Section 206 erodes the basic constitutional rule of particularization by allow the government to obtain “”roving wiretaps”” without empowering the court to make sure that the government ascertain that the conversations being intercepted actually involve a target of the investigation. Section 206 of the Patriot Act created roving wiretaps in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) investigations. Because there is a greater potential for abuse using roving wiretaps compared to traditional wiretaps, which apply to a single telephone, Congress insisted on important privacy safeguards when, prior to the Patriot Act, it first approved this “”updated”” surveillance power for criminal investigations. Reality: The Patriot Act “”updated”” surveillance powers – but failed to “”update”” the checks and balances needed to ensure those surveillance powers include proper judicial oversight.įor example, a roving wiretap follows the target of the surveillance from telephone to telephone. Myth: The Patriot Act simply “”updated the tools of law enforcement to match the technology used by the terrorists and criminals today.”” These automatic secrecy orders prohibit recipients from telling anyone they have received the order or letter to produce documents that include their customers’ private information. For example, both special document FBI document snoop orders, called “”national security letters,”” (expanded by section 505 of the Patriot Act) and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) document orders (expanded by section 215 of the Act), include permanent “”gag”” provisions. The extent of Patriot Act abuse is still unknown because of excessive secrecy enshrouding its use. The Justice Department largely confirmed the substance of these examples in its response to the ACLU letter, dated April 26, 2005, while denying that the examples listed were “”abuses.”” The Office of Inspector General of the Department of Justice is actively investigating the Brandon Mayfield case. Notably, Ramadan, who denounces the use of violence in the name of Islam, had already been granted a visa after undergoing an extensive security clearance process and had previously been permitted to enter the country on numerous occasions.Ī number of other examples are also listed in the ACLU’s letter. There is no doubt that Ramadan uses his position of prominence to espouse his political beliefs. As such, the government can essentially use this provision to deny admission to those whose political views it disfavors. The government revoked Ramadan’s visa to teach at the University of Notre Dame under Section 411 of the Patriot Act, which permits the government to exclude non-citizens from the country if in the government’s view they have “”used position of prominence to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or to persuade others to support terrorist activity.”” Consequently, an individual who discusses politics that a terrorist organization may adopt as its own viewpoints may be excluded from the United States, even if the individual does not support terrorist activity. Time Magazine named Ramadan among the Top 100 Innovators of the 21st Century.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |