6.3: Patriot Act

The USA Patriot Act expanded the definition of terrorist organization as: “any group two or more individuals, whether organized or not, that commit or initiate to commit terrorist activity, plans a terrorist activity, or gathers information for potential targets of terrorist activity” (Aziz, 2003). This definition imposes an ideological test for examination of any representative of a political/social group who publically supports or endorses terrorist activity. By this definition the standard only requires that the individual knew or should have known, but not actual knowledge of terrorist activity. Welcome to federal law. The above is not inconsistent to definitions of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968, The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) originally designed to cover activity of the Mafia in domestic criminal law (Goldsmith, 1988). Critics will argue the USA Patriot Act is www.justice.gov/archive/ll/what_is_the_patriot_act.pdf (Link to Patriot Act) applied through double standards for Israeli organizations and individuals involved in known terrorist activity in contrast to those with affiliation with Iraqi relief foundations (Aziz, 2003).

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was established in 1978 when Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which is codified, as amended, at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1885c. The Court sits in Washington D.C., and is composed of eleven federal district court judges who are designated by the Chief Justice of the United States. Each judge serves for a maximum of seven years and their terms are staggered to ensure continuity on the Court. By statute, the judges must be drawn from at least seven of the United States judicial circuits, and three of the judges must reside within 20 miles of the District of Columbia. Judges typically sit for one week at a time, on a rotating basis (U.S. Courts. gov.). The following link is provided for rules and procedures of the court. http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.pdf

According to Goldsmith (1988), The U.S. Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to follow the continuity-plus-relationship test in order (RICO Act Standard) to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established pattern. Predicate acts are related if they "have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events” (p. 971).

The FBI is authorized under the Patriot Act to request, and now authorizes the court to issue search warrants for citizens believed to be involved in terrorist activity. The court is the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court. Activities may include act such as non-violent protest against the government as covered under the First Amendment (Constitutional Foundation, n.d.).

Ethics will ultimately determine discretion, greater good in balance with being morally correct will determine accuracy; however each case will be determined by its own set of circumstances and no one definition of ethics will fit every circumstance and perhaps they may co-exist. The main question posed for citizens is whether this is too much authority by the government or is the question, if a citizen is not doing anything wrong they have nothing to worry about. Is ethics left for the eye of the beholder or is ethical conduct left for those that shall pass judgment in hind sight? This may always be the prevailing and lingering question when dealing with ethics?