really know what that would entail if we read every bill that we passed?" Congressman Conyers then answers his own rhetorical question, asserting that if they did it would "slow down the legislative process". As a dramatic device, Moore then hired an ice-cream van and drove around Washington, D.C. with a loud speaker, reading out the Act to puzzled passers-by, which included a few Senators.
However, Moore was not the only commentator to notice that not many people had read the Act. When Dahlia Lithwick and Julia Turne for Slate asked, "How bad is PATRIOT, anyway?", they decided that it was "hard to tell" and stated:
The ACLU, in a new fact sheet challenging the DOJ Web site, wants you to believe that the act threatens our most basic civil liberties. Ashcroft and his roadies call the changes in law "modest and incremental." Since almost nobody has read the legislation, much of what we think we know about it comes third-hand and spun. Both advocates and opponents are guilty of fear-mongering and distortion in some instances.
One prime example of a controversy of the Patriot Act is shown in the recent court case United States v. Antoine Jones. A nightclub owner was linked to a drug trafficking stash house via a law enforcement GPS tracking device attached to his car. It was placed there without a warrant, which caused a serious conviction obstacle for federal prosecutors in court. Through the years the case rose all the way to the United States Supreme Court where the conviction was overturned in favor of the defendant. The court found that increased monitoring of suspects caused by such legislation like the Patriot Act directly put the suspects' Constitutional rights in jeopardy.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has criticized the law as unconstitutional, especially when "the private communications of law-abiding American citizens might be intercepted incidentally", while the Electronic Frontier Foundation held that the lower standard applied to wiretaps "gives the FBI a 'blank check' to violate the communications privacy of countless innocent Americans". Others do not find the roving wiretap legislation to be as concerning. Professor David D. Cole of the Georgetown University Law Center, a critic of many of the provisions of the Act, found that though they come at a cost to privacy are a sensible measure while Paul Rosenzweig, a Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, argues that roving wiretaps are just a response to rapidly changing communication technology that is not necessarily fixed to a specific location or device.
The Act also allows access to voicemail through a search warrant rather than through a title III wiretap order. James Dempsey, of the CDT, believes that it unnecessarily overlooks the importance of notice under the Fourth Amendment and under a Title III wiretap, and the EFF criticizes the provision's lack of notice. However, the EFF's criticism is more extensive—they believe that the amendment "is in possible violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" because previously if the FBI listened to voicemail illegally, it could not use the messages in evidence against the defendant. Others disagree with these assessments. Professor Orin Kerr, of the George Washington University school of law, believes that the ECPA "adopted a rather strange rule to regulate voicemail stored with service providers" because "under ECPA, if the government knew that there was one copy of an unopened private message in a person's bedroom and another copy on their remotely stored voicemail, it was illegal for the FBI to simply obtain the voicemail; the law actually compelled the police to invade the home and rifle through peoples' bedrooms so as not to disturb the more private voicemail." In Professor Kerr's opinion, this made little sense and the amendment that was made by the USA PATRIOT Act was reasonable and sensible.
The USA PATRIOT Act's expansion of court jurisdiction to allow the nationwide service of search warrants proved controversial for the EFF. They believe that agencies will be able to "'shop' for judges that have demonstrated a strong bias toward law enforcement with regard to search warrants, using only those judges least likely to say no—even if the warrant doesn't satisfy the strict requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution", and that it reduces the likelihood that smaller ISPs or phone companies will try to protect the privacy of their clients by challenging the warrant in court—their reasoning is that "a small San Francisco ISP served with such a warrant is unlikely to have the resources to appear before the New York court that issued it." They believe that this is bad because only the communications provider will be able to challenge the warrant as only they will know about it—many warrants are issued ex parte, which means that the target of the order is not present when the order is issued.
For a time, the USA PATRIOT Act allowed for agents to undertake "sneak and peek" searches. Critics such as EPIC and the ACLU strongly criticized the law for violating the Fourth Amendment, with the ACLU going so far as to release an advertisement condemning it and calling for it to be repealed.
However supporters of the amendment, such as Heather Mac Donald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor to the New York City Journal, expressed the belief that it was necessary because the temporary delay in notification of a search order stops terrorists from tipping off counterparts who are being investigated.
In 2004, FBI agents used this provision to search and secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. While the U.S. Government did publicly apologize to Mayfield and his family, Mayfield took it further through the courts. On September 26, 2007, Judge Ann Aiken found the law was, in fact, unconstitutional as the search was an unreasonable imposition on Mayfield and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.
Laws governing the material support of terrorism proved contentious. It was criticized by the EFF for infringement of freedom of association. The EFF argues that had this law been enacted during Apartheid, U.S. citizens would not have been able to support the African National Congress (ANC) as the EFF believe the ANC would have been classed as a terrorist organization. They also used the example of a humanitarian social worker being unable to train Hamas members how to care for civilian children orphaned in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, a lawyer being unable to teach IRA members about international law, and peace workers being unable to offer training in effective peace negotiations or how to petition the United Nations regarding human rights abuses.
Another group, the Humanitarian Law Project, also objected to the provision prohibiting "expert advise and assistance" to terrorists and filed a suit against the U.S. government to have it declared unconstitutional. They succeeded, and a Federal Court found that the law was vague enough to cause a reasonable person to guess whether they were breaking the law or not. Thus they found it violated the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens, and struck it down.
Perhaps one of the biggest controversies involved the use of NSLs by the FBI. Because they allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order, they were criticized by many parties. In November 2005, BusinessWeek reported that the FBI had issued tens of thousands of NSLs and had obtained one million financial, credit, employment, and in some cases, health records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses. Selected businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental agencies. An anonymous Justice official claimed that such requests were permitted under section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act and despite the volume of requests insisted "We are not inclined to ask courts to endorse fishing expeditions". Before this was revealed, however, the ACLU challenged the constitutionality of NSLs in court. In April 2004, they filed suit against the government on behalf of an unknown Internet Service Provider who had been issued an NSL, for reasons unknown. In ACLU v. DoJ, the ACLU argued that the NSL violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because the USA PATRIOT Act failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone or Internet company could try to oppose an NSL subpoena in court. The court agreed, and found that because the recipient of the subpoena could not challenge it in court it was unconstitutional. Congress later tried to remedy this in a reauthorization Act, but because they did not remove the non-disclosure provision a Federal court again found NSLs to be unconstitutional because they prevented courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review.
Another provision of the USA PATRIOT Act has caused a great deal of consternation amongst librarians. Section 215 allows the FBI to apply for an order to produce materials that assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. Among the "tangible things" that could be targeted, it includes "books, records, papers, documents, and other items".
Supporters of the provision point out that these records are held by third parties, and therefore are exempt from a citizen's reasonable expectations of privacy and also maintain that the FBI has not abused the provision. As proof, then Attorney General John Ashcroft released information in 2003 that showed that section 215 orders had never been used.
However, despite protestations to the contrary, the American Library Association strongly objected to the provision, believing that library records are fundamentally different from ordinary business records, and that the provision would have a chilling effect on free speech. The association became so concerned that they formed a resolution condemning the USA PATRIOT Act, and which urged members to defend free speech and protect patrons' privacy.
They urged librarians to seek legal advice before complying with a search order and advised their members to only keeping records for as long as was legally needed.
In 2005, Library Connection, a nonprofit consortium of 27 libraries in Connecticut, known as the Connecticut Four worked with the ACLU to lift a gag order for library records, challenging the government’s power under Section 505 to silence four citizens who wished to contribute to public debate on the PATRIOT Act. This case became known as Doe v. Gonzales. In May 2006, the government finally gave up its legal battle to maintain the gag order. In a summary of the actions of the Connecticut Four and their challenge to the USA PATRIOT Act, Jones (2009: 223) notes: “Librarians need to understand their country’s legal balance between the protection of freedom of expression and the protection of national security. Many librarians believe that the interests of national security, important as they are, have become an excuse for chilling the freedom to read.”
Another controversial aspect of the USA PATRIOT Act is the immigration provisions that allow for the indefinite detention of any alien who the Attorney General believes may cause a terrorist act. Before the USA PATRIOT Act was passed, Anita Ramasastry, an associate professor of law and a director of the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce, & Technology at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, Washington, accused the Act of depriving basic rights for immigrants to America, including legal permanent residents. She warned that "Indefinite detention upon secret evidence—which the USA PATRIOT Act allows—sounds more like Taliban justice than ours. Our claim that we are attempting to build an international coalition against terrorism will be severely undermined if we pass legislation allowing even citizens of our allies to be incarcerated without basic U.S. guarantees of fairness and justice." Many other parties have also been strongly critical of the provision. Russell Feingold, in a Senate floor statement, claimed that the provision "falls short of meeting even basic constitutional standards of due process and fairness [as it] continues to allow the Attorney General to detain persons based on mere suspicion". The University of California passed a resolution condemning (amongst other things) the indefinite detention provisions of the Act, while the ACLU has accused the Act of giving the Attorney General "unprecedented new power to determine the fate of immigrants ... Worse, if the foreigner does not have a country that will accept them, they can be detained indefinitely without trial."
Another controversial aspect of the USA PATRIOT Act is its effect on the privacy of Canadians living in the province of British Columbia (B.C.). British Columbia’s privacy commissioner raises concerns that the USA PATRIOT Act will allow the United States government to access Canadians' private information, such as personal medical records, that are outsourced to American companies. Although the government of B.C. has taken measures to prevent United States authorities from obtaining information, the widespread powers of the USA PATRIOT Act could overcome legislation that is passed in Canada. B.C. Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis stated in a report on the consequences of the USA PATRIOT Act, “once information is sent across borders, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to control”.
In an effort to maintain their privacy, British Columbia placed amendments on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA), which was enacted as law on October 21, 2004. These amendments aim to place more firm limitations on “storing, accessing, and disclosing of B.C. public sector data by service providers.” These laws only pertain to public sector data and do not cover trans-border or private sector data in Canada. The public sector establishments include an estimated 2,000 “government ministries, hospitals, boards of health, universities and colleges, school boards, municipal governments and certain Crown corporations and agencies.” In response to these laws, many companies are now specifically opting to host their sensitive data outside the United States.
Legal action has been taken in Nova Scotia to protect the province from the USA PATRIOT Act’s data collecting methods. On November 15, 2007 the government of Nova Scotia passed a legislation aimed to protect Nova Scotians’ personal information from being brought forward by the USA PATRIOT Act. The act was entitled “The new Personal Information International Disclosure Protection Act”. The goal of the act is to establish requirements to protect personal information from being revealed, as well as punishments for failing to do so. Justice Minister Murray Scott stated, "This legislation will help ensure that Nova Scotians' personal information will be protected. The act outlines the responsibilities of public bodies, municipalities and service providers and the consequences if these responsibilities are not fulfilled."
After suspected abuses of the USA PATRIOT Act were brought to light in June 2013 with articles about collection of American call records by the NSA and the PRISM program (see 2013 mass surveillance disclosures), Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, who introduced the Patriot Act in 2001, said that the National Security Agency overstepped its bounds. He released a statement saying “While I believe the Patriot Act appropriately balanced national security concerns and civil rights, I have always worried about potential abuses.” He added: “Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American.”
- 対テロ戦争 - テロ対策特別措置法
- en:Airport security repercussions due to the September 11, 2001 attacks
- en:At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA
- en:USA PATRIOT Act controversy
- U.S. governmental response to the September 11 attacks
- en:Homeland security
- en:Alien and Sedition Acts
- en:Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act
- en:ACLU v. Ashcroft (2004) — the court opinion mentions the PATRIOT Act three times but provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act were not adjudicated. 
- en:Red Squad
- en:Security and Freedom Ensured Act
- en:Bank Secrecy Act
- en:Ohio Patriot Act
- en:Patriot Debates
- en:Mass surveillance
- en:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
- en:Anti-money laundering
- ^ 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 . 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 .
- ^ a b http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s990#overview
- ^ a b “May 27, 2011 Obama Signs Last-Minute Patriot Act Extension”. Fox News. 2011年5月27日閲覧。
- ^ a b Mascaro, Lisa (2011年5月27日). “Congress votes in time to extend key Patriot Act provisions”. Los Angeles Times 2011年5月27日閲覧。
- ^ Department of Justice Web site
- ^ 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
- ^ Abramson, Larry. "The Patriot Act: Alleged Abuses of the Law." NPR.org. July 20, 2005. Retrieved April 9, 2007.
- ^ Reardon, Marguerite and Declan McCullagh. "ACLU Challenges Patriot Act". News.com, November 2, 2005. Retrieved on April 9, 2007.
- ^ "Bill Summary & Status 107th Congress (2001 - 2002)H.R.3162 Major Congressional Actions", thomas.loc.gov Retrieved 2012-08-11.
- ^ "FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 398", clerk.house.gov. Oct 24, 2001. Retrieved 2012-08-11.
- ^ "U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 1st Session", www.senate.gov. Oct 25, 2001. Retrieved 2012-08-11.
- ^ "Safe Act Co-Sponsors say PATRIOT Act Conference Report Unacceptable", Washington Times, November 5, 2005.
- ^ Full Text of Enrolled Bill H.R. 3162, GovTrack.us
- ^ H.R. 2975, THOMAS
- ^ a b
- ^ S. 1510, THOMAS
- ^ H.R. 3162, THOMAS
- ^ a b
- ^ “'Trust me' just doesn't fly”. USA Today. (2005年4月12日) 2008年7月11日閲覧. "The conspiracies indictment disclosed Tuesday of three men already awaiting trial in England is a reminder that terrorism is a real threat, and most of the law is non-controversial."
- ^ Steranko, Anastasia (2003年9月19日). “PATRIOT Act inspires discussion of civil liberties”. The Pitt News 2008年7月11日閲覧。
- ^ Haigh, Anna (2004年2月13日). “Debate around Patriot Act increases”. News (The Daily Pennsylvanian) 2008年7月11日閲覧。
- ^ THOMAS, S.1552.
- ^ H.R. 3171, THOMAS
- ^ S.1709, THOMAS
- ^ PBS (February 7, 2007), Now with Bill Moyers, transcript.
- ^ EFF Analysis of "Patriot II," Provisions of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved August 30, 2007.
- ^ “Control Sheet of the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003"”. 2007年7月7日時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。 Template:Cite webの呼び出しエラー：引数 accessdate は必須です。. Retrieved August 30, 2007.
- ^ Singel, Ryan (2003年3月12日). “A Chilly Response to 'Patriot II'”. Politics : Law (Wired News) 2008年7月11日閲覧。
- ^ United States Department of Justice (February 7, 2007), Statement of Barbara Comstock, Director of Public Affairs
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1002.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 218.
- ^ Andrew C. McCarthy, "Why Section 218 Should be Retained". Retrieved January 23, 2006. The Patriot Debates.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 214.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 207.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 203.
- ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 216.
- ^ Analysis of Specific USA PATRIOT Act Provisions: Pen Registers, the Internet and Carnivore, Electronic Privacy Information Center. Accessed December 4, 2005.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 219.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 204 & 209.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 217.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 211.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 210.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 212.
- ^ Field Guidance on New Authorities (Redacted), Federal Bureau of Investigation (hosted by the Electronic Privacy Information Center). Retrieved September 24, 2007.
- ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 213.
- ^ a b Singel, Ryan (2007年9月26日). “Court Strikes Down 2 Key Patriot Act Provisions”. Surveillance, The Courts (Wired)
- ^ a b Keller, Susan Jo (2007年9月27日). “Judge Rules Provisions in Patriot Act to Be Illegal”. New York Times
- ^ United States Department of Justice, The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty, pg. 2. Retrieved September 24, 2007.
- ^ James Dempsey, "Why Section 206 Should be Modified" (undated), accessed January 7, 2006.
- ^ a b “Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 206”. Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2006年6月5日時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。2011年12月21日閲覧。
- ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 215.
- ^ “Phillips, Heather A., "Libraries and National Security Law: An Examination of the USA Patriot Act". Progressive Librarian, Vol. 25, Summer 2005”. Papers.ssrn.com. 2012年5月16日閲覧。
- ^ American Library Association, Resolution on the USA PATRIOT Act and Libraries, enacted June 29, 2005
- ^ Mac Donald, Heather (Summer 2003). “Straight Talk on Homeland Security”. City Journal
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 208.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 221.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 205.
- ^ O'Harrow, Jr., Robert (2002年10月27日). “Six Weeks in Autumn”. The Washington Post: p. W06 2008年7月11日閲覧。
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 224.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 311.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 314.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 317.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 312, 313, 319 & 325.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 327.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 313.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 312.
- ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 319.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 325.
- ^ Amendment made to Cornell University, this was probably mistakenly added by law makers—for some reason an extra parenthesis was inserted into , according to
- ^ Illegal export of controlled munitions is defined in the United States Munitions List, which is part of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. § 2778)
- ^ Defined in 15 CFR 730–774
- ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 315.
- ^ Defined in 18 U.S.C. § 541
- ^ Defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 320. Amended
- ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 323. Amended 28 U.S.C. § 2467
- ^ Pursuant to
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 328.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 330.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 356.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 365.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 359.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 352, 354 & 365.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 361.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 362.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 352.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 354.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 353.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 364.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 360.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 371.
- ^ So defined in 31 U.S.C. § 5313, 31 U.S.C. § 5316 and 31 U.S.C. § 5324
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 372. Amended
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 371. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 1960
- ^ “The Patriot Act: Justice Department Claims Success”. National Public Radio. (2005年7月20日)
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 374. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 1960
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 376. Amended
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 377.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 401.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 402.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 404. Amended the Department of Justice Appropriations Act, 2001.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 403. Amends 8 U.S.C. § 1105
- ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Sec. 403. Final regulations are specified in 22 C.F.R. 40.5
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 405.
- ^ National Institute of Standards and Technology, November 14, 2002. "Use of Technology Standards and Interoperable Databases With Machine-Readable, Tamper-Resistant Travel Documents" (Appendix A)
- ^ NIST Image Group's Fingerprint Research, see the section "NIST Patriot Act Work" (accessed June 28, 2006)
- ^ a b c d USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 411.
- ^ As specified in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989; see
- ^ a b c d e USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 412. A new section was created by the Act—8 U.S.C. § 1226a
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 414.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 416.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 417.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 418.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle C.
- ^ Office of Patrick Leahy, USA PATRIOT Act Section-by-section analysis
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 501.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 502. Amended
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 502. Amended
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 502. Amended
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 503. Amended
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 503. Amended 50 U.S.C. § 1825
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 506.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 507.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 505. Amended ; Section 1114(a)(5)(A) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 ( ) and Section 624 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681u).
- ^ a b c Doe v. Ashcroft, 334 F.Supp.2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) source
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177) Title I, Sec. 115 & 116
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle A, Sec. 611.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle A, Sec. 614.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 621
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 622.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 623. Amended
- ^ 42 U.S.C. § 10603b
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 624.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 802.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 813. Amended
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 814. Amended
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 801.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 817.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 803. Created 18 U.S.C. § 2339
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 806. Amends 18 U.S.C. § 981
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Section 805(a)(2)(B).
- ^ a b Humanitarian Law Project et al. v. John Ashcroft, Findlaw
- ^ a b “Key Patriot Act provision ruled unconstitutional under the First Amendment” (プレスリリース), Humanitarian Law Project, (2004年1月26日) 2008年7月11日閲覧, "January 26, 2004: The Center for Constitutional Rights announced today that a federal court in Los Angeles has declared unconstitutional a provision of the USA PATRIOT Act, enacted six weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This is the first judicial ruling in the country declaring part of the USA PATRIOT Act unconstitutional. In a decision issued late Friday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins ruled that a ban on providing "expert advice and assistance" to terrorist groups violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution because it is so vague that it "could be construed to include unequivocally pure speech and advocacy protected by the First Amendment.""
- ^ a b Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (U.S. S. 2845, Public Law 108-458), Title VI, Subtitle F, Sec. 6603.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 814.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 816.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 901.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 905.
- ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 903.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 906.
- ^ Senate Report 107-149 – "To authorize appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003 for Intelligence and Intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Disability System, and for other purposes.", see the section "National Virtual Translation Center"
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 907.
- ^ Senate Report 107-149 – "To authorize appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003 for Intelligence and Intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Disability System, and for other purposes.", see the section "Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center"
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 904.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 908.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1012.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1001.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1003.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1004.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1006.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1005.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1007.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1008.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1009.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1010.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1011 (a).
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1011 (b).
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1011 (c).
- ^ http://judiciary.house.gov/Printshop.aspx?Section=232
- ^ "Senate gives Patriot Act six more months". CNN.com, December 22, 2005. Retrieved April 9, 2007.
- ^ "SAFE Act Co-Sponsors say PATRIOT Act Conference Report Unacceptable."
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title II ("Terrorist Death Penalty Enhancement")
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title III ("Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports")
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title IV ("Combating Terrorism Financing")
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177) Title VI ("Secret Service")
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title VII ("Combating Methamphetamine Epedemic Act of 2005")
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 106
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. S. 2271, Public Law 109-178), Sec. 3.
- ^ The reauthorization of the Patriot Act Feb 2010 http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms/
- ^ Obama signs one year extension of Patriot Act http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/13183
- ^ Democratic Underground - Obama signs Patriot Act http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4287047
- ^ Sections of the Patriot act that will remain as of Feb 2010 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/27/obama-signs-year-extension-patriot-act/
- ^ a b c Breshahan, Jake; Cogan, Marin (2011年2月8日). “Rank-and-file take down Patriot Act in House”. Politico
- ^ “actions”. Thomas.loc.gov. 2012年5月16日閲覧。
- ^ “Letter to Obama”. CBS News (2011年6月17日). 2012年11月4日閲覧。
- ^ “Republicans protest Obama signing bill with autopen”. USA Today (2011年6月17日). Template:Cite webの呼び出しエラー：引数 accessdate は必須です。
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 115
- ^ a b USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 116
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. S. 2271, Public Law 109-178), Sec. 4.
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. S. 2271, Public Law 109-178), Sec. 5.
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 118
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 108
- ^ American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU Letter to Congress Urging A "No" Vote On the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act Conference Report (December 12, 2005), accessed on October 6, 2007.
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 114
- ^ Singel, Ryan (2007年9月26日). “Court Strikes Down 2 Key Patriot Act Provisions | Threat Level”. Wired.com 2012年5月16日閲覧。
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 107
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 109
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 105
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 104
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 112
- ^ Yeah, Brian T.; Doyle, Charles (December 21, 2006) (PDF). USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005: A Legal Analysis. Congressional Research Service. p. 24 2008年7月11日閲覧。
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 110
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 111.
- ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 127.
- ^ http://talkleft.com/new_archives/000279.html
- ^ Rights Groups Fight Vague Basis of ‘Sneak and Peak’ Powers
- ^ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/10/MN14634.DTL
- ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/politics/26patriot.html
- ^ http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/usdojgov/www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2004/ag_successes_110904.htm Working to Keep America Safer
- ^ http://www.aclu.org/natsec/warpowers/21261prs20051107.html
- ^ http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s1552.html
- ^ http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.html?day=20050615
- ^ http://files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/hlpash12304ord.pdf
- ^ http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/27/patriot.act/
- ^ “History of the Patriot Act”. Electronic Privacy Information Center. 2008年7月11日閲覧。 “Though the Act made significant amendments to over 15 important statutes, it was introduced with great haste and passed with little debate, and without a House, Senate, or conference report. As a result, it lacks background legislative history that often retrospectively provides necessary statutory interpretation.”
- ^ “EFF Analysis Of The Provisions Of The USA PATRIOT Act That Relate To Online Activities”. Electronic Frontiers Foundation (2001年10月31日). 2003年12月5日時点のオリジナル[リンク切れ]よりアーカイブ。2007年10月12日閲覧。 “...it seems clear that the vast majority of the sections included were not carefully studied by Congress, nor was sufficient time taken to debate it or to hear testimony from experts outside of law enforcement in the fields where it makes major changes.”
- ^ Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 (documentary). Timestamp: 01:01:39–01:01:47.
- ^ Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 (documentary). Timestamp: 01:02:02–01:02:15.
- ^ Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 (documentary). Timestamp: 01:02:35–01:02:43.
- ^ Lithwick, Dahlia; Turner, Julia (2003年9月8日). “A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 1”. Jurisprudence (Slate)
- ^ “Analysis of Specific USA PATRIOT Act Provisions: Expanded Dissemination of Information Obtained in Criminal Investigations”. Analysis. Electronic Privacy Information Center. 2008年7月11日閲覧。
- ^ Cole, David. “The Patriot Act Violates Our Civil Liberties”. Is the Patriot Act Unconstitutional? (Microsoft Encarta)
- ^ Rosenzweig, Paul. “Terrorism is not just a crime”. Patriot Debates (American Bar Association)
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 209.
- ^ James X. Dempsey, "Why Sections 209, 212, and 220 Should be Modified" (undated). Retrieved October 15, 2007.
- ^ EFF, "Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT – Section 209: 'Seizure of VoiceMail Messages Pursuant to Warrants'". Retrieved December 29, 2005
- ^ Orin Kerr, "Why Sections 209, 212, and 220 Should be Modified" (undated). Retrieved October 12, 2007.
- ^ a b One prime example of a controversy of the Patriot Act is shown in the recent court case United States v. Antoine Jones. A nightclub owner was linked to a drug trafficking stash house via a law enforcement GPS tracking device attached to his car. It was placed there without a warrant, which caused a serious conviction obstacle for federal prosecutors in court. Through the years the case has risen to the United States Supreme Court where the conviction was overturned in favor of the defendant. The court found that increased monitoring of suspects caused by such legislation like the Patriot Act directly put the suspects Constitutional rights in jeopardy.
- ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 220.
- ^ a b c EFF, "Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT – Section 220: 'Nationwide Service of Search Warrants for Electronic Evidence'". Retrieved October 12, 2007.
- ^ Analysis of Specific USA PATRIOT Act Provisions: Authority to Conduct Secret Searches ("Sneak and Peek"), Electronic Privacy Information Center. Accessed December 5, 2005.
- ^ “Uncle Sam Asks: "What the hell is going on here?" in New ACLU Print and Radio Advertisements” (プレスリリース), American Civil Liberties Union, (2003年9月10日)
- ^ “ACLU Ad On "Sneak-and-Peek" Searches: Overblown”. FactCheck.org (2004年9月21日). Template:Cite webの呼び出しエラー：引数 accessdate は必須です。
- ^ Heather Mac Donald (undated), "Sneak-and-Peek in the Full Light of Day". American Bar Association. Retrieved October 12, 2007.
- ^ “Apology Note from the United States Government”. Washington Post. (2006年11月29日)
- ^ EFF, "Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT – Section 201: 'Authority to Intercept Wire, Oral, and Electronic Communications Relating to Terrorism,' and Section 805, 'Material Support for Terrorism'". Retrieved 2007-10-12.
- ^ Although FBI officials have a series of internal "checks and balances" that must be met before the issue of an NSL, many government officials still cried foul.“most controversial parts of the legislation were the National Security Letter (NSL) provisions/nationalsecurityletters/index.html National Security Letters main page of the ACLU”. American Civil Liberties Union. 2007年10月13日閲覧。[リンク切れ]
- ^ “Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT Section 505 – National Security Letters (NSLs)”. Electronic Frontiers Foundation. 2005年5月24日時点のオリジナル[リンク切れ]よりアーカイブ。2007年10月13日閲覧。
- ^ “EPIC: National Security Letters (NSLs)”. Electronic Privacy Information Center. 2008年7月11日閲覧。
- ^ “FBI Unbound: How National Security Letters Violate Our Privacy”. Bill of Rights Defense Committee. 2008年7月11日閲覧。
- ^ Dunham, Richard S. (2005年11月10日). “The Patriot Act: Business Balks”. BusinessWeek 2008年7月11日閲覧。
- ^ “Federal Court Strikes Down National Security Letter Provision of Patriot Act” (プレスリリース), American Civil Liberties Union, (2007年9月6日) , "NEW YORK – A federal court today struck down the amended Patriot Act's National Security Letter (NSL) provision. The law has permitted the FBI to issue NSLs demanding private information about people within the United States without court approval, and to gag those who receive NSLs from discussing them. The court found that the gag power was unconstitutional and that because the statute prevented courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review of gags, it violated the First Amendment and the principle of separation of powers."
- ^ Eggen, Dan (2007年9月7日). “Judge Invalidates Patriot Act Provisions”. Washington Post. p. A01
- ^ Neumeister, Larry (2007年9月7日). “Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act”. London: Guardian. オリジナルの2007年9月13日時点によるアーカイブ。
- ^ C. McCarthy, Andrew. “Why Sections 214 and 215 Should be Retained”. American Bar Association. 2008年7月11日閲覧。
- ^ “No Patriot Check Out At Libraries”. CBS News. (2003年9月18日)
- ^ “Resolution on the USA Patriot Act and Related Measures That Infringe on the Rights of Library Users”. American Library Association (2003年1月29日). 2008年7月11日閲覧。
- ^ Kasindorf, Martin (2003年12月16日). “FBI's reading list worries librarians”. USA Today 2008年7月11日閲覧。
- ^ Murphy, Dean E. (2003-04-0). “Some Librarians Use Shredder to Show Opposition to New F.B.I. Powers”. New York Times 2008年7月11日閲覧。
- ^ “Libraries Rally Against USA Patriot Act”. Politics (Fox News Channel). (2003年5月7日) 2008年7月11日閲覧。
- ^ Graham, Judith (2003年4月3日). “Libraries warning patrons: Federal government may be spying on you.”. Chicago Tribune
- ^ Jones, Barbara M. 2009. “Librarians Shushed No More: The USA Patriot Act, the ‘Connecticut Four,’ and Professional Ethics." Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom 58, no. 6: 195, 221–223.
- ^ Ramasastry, Anita (October 5, 2001). Indefinite detention based on suspicion: How The Patriot Act Will Disrupt Many Lawful Immigrants’ Lives. FindLaw 2008年7月11日閲覧。
- ^ Feingold, Russell (2001年10月25日). “Statement Of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On The Anti-Terrorism Bill From The Senate Floor”. 2008年7月11日閲覧。
- ^ “(PDF)”. University of California. 2008年7月11日閲覧。
- ^ “Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act > Non surveillance provisions”. American Civil Liberties Union (2003年4月3日). 2008年7月11日閲覧。
- ^ “Patriot Act will prevail over B.C. privacy legislation” (2004年10月29日). 2008年3月6日閲覧。
- ^ “USA Patriot Act comes under fire in B.C. report”. CBC News. (2004年10月30日) 2008年3月6日閲覧。
- ^ a b “British Columbia Responds to USA Patriot Act with Tough New Rules on How Service Providers Manage Public Sector Data” (2004年11月11日). 2006年5月6日時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。2008年3月6日閲覧。
- ^ “Hosting Sensitive Data? Canada May be the Answer”. Internet Industry Watch. (2010年11月25日) 2010年12月7日閲覧。
- ^ “Protection of Privacy Legislation Proclaimed” (2006年11月15日). 2008年3月6日閲覧。
- ^ a b “President Obama’s Dragnet” (06-06-2013). 06-07-2013閲覧。
- ^ “Author of Patriot Act: FBI’s FISA Order is Abuse of Patriot Act” (06-06-2013). 06-07-2013閲覧。
- The Act began as House Resolution (H.R.) 3162.
- "The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty" by the Department of Justice
- 2005 renewal:
- The Patriot Act and Related Provisions: The Heritage Foundation's Research
- Patriot Hysteria — The Zacarias Moussaoui Protection Act, article by Rich Lowry, National Review
- The Patriot Act under Fire by law professors John Yoo and Eric Posner, December 23 2003
- The Patriot Act, Reauthorized, JURIST
- PATRIOT Games: Terrorism Law and Executive Power, JURIST
- The Loyal Nine, youth based civil liberties organization against the USA PATRIOT Act
- "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003" also known as "PATRIOT Act II" by Timothy H. Edgar
- ACLU: 7 State Governments and over 389 Local Governments Pass Resolutions Denouncing The USA PATRIOT Act
- American Library Association's Resolution on the PATRIOT Act
- "War on Terror" Human Rights Issues Amnesty International USA — Denial Of Rights: Amend the USA PATRIOT Act Now!
- Jennifer Van Bergen, Repeal the USA PATRIOT Act A six-part series analyzing the Act.
- Beware of the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act" by activist group ReclaimDemocracy.org
- Bill of Rights Defense Committee: community-level initiatives opposing the Act
- Electronic Frontier Foundation's detailed analysis of the Act, October 27 2003
- Moveon.org Voter Fund: Video contest entry criticizing the PATRIOT Act
- Patriot Raid, by Jason Halperin, AlterNet, April 29 2003 — alleged account of raid and detention under auspices of the Act
- Should you be scared of the Patriot Act? — analysis by Dahlia Lithwick, Slate
- Statement Of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On The Anti-Terrorism Bill, October 25 2001
- Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act 2003: Proposed Senate bill to limit USA PATRIOT Act
- Thousands dead, millions deprived of civil liberties?, by Richard Stallman, September 17 2001
- Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act: PEN American Center
- T.J. Rodgers. U.S. gets closer to Orwell's Big Brother, San Jose Mercury News, December 29 2005.
- League of Women Voters' Resources on the USA PATRIOT Act and Individual Liberties
- The Patriot Act in Violation of Civil Liberties
- Pros vs. Cons Examination of the USA PATRIOT Act
- Patriot Act news and resources, JURIST
- Video Debate: Howard Dean and Governor Bill Owens (R-CO), debate the USA PATRIOT Act, August 9 2004 (Real Player required)
- More on Wikipedia and its PATRIOT Act overview; Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr
- Read Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding the USA PATRIOT Act
- Is the Patriot Act Unconstitutional? - Encarta
- Chesney, Robert M. "The Sleeper Scenario: Terrorism Support Laws and the Demands of Prevention". Harvard Journal on Legislation (2005).
- Gouvin, Eric J. "Bringing Out the Big Guns: The USA PATRIOT Act, Money Laundering and the War on Terrorism". Baylor Law Review 55 (2003): 955.
- Kerr, Orin. "Digital Evidence and the New Criminal Procedure". Columbia Law Review (2005).
- Slovove, Daniel J. "Fourth Amendment Codification and Professor Kerr's Misguided Call for Judicial Deference". Fordham Law Review 74 (2005).
- Van Bergen, Jennifer. "In the Absence of Democracy: The Designation and Material Support Provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Laws". Cardozo Pub. [?] Law Policy & Ethics Journal 2 (2003): 107.
- Wong, Kam C. "Implementing the USA PATRIOT Act: A Case Study of the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS)". Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal 2 (2006).
- ---. "The making of the USA PATRIOT Act I: Legislative Process and Dynamics". International Journal of the Sociology of Law 34.3 (2006): 179-219.
- ---. "The making of the USA PATRIOT ACT II: Public Sentiments, Legislative Climate, Political Gamesmanship, Media Patriotism". International Journal of the Sociology of Law 34.2 (2006): 105-140.
- ---. "USA PATRIOT Act and a Policy of Alienation". Michigan Journal of Minority Rights 1 (2006): 1-44.
- ---. "USA PATRIOT Act: Some Unanswered Questions". International Journal of the Sociology of Law 43.1 (2006): 1-41.
- 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)