How does Patriot Act 1 and 2 bear troubling resemblance to George Orwell's 1984 novel?

Answer 1

Simple answer

It allows government intrusion in to the private lives of citizens in order to 'protect' us from terrorists. It is the first step to totalitarian government.

Answer 2

somewhat but i say "so what".

Answer 3

USA PATRIOT Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Due to vandalism, editing of this article by new or unregistered users is currently disabled. Please discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.
To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page, or replace this tag with a more specific message. Editing help is available.
This article has been tagged since May 2006.USA PATRIOT Act Titles
Title I: Enhancing Domestic Security against Terrorism
Title II: Enhanced Surveillance Procedures
Title III: International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-terrorist Financing Act of 2001
Title IV: Protecting the border
Title V: Removing obstacles to investigating terrorism
Title VI: Providing for victims of terrorism, public safety officers and their families
Title VII: Increased information sharing for critical infrastructure protection
Title VIII: Strengthening the criminal laws against terrorism
Title IX: Improved intelligence
Title X: Miscellaneous

President George W. Bush signing the USA PATRIOT ACT in the White House's East Room on October 26, 2001.USA PATRIOT ACT
U.S. Congress


Long title: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001
Introduced by: Rep. James Sensenbrenner Wisconsin, 2001-10-23
Dates
Date passed: October 24, 2001 (House), October 25, 2001 (Senate)
Date signed into law: 2001-10-26
Amendments:
Related legislation: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, USA Act, Financial Anti-Terrorism Act, Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act
The USA PATRIOT Act [1] (Public Law 107-56) is short for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" Act of 2001 and is a controversial piece of federal legislation in the United States.

Passed after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Act was formed in response to the terrorist attacks against the U.S., and dramatically expands the authority of U.S. law enforcement for the stated purpose of fighting terrorist acts in the United States and abroad. It is also used to detect and prosecute other alleged potential crimes such as providing false information on terrorism. It was renewed on March 2, 2006 with a vote of 89–11 in the Senate and on March 7 280–138 in the House. The renewal was signed into law by President George W Bush on March 9, 2006.

Contents [hide]
1 Scope
2 Related acts
2.1 FISA
2.2 USA Act
2.3 Financial Anti-Terrorism Act
3 Legislative history
4 Organization
5 Provisions
5.1 Government access to library records
6 Enforcement
7 Challenges to limit the USA PATRIOT Act
7.1 U.S. Congress
7.2 Courts
7.2.1 Section 805 ruled unconstitutionally vague
7.2.2 Section 505 ruled unconstitutional
7.2.3 ACLU v. Ashcroft
7.3 The resistance of state and local governments
8 Public opinion
9 Expiration and reauthorization
9.1 Provisions that would expire (original version)
9.2 Provisions that are permanent (original version)
10 Congressional action
11 Comparisons to historical laws
12 Footnotes and references
13 See also
14 External links and references
14.1 Government sources
14.2 Supportive views
14.3 Critical views
14.4 Other
14.5 Law Review Articles
14.6 Books



Scope
Among the laws the USA PATRIOT Act amended are immigration laws and banking and money laundering laws. It also amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

With respect to terrorism definitions, for example, section 802 of the Act created the new crime category of "domestic terrorism." According to this provision, which is found in the U.S. criminal code at 18 U.S.C. § 2331, domestic terrorism means activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

Section 2331 also includes the crime of international terrorism, which is identical to domestic terrorism, except that it transcends national boundaries. But this provision predates the Act.

Other terrorism definitions are found in section 411 of the Act, which amends sections 212 and 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (which is INA sec. 212) relates to "Excludable Aliens." This is where the definitions of "terrorist activity" and "terrorist organization" may be found. 8 U.S.C. § 1189 (INA s. 219) provides for the designation of foreign terrorist organizations.

These provisions interact with other provisions in the criminal code, for example, 18 U.S.C. § 2339A and 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, which criminalize "material support" to terrorists and to foreign terrorist organizations, respectively, drawing on the INA terrorism definitions.


Related acts
The USA PATRIOT Act follows and amends a series of acts that are related to the investigations of foreign intelligence.


FISA
In 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was passed to produce legal guidelines for federal investigations of foreign intelligence targets. Among the rules put in place were regulations governing:

Electronic Surveillance
Physical Searches
Pen registers and Trap and trace devices for Foreign Intelligence Purposes
Access to certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence Purposes
In addition to defining how foreign intelligence investigations were to be performed, FISA also defined who could be investigated. Only foreign powers or agents of foreign powers were to be subject to FISA investigations. Thus, targets are primarily those foreign persons who are engaged in espionage or international terrorism. Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, expanded FISA to permit targeting of so-called "lone wolf" terrorists without requiring any showing that they are members of a terrorist group or agents of such a group or of any other foreign power.


USA Act
The USA Act (Public Law 107-56) was passed on October 12, 2001, and subsequently folded into the USA PATRIOT Act. Under the USA Act, a terrorist who was not an agent of a foreign power could be the target of a federal investigation of foreign intelligence.


Financial Anti-Terrorism Act
The Financial Anti-Terrorism Act was passed on October 17, 2001 and also folded into the USA PATRIOT Act. It increases the federal government's powers to investigate and prosecute the financial supporters of terrorism.


Legislative history
The Act swept through Congress with remarkable speed and little dissent. House Resolution 3162 was introduced in the House of Representatives on October 23, 2001. Assistant Attorney General Viet D. Dinh and future Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff were the primary drafters of the Act. The bill passed in the House of Representatives on October 24, 2001, and in the Senate (Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) cast the lone dissenting vote, and Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) was the sole non-voting member) on October 25, 2001. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on October 26, 2001.


Organization
The Act has ten titles, each containing numerous sections. These are:

Title I: Enhancing Domestic Security against Terrorism deals with measures that counter terrorism
Title II: Enhanced Surveillance Procedures gave increased powers of surveillance to various government agencies and bodies. There were 25 sections, with one of the sections (section 224) containing a sunset clause.
Title III: International money laundering abatement and anti-terrorist financing act of 2001
Title IV: Protecting the border
Title V: Removing obstacles to investigating terrorism
Title VI: Providing for victims of terrorism, public safety officers and their families
Title VII: Increased information sharing for critical infrastructure protection
Title VIII: Strengthening the criminal laws against terrorism
Title IX: Improved intelligence
Title X: Miscellaneous

Provisions
The Act mostly incorporates the provisions of the earlier anti-terrorism USA Act (H.R. 2975 and S. 1510). The House passed the USA Act on October 12, 2001. The Senate passed it on October 11, 2001. The primary differences between the USA Act and the USA PATRIOT Act are:

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 Act has been directed at the provisions for Sneak-and-Peek searches — a term coined by the FBI. Critics argue 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."[1]

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. [2] 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."[3]

However, "sneak and peak" 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).

See also: United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court


Government access to library records
Perhaps the most controversial section of the Act stems from Section 215. Section 215 allows FBI agents to obtain a warrant in camera 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.[4] 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.

On August 26, 2005, The New York Times reported that according to the ACLU, the FBI is demanding library records from a Connecticut institution as part of an intelligence investigation. This would be the first confirmed instance in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought library records, federal officials and the ACLU 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. [5]


Enforcement
It is not clear 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. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft in his 2004 statement The Department of Justice: Working to Keep America Safer 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 Working to Keep America Safer; 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.

On September 11, 2005 the American Civil Liberty Union reports:

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. [...]

Challenges to limit the USA PATRIOT Act
Main article: USA PATRIOT Act controversy
Critics claim that some portions of the Act are unnecessary and allow U.S. law enforcement to infringe upon freedom of speech, freedom of the press, human rights, and right to privacy. Much controversy has arisen over section 215 (see above), which allows judges to grant government investigators ex parte orders to look into personal records (including financial, medical, phone, Internet, student or library records) on the basis of being "relevant for an on going investigation concerning international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities", rather than probable cause as outlined in the fourth amendment. [6]


U.S. Congress
On July 31, 2003, Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), introduced the "Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act" (S. 1552) [7]. 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.

On September 24, 2003, 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 Department of Justice 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. [8]

On June 15, 2005, 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. [9]

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 House on April 6, 2005, would curtail some powers of the Act by requiring court reviews and reporting requirements.


Courts

Section 805 ruled unconstitutionally vague
January 23, 2004, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins ruled that Section 805 (which classifies "expert advice or assistance" as material support to terrorism) was vague and in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments, marking the first legal decision 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. [10]

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.


Section 505 ruled unconstitutional
On September 29, 2004, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down Section 505—which allowed the government to issue "National Security Letters" to obtain sensitive customer records from Internet service providers and other businesses without judicial oversight—as a violation of the First and Fourth Amendment. The court also found the broad gag provision in the law to be an "unconstitutional prior restraint" on free speech. [11]


ACLU v. Ashcroft
Main article: ACLU v. Ashcroft (2004)
On April 9, 2004 the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the national security letter (NSL)[12] provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which allows the Director of the FBI (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 Internet Service Providers 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.

On August 30, 2004, the ACLU 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."


The resistance of state and local governments
Eight states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana and Vermont) and 396 cities and counties (including New York City; Los Angeles; Dallas; Chicago; Eugene, Oregon; Philadelphia; and Cambridge, Massachusetts) 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). The Bill of Rights Defense Committee 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.


Public opinion
According to a Gallup poll, the public is wary about the Act. In January 2002, 47% of Americans wanted their government to stop terrorism even if it reduced civil liberties. By November 2003 this number had dropped to 31%, indicating either increasing concern about expanding government powers 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.

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.

Gallup Poll statistics[13][14]:

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%

Around 2003, NBC or CBS did another poll that indicated 52% of Americans are concerned that their civil liberties are being infringed by the administration's war on terrorism.[15]


Expiration and reauthorization
This article or section needs to be updated.
Parts of this article or section have been identified as no longer being up to date.
Please update the article to reflect recent events, and remove this template when finished.


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. [16] 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. [17] His statement was criticized for an apparent intention to withhold information that the Act required him to provide to Congress. [18]


Provisions that would expire (original version)
§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)
§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 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.

Congressional action
This article or section needs to be updated.
Parts of this article or section have been identified as no longer being up to date.
Please update the article to reflect recent events, and remove this template when finished.


On June 10, 2005, during testimony at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the reauthorization of the Act, Chairman James Sensenbrenner (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 President Bush's 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.[17] Witnesses continued testifying despite Sensenbrenner's departure, while C-SPAN cameras continued to roll after microphones and lights were promptly turned off by House Judiciary Majority Counsel, Robert Tracci.

On July 21, 2005, 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 F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin).

On December 16, 2005, the Senate refused to end debate on legislation to renew the Act. The Senate fell seven votes short of invoking cloture 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.

On December 21, 2005, 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.

On February 17, 2006, the Washington Times reported:

"Last week, Republican Sens. John E. Sununu of New Hampshire, Larry E. Craig of Idaho, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, all dropped their opposition to the bill after modifications were made that they said appeased their concerns about protecting civil liberties." [19]

Comparisons to historical laws
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. No specific accusations of chilled free speech caused by the USA PATRIOT Act have been reported.
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)
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.

Footnotes and references
^ The backronym for the USA PATRIOT Act is [The] Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001

See also
U.S. governmental response to the September 11 attacks
Homeland security
Alien and Sedition Acts
Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act
Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, also known as PATRIOT II.
ACLU v. Ashcroft (2004) - the court opinion mentions PATRIOT Act three times but provisions of the PATRIOT Act were not adjudicated. [20]
Red Squad
Security and Freedom Ensured Act
Bank Secrecy Act
Ohio Patriot Act
Patriot Debates
Reichstag Fire Decree

External links and references
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
USA PATRIOT Act
Government sources
The Act began as House Resolution (H.R.) 3162.
H.R. 3162, full text
H.R. 3162, Bill Summary and Status
H.R. 3162, all information
H.R. 3162, Vote Summary (House)
H.R. 3162, Vote Summary (Senate)
"The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty" by the Department of Justice
2005 renewal:
H.R. 3199, Bill Summary and Status
Section-by-section summary by Senator Patrick Leahy

Supportive views
The Patriot Act and Related Provisions: The Heritage Foundation's Research
Patriot Hysteria - The Zacarias Moussaoui Protection Act, article by Rich Lowry, National Review
In Defense of the Patriot Act by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Patriot Act: 101 by Jon Thibault, FrontPage Magazine
The Patriot Act under Fire by law professors John Yoo and Eric Posner, December 23, 2003
The Patriot Act, Reauthorized, JURIST

Critical views
PATRIOT Games: Terrorism Law and Executive Power, JURIST
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
Jennifer Van Bergen, Repeal the Patriot Act A six-part series analysing 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 Lithwic, 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 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 Patriot Act and Individual Liberties

Other
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
1996: Laws proposed by ADL and AIPAC that were later incorporated into the Patriot Act
Read Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding the USA Patriot Act

Law Review Articles
Robert M. Chesney, The Sleeper Scenario: Terrorism Support Laws and the Demands of Prevention, Harvard Journal on Legislation (2005)
Daniel J. Solove, Fourth Amendment Codification and Professor Kerr's Misguided Call for Judicial Deference, 74 Fordham L. R. (2005).
Orin Kerr, Digital Evidence and the New Criminal Procedure, Columbia L. R. (2005).
Jennifer Van Bergen, In the Absence of Democracy: The Designation and Material Support Provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Laws, 2 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 107 (2003).
Eric J. Gouvin, Bringing Out the Big Guns: The USA Patriot Act, Money Laundering and the War on Terrorism, 55 Baylor L. Rev. 955 (2003).

Books
C. William Michaels, No Greater Threat: America Since September 11 and the Rise of the National Security State (Algora Publishing, 2002) ISBN 0875861555 -- covers all ten titles of the PATRIOT Act; an updated version, including discussion of amendments and complements to the Act, is just completed but not yet available.
David Cole & James X. Dempsey, Terrorism and the Constitution; Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security (W.W.Norton & Co., 2nd Ed., 2002) ISBN 1565847822 -- full discussion of prior legislative history of the Act, going back more than ten years.
Jennifer Van Bergen, The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America (Common Courage Press, 2004) ISBN 1567512925 -- a constitutional analysis for the general public of the PATRIOT Act and other administrative measures, with the first half of the book spent on principles of democracy and constitutional law
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act"