1. Mike Anderson Todd Craig David Goldenberg
USA PATRIOT Act
Mike Anderson
Todd Craig
David Goldenberg

2. The USA PATRIOT Act
Act of Congress signed by George W. Bush on October 26, 2001.
Acronym which stands for: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.
The Act expanded the authority of U.S law enforcement with the purpose of fighting terrorism in the U.S and abroad.
Enhanced the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions.
Expanded the definition of terrorism to include “domestic terrorism”

3. Title II – Enhanced Surveillance Procedures

4. Title II – Enhanced Surveillance Procedures
Purpose
To expand the powers of Federal agencies to intercept, gather and share information on suspected terrorists or agents of a foreign power engaged in clandestine activities.
Expanded the rules of wiretaps and search warrants for individuals covered under these provisions

5. Title II – Enhanced Surveillance Procedures
Acts amended by Title II
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA)
Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA)

6. Title II – Enhanced Surveillance Procedures
Key Provisions
Allowed intercepts of communication based on suspicion of terrorism
Made gathering of foreign intelligence information from FISA-based surveillance “a significant” purpose rather than the primary
Allowed sharing of information between criminal and terrorism investigations
Adding terrorism to the statues allows investigators to go after targets based on suspicion of terrorism, before a crime has been committed.
Change to FISA made gathering of foreign intelligence information a “significant” rather than sole purpose of FISA – therby expanding its use in the collection of information of KSTs
Formerly it was believed that information could not be shared between investigations, FISA court found this was actually a misinterpretation of the law and no “wall” had ever actually existed.

7. Title II – Enhanced Surveillance Procedures
Key Provisions (cont.)
Allowed Roving surveillance authority
Broaden subpoena powers for records of electronic communication
Single-jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism
Delayed notification of search warrants
Roving surveillance authority allows investigators to wiretap and individual rather than a specific phone line or electronics device. This prevents KST from switching devices to stay ahead of authorities.
Broader subpoena powers over records allow investigators to get payment and other records from providers such as ISPs or phone companies where a false name may have been used to sign up for service.
Single-jurisdiction search warrants allow that warrants may be issued in any jurisdiction where act was committed, regardless of where it will be executed.
Delayed notification or “sneak and peek” searches allowed the investigators to wait a “reasonable time” before notifying a person of a search warrant if immediate notice would have an adverse result on the investigation

8. Title II – Enhanced Surveillance Procedures
Why the changes were necessary
Allowed law enforcement to use tools to fight terrorism that were already available for use against organized crime or other criminal investigations
Enabled federal officials to conduct terrorist investigations without tipping off terrorists
Allowed federal agents to obtain business records in national security terrorism cases

9. Title II – Enhanced Surveillance Procedures
What the law does not do-
Does not allow the government to violate the First Amendment Rights of U.S. persons
Does not expand the law to include “domestic terrorism” where any dissent from government policy could bring terrorism charges
Does not open everyone’s shopping and library habits to monitoring
Everything done will comply with U.S. law and is subject to judicial review
Any peaceful protest that does not violate existing laws will not be subject to this Act

10. Title II – Enhanced Surveillance Procedures
Sunset Provisions
Sec Sunset. H.R included a provision to sunset certain amendments made by this title in 3 to 5 years. H.R provides a 4-year sunset for sections 206, 201, 202, 203(b), 204, 206, 207, 209, 210, 212, 214, 215, 217, 218, 220, at the end December 31, 2005, with the authorities "grandfathered" as to particular investigations based on offenses occurring prior to sunset.
Many of these tools were included under the Protect America Act which expired on February 16, 2008

11. Title III – International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001

12. What is Money Laundering?
Money obtained by committing a crime may serve as proof against the criminal and may trigger investigations when used for legal financial transactions (for example when purchasing a house with illegal proceeds the banks or authorities involved may ask for the origin of the funds).
Criminals therefore often try to cover the origin of criminal money by faking a legal source (for example a trade deal, lottery win or – a money transfer). This process is called money laundering.

13. What is Money Laundering?
Example:
A drug dealer sells drugs for a street value of $7,000.
To pretend that the money was made by selling a car, the criminal gives the money to an accomplice and sells his car (with a “real” blue book value of $1,000) to the accomplice for $ 7,000.
The criminal receives the $7,000 as the purchase price (which is now “laundered” as the legal proceeds from a car sale) and the accomplice gains the car.

14. Subtitle A - International Counter Money Laundering and Related Measures
Designed to facilitate communication between financial institutions and the U.S government. In addition it combats international money laundering by:
- Making financial institutions responsible for taking Special Measures against money laundering.
- Restricting or prohibiting the use of certain types of bank accounts.
- Taking Actions on all financial institutions, even those NOT on U.S soil, by adding further regulatory legislation.
- Adding and increasing existing penalties for Corruption.

15. Sections of Subtitle A:
Special Measures : Section 311, Section 312, Section 313, Section 314, Section 326, Section 327
Restrictions on banks and accounts: Section 313, Section 319, Section 325
Actions on foreign soil: Section 315, Section 320, Section 323, Section 328
Corruption: Section 329

16. Subtitle B - Bank Secrecy Act Amendments and Related Improvements
Modifies the Bank Secrecy Act by making it easier for regulatory agencies and law enforcement to monitor monetary transactions and harder for money launderers to operate.
- It addresses the issue of Record Keeping and Reporting of suspicious transactions.
- Creates Anti-money laundering programs and defines a better strategy to combat it.
- Penalties, both Civil and Criminal are increased and introduces geographic targeting orders.
- Expands the role of FinCEN.

17. Sections of Subtitle B:
Record Keeping and Recording: Section 356 (SARs), Section 359 (MSBs), Section 359 (CTRs)
Anti-money laundering programs: Section 352, Section 354
Penalties: Section 353, Section 363
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, FinCEN, was made into a a bureau of the U.S Department of the Treasury.

18. Subtitle C - Currency Crimes and Protection
Attempts to prevent Bulk cash smuggling and allows for freezing of transactions, as well as forfeiture of funds which originate or have the intent of being used in criminal activity.
Bulk cash smuggling – Section 371
Other Provisions:
- Protection of Federal Reserve Facilities: Section 364
- IRS will continue processing information as specified by Section 357
- Forfeiture of property: Section 372
- Counterfeiting of Foreign or Domestic Currency: Section 374, Section 375

19. Title IX - Improved Intelligence

20. The Wall
Created in the 1980s, and arguably codified in a 1995 secret memo and reinforced in an August 6, 2001 secret memo, The Wall required “a separation of the two fields of counterintelligence and criminal search warrants.”
Goal: Ensure that FISA warrants could not be used to collect criminal wrong-doings.
2002: Special Federal Court of Appeals declared that the PATRIOT Act, in requiring intelligence sharing, destroyed the wall. The Court also ruled that the Department of Justice had been misinterpreting the law for over 20 years and that various provisions authorizing intelligence sharing was never needed.
The 4th Amendment on searches and seizures require probable cause for a warrant to be issued. FISA warrants do not. All you have to show is that there was or could be probable cause that someone was a foreign agent.
The Court ruling came when the FBI told one of its agents that it would not seek a court order to search the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui who had been arrested in August 2001 on immigration charges.
Had they looked at the computer, they would have seen that the September 11 terrorists had been taking flying lessions in the US.

21. What the PATRIOT Act did for Intelligence Sharing
Authorizes federal agencies to share information obtained from wiretaps and other newly authorized search mechanisms with other relevant agencies (Sec. 203(b)).
Removes barriers/restrictions on federal attorneys who want to share grand jury investigation information (Sec. 203(d)).
Allows intelligence agencies conducting searches under FISA to consult and coordinate efforts with local law enforcement (Sec. 504).
Requires the heads of federal intelligence collection agencies (DoJ/FBI, CIA, DoD, etc.) to disclose to the Director of National Intelligence any foreign intelligence obtained during a criminal investigation (Sec. 905).
Requires the Attorney General to establish procedures on how to implement new intelligence sharing procedures and develop a training program for Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials on how to handle, process, and transmit intelligence obtained during normal non-intelligence related investigations (Sec. 203(c) and Sec. 908).
Treasury also received authority to review all-source intelligence to counter terrorist financial support networks.
Important to remember, increased intelligence sharing was not the primary goal of the PATRIOT Act. Collecting information was.
It is, nevertheless, perhaps the most important part of the Act. What do you do with the information once you have it and who gets to see it is “where the rubber hits the road.”

22. March 6, 2002 Department of Justice Memo
“The Attorney General can most effectively direct and control foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence investigations only if all relevant DOJ components are free to offer advice and make recommendations, both strategic and tactical, about the conduct and goals of the investigation. The overriding need to protect the national security from foreign threats compels a full and free exchange of information and ideas.” John Ashcroft, US AG
Establishes procedures for FBI to inform other DOJ offices and agencies on any intelligence information gathered during investigations.
Requires the FBI to draft memos to DOJ offices and agencies on all foreign intelligence, foreign counterintelligence, and other relevant investigations.
Requires that U.S. Attorneys be informed of any intelligence investigations occurring at the same time as other related-civil litigation.
Prohibits U.S. Attorneys from taking action on intelligence-related criminal actions before consulting with the DOJ Criminal Division and Office of Intelligence Policy and Review.
Memo written to FBI, Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division, Counsel for Intelligence Policy and all US Attorneys.
Limits are placed on all of these. They are triggered by FISA Court guidance, existing procedures, or if the AG for Deputy AG give specific orders.

23. The 9-11 Commission Report on Intelligence Sharing
“It is hard to ‘break down stovepipes’ when there are so many stoves that are legally and politically entitled to have cast-iron pipes of their own… There are no punishments for not sharing information. Agencies uphold a ‘need-to-know’ culture of information protection rather than promoting a ‘need-to-share’ culture of integration.”
6 Problems/Barriers
Structural barriers to performing joint intelligence work.
Lack of common standards and practices.
Divided management of national intelligence capabilities.
Weak capacity to set priorities and move resources.
Too many jobs.
System is too complex and secret.
3 Key Recommendations
Establish National Director of Intelligence to oversee and manage all national intelligence centers and the national intelligence program.
Incentivize and encourage information sharing procedures.
Congress must conduct stronger oversight over intelligence agencies and consolidate oversight authorities to only a few committees and subcommittees.
This was such a hot topic for the 9-11 Commission, they devoted almost 3 full chapters to the issue.
Recommendations also included:
Consolidate direction and execution of paramilitary operations under one Department.
There are currently 93 committees and subcommittees which have some jurisdiction over US intelligence agencies. This is still a problem that needs to be addressed.

24. Congressional and Executive Branch Action
Required President to develop and implement intelligence sharing activities for homeland security activities (2002).
Required federal government to integrate local law enforcement into intelligence analysis when appropriate (2002).
Mandated the hiring of additional intelligence officers and analysts to address human capital shortages. Also gave agencies the flexibility to hire in areas with the greatest need ( ).
Created the FBI Director of Intelligence (2004).
Executive Branch
DHS – Established the Terrorist Integration Center (T-TIC) to improve collection, analysis and sharing of intel coming through DHS. Eventually because the National Counterterrorism Center.
FBI – Created the Office of Intelligence, established a National Joint Terrorism Task Force, expanded its Joint Terrorist Task Forces and integrated the Task Force into an interagency joint Terrorist Screening Center.
DOJ – Fully developed and expanded the Office of National Security.
GAO was asked to respond to the 9-11 Commission recommendations and address the lack of effective information sharing and analysis and the need for Exec Branch reorganization post September 11.
Local law enforcement – This requirement also included developing a new multi-leveled security clearance process to allow for local law enforcement to quickly be cleared for information sharing purposes.
More than 187,000 clearance prcedures were not completed in a timely fashion between 2001 and 2004.

25. 2005 PATRIOT Act Reauthorization
In general, the bill reauthorizes all of the intelligence sharing provisions.
The bill makes permanent the number of foreign intelligence-related cases in which the CIA and FBI can share information federal prosecutors (Sec. 218).
Section 218 is highly controversial. Civil Rights groups contend that expanding the number of these cases will open up the door for warrantless searches and seizures for no reason.
This provision completely destroys “The Wall.”

26. Information Sharing Among Federal Agencies

27. Outstanding Issues Title II – Enhanced Surveillance Procedures
Sunset Provisions
Balance between civil liberties and the intelligence gathering
Reform FISA laws in a manner that gives intelligence agencies the ability to prosecute threats, protects civil liberties and encourages and requires information sharing 27

28. Outstanding Issues (cont.)
REALITY: Changing the law has limitations. While the PATRIOT Act may authorize new programs, the Executive Branch and Congress need to do their part.
Change Intelligence Community attitude toward information sharing.
Increase focus on improved cooperation, coordination and information sharing throughout the Intelligence Community.
Remove the added bureaucracy created by various new agencies, departments and offices.
Enhance Congressional oversight and eliminate number of committees with jurisdiction over intelligence programs.
This is an example where Congress can mandate certain things, but it takes the actions of the Executive Branch to implement those new policies.

29. Bibliography Department of Justice. www.lifeandliberty.gov/index.html
U.S. Senate - Senator Leahy leahy.senate.gov/press/200110/102401a.html
Wikipedia: USA Patriot Act –
American Civil Liberties Union.
Best, Richard A. “Sharing Law Enforcement and Intelligence Information: The Congressional Role.” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. February 13, 2007.
Curry, Tom. “Congress to grapple with Patriot Act renewal.” MSNBC. 12 November 2004.
Department of Homeland Security.
“Foreign Intelligence Surveillance.” News Hour with Jim Leher. 1 March 2006.
Gonzales, The Honorable Alberto R. “Reauthorize the Patriot Act.” Washington Post. 14 December 2005; A29.
Lewis, Neil A. “Threats and Responses.” The New York Times. 14 April 2004.
Thompson, Larry. “Intelligence Collection and Information Sharing within the United States.” Brookings Institute. 8 December 2003.
Walker, The Honorable David M. “Reorganziation, Transformation, and Information Sharing.” U.S. Government Accountability Office. Testimony before Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives. 3 August GAO T.
Yeh, Brian T. and Charles Doyle. “USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005: A Legal Analysis.” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. December 21, 2006.
9-11 Commission Report. 29