Name of student:

Course name:

Class name:

Date assignment due:

Contents

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) 2

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. 2

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. 4

Contrast and comparison between the acts. 5

Anticipated effect of the acts on the war on terrorism.. 5

References. 7

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

This act was passed in 1978. It was meant to provide a statutory platform such that electronic surveillance could be used to gather foreign intelligence. The act was passed by the state in order to ensure that the delicate matter of maintaining a balance between national security and privacy rights was handled in an amicable way.

ORDER NOW

Following the enactment of this act, other laws dealing with matters of how intelligence was gathered internationally were passed. Other issues handled by this law include the use of pen registers, physical searches, trap machines as well as access to predefined business records.

The act also made it possible for matters relating to facts to be dealt with in the best way in order for efforts relating to the collection of foreign intelligence to be fruitful. This was envisaged to also make it easy for criminal investigations to be handled in a properly coordinated manner.

The act was also formulated in a manner that made it easy to deal with international terrorism. Soon after the enactment of this law, some amendments were made that it possible for the information to be shared among different law enforcement agencies. These changes were appreciated by the 9/11 Commission which noted that the removal of the wall that existed between law enforcement and intelligence opened up some exciting new opportunities that made cooperation within the FBI very easy (Carr, 1986).

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

Efforts to enact the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 started a decade earlier but were stimulated by the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City. Title I of this law was an amendment of habeas corpus law and its application to federal and state prisoners. This section applies to all prisoners, regardless of whether they are on death row or not (Rannik, 1996).

The legal-factual issues over which rulings are made by state courts were amended in several ways. To begin with, a statute of limitations of one year was created for general-level cases while for death penalty cases, the state of limitation was set at 6 months. States were encouraged to handle the appointment of counsel for death row inmates in the course of state habeas and appellate proceedings. Lastly, a requirement was made that repetitious habeas petitions required appellate court approval.

            The circumstances under which it is possible to sue foreign governments that are supportive of terrorism for injuries that result from terrorist activities were spelled out in title II of this act. It is also here that the compensation and assistance available for terrorism victims was increased. Title III contains provisions for the mechanisms of severing financial support to international terrorists. Regulatory measures on fundraising efforts by foreign organizations that have links with terrorism are also spelled out in this section. Title IV deals with immigration and terrorism, title V deals with restrictions on materials that can bring about mass destruction if left in the hands of terrorists while title VI handles matters of treaties that require world countries to employ tougher detection mechanisms for plastic explosives.

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was enacted in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks in order to give greater authority to federal officials in terms of tracking and intercepting communications for purposes of gathering intelligence. These measures would be carried out for purposes of both enforcing the law domestically as well as dealing with international terrorists.

After the enactment of this act, it was possible for a treasury secretary to use regulatory powers that would make it possible to deal with corruption within U.S financial institutions as well money laundering at the international level. In matters of fighting terrorism, this bill makes it easy to close local borders to terrorists as well as expel those terrorists who exist with these borders.

ORDER NOW

For counterterrorism efforts to be effective, new crimes and penalties are created and more efficient procedures are created in order to deal with both local and international terrorists. Some observers voiced concerns that this bill goes a bit too far although it grants for the majority of the enhancements that are often sought by the U.S Department of Justice (Doyle, 2002).

The USA PATRIOT Act was a result of a constitutional draft what the Department of Justice circulated around before congress put in some additions (Doyle, 2002). It was hoped that through this act, all those responsible for the September 11 attacks would be apprehended and that similar attacks would be avoided in the future.

Contrast and comparison between the acts

All three acts have provisions that are aimed at reducing the vulnerability of the U.S to terrorist attacks. Additionally, all acts have provisions that allow authorities to infringe on people’s privacy in the search for intelligence for use in the fight against terrorism on both international and local frontiers. All the acts entail the involvement of different departments for them to work properly. For this reason, sharing of information among different investigative and intelligence authorities is emphasized for the acts to work well. At some point, all the acts have had to be amended in order to go with the changing local and international environment as well as to make them better equipped to deal with emerging terrorism challenges.

            However, each act shows some peculiarities in the circumstances surrounding its enactment as well as the response it attracts for the public. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 was enacted when it was felt that there was a need to coordinate international terrorism investigations.

            The enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 was motivated by the Oklahoma City bombing while The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was enacted in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Anticipated effect of the acts on the war on terrorism

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 has enabled the country to control the manner in which plastic explosives are used so that they are not easily accessible to terrorists. It was anticipated that the USA PATRIOT Act would make the U.S a safer place to live in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In a way, the act has succeeded although observers note that some amendments are needed in response to different ways in which terrorist tactics are changing very rapidly (Williams, 2001). Through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the ride in the days to come would be smoother for agents involved in gathering terrorism intelligence at the global platform. Although is true, technology has changed too fast, meaning that frequent amendments to the act are necessary.

References

Carr, J. 1986. Law of Electronic Surveillance (Second Edition). New York: Clark Boardman Company

Doyle, C. 2002. The USA PATRIOT Act: A Legal Analysis Washington D. C.: CRS Report for Congress

Rannik, J.  1996. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996: A Death Sentence for the 212(c) Waiver. The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 28(1) p. 123-150.

Williams, K. 2001. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act: What’s Wrong with It and How to Fix It.  HeinOnline’s Law Journal 101(33) p. 919-921