英语论文网

be tried “in the district where venue would lie for the complete offense, or in any other district where an act in furtherance” of the crime occurred. 1012 places more stringent scrutiny on anyone seeking a license for a vehicle involved with the transportation of hazardous material. [xxvii]

Since its passage in 2001, the PATRIOT Act has gone through two reauthorizations. The first of these occurred under President Bush and is named the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (USA PATRIOT IRA or PATRIOT IRA), signed March 2. Title I of this act revokes the expiration date set forth in 224 on 201 (interception of communications related to terrorism), 202 (interception of communications related to computer fraud), 204, 207 (FISA surveillance of foreign persons), 209 (right to access voice-mail messages), 212 (disclosure of electronic information to protect life and limb), 214 (pen registers and tap and traces), 217 (interception of information sent by unauthorized computer users), 218 (using the FISA for the gathering of foreign intelligence), 220 (nationwide search warrants), 223 (civil suits), and 225 (legal immunity). Title II reinstates the death penalty for “air piracy murders committed between 1974 and 1994” and authorizes lifetime supervision for terrorists released from prison. Title I also resets the date 206 (roving surveillance) and 215 (authority to obtain company records) expire to December 31, 2009. [xxviii] The second reauthorization, signed by President Obama on February 27, 2010, is a one-year extension of the parts of the PATRIOT Act concerning roving wire taps, the ability to obtain records, and a FISA provision concerning suspects termed lone wolfs—meaning “someone deemed suspicious but without any known ties to an organized terrorist group.” [xxix]

Critics of the PATRIOT Act argue that it infringes upon citizens’ rights and gives the government too much power. In a letter to Congress before the passage of the PATRIOT IRA, the American Civil Liberties Union argued that there was a fundamental flaw with, as far as record gathering is concerned, grouping American citizens with terrorists. Additional grievances expressed by the ACLU include the “illusory right to challenge the secrecy orders accompanying these record demands.” For this problem, the ACLU posits that a citizen’s right to challenge unauthorized disclosures (expressed in 223) is trumped if the government claims that there is a threat to national security, causing any court investigating the person’s claim to side with the government. Furthermore, if a wronged person talks to anyone about the unwarranted breach, he “can go to federal prison for a year.” The ACLU also states that the “sneak and peek” search provisions (213) violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. The use of National Security Letters, tens of thousands of which have been issued, effectively gives the FBI the authority to issue its own subpoenas for company records. [xxx] An article by NPR outlines problems with Title II of the PATRIOT Act. 203 creates the possibility of “massive databases about citizens who are not the targets of criminal investigations.” Critics of roving wiretaps (206) argue that it enables surveillance of uninvolved citizens who come into “casual contact with a suspect.” This objection is similar to that for 805, which might cause “guilt by association” with terrorists. 215 applies too