- What does the USA PATRIOT Act permit with regard to the surveillance of suspected terrorists? Based on past experiences and ongoing public debate, what public criticism might arise if I speak out in favor of increasing the use of surveillance?
The USA PATRIOT Act, which stands for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism,” holds the explicit objective of expanding surveillance activities, as part of an immediate response to the September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks (EPIC). Being a counterterrorist response by Congress, the USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, albeit without addressing its inherent problem concerning its lack of checks and balances to protect civil liberties from discretionary actions arising from said law (EPIC). Expanding surveillance to fight against terrorism is profoundly expounded as among the key objectives of the USA PATRIOT Act, as it took precedence from three prior laws (EPIC): Title III (probable cause for intercepting voice and data communication content), Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA; use of pen register upon government certification and court authorization) and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA; allowing government to conduct electronic surveillance on a target that is a, or an agent of, a foreign power subject to a judicial order).
With that, the USA PATRIOT Act permits the following with regard to surveillance of suspected terrorists: use of pen registers and other similar devices, allowing wiretapping in investigating terrorism and computer crimes through their designation as predicate offenses, greater interception and dissemination of information, search-warranting for voice mail messages, interception “computer trespasser communications” as authorized by the computer owner, nationwide use of search warrants to obtain communications and undergoing secret “sneak and peak” searches, in cases where the presentation of a warrant is deemed more harmful to the situation (EPIC). However, the USA PATRIOT Act, given its lack of checks and balances, can provide the government numerous opportunities to violate the First and Fourth Amendment rights of all United States (US) citizens, hence public criticisms against it (EPIC). The relative ease the USA PATRIOT Act affords access to communications to the government by reason of terrorism, which is otherwise constitutionally protected, makes it a delicate point of abusive discretion (EPIC).
- What role might the Foreign Intelligence Service Act and the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court play in an attempt to use surveillance within New York State? How is the Court structured and how does it address surveillance warrant applications?
As the entire New York State is under threat of terrorist attacks conducted by Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) extremists, some of which are already reported to be residing therein, the USA PATRIOT Act, as mentioned previously, has an undisputed role in enabling the government to conduct wider surveillance measures therein. The Foreign Intelligence Service Act (FISA) and the FIS Court (FISC), having both preceded and improved by the USA PATRIOT Act, both authorize the use of electronic surveillance subject to an application submitted by the Attorney General (EPIC). Such application, which undergoes thorough review by the FISC, must contain qualifying details (EPIC). A thorough reasoning arguing that the surveillance target is connected to a foreign power in any way and that the information intended for collection constitutes foreign intelligence information qualifies the application (EPIC). Also needed are details on previous related applications on the surveillance target, nature and type of information and communication sought for surveillance, duration of the surveillance process and assertion of the need for physical entry when necessary (EPIC). As a protective measure satisfying First and Fourth Amendment rights, the FISA enables the FISC consider only those applications that provide procedures that would minimize the “acquisition, use and retention” of all information and communications obtained via electronic surveillance against US citizens who did not provide consent towards it (EPIC).
- These two agencies (Immigration and Customs Enforcement – ICE, and Customs and Border Protection) have similar names and both fall under the Department of Homeland Security. What are the specific duties of these two agencies, and how do they differ in responsibility?
Both the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection hold identical names and are designated as agencies of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Nonetheless, both the ICE and Customs and Border Protection have specific roles that different them from one another. The ICE ensures national security in the US through prosecuting and deporting identified, investigated and apprehended foreign nationals that are deemed as threats. Specifically, the ICE pays attention to crucial aspects of terrorist operations, which include communications, finances and preparations. With close coordination with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the ICE conducts anti-terrorist measures via its National Security Division. The Homeland Security Investigations (HIS) directorate of the ICE controls the following divisions that monitor illegal activities concerning goods and people crossing US borders: Domestic Operations, Intelligence, International Affairs, Mission Support, National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center and National Security Investigations Division (BorderPatrolEdu.org). The Customs and Border Protection, however, departs from the investigative nature of the ICE as it focuses more on the prevention of illegal immigrants – in the current context, foreign nationals that have terrorist connections, from entering the premises of the US. Contraband products are also barred from entering US borders by the Customs and Border Protection. In that sense, the Customs and Border Protection serves as the employer of Border Patrol agents who are tasked to carry out the foregoing roles of the agency (Julia at Legal Language).
- In what ways might these agencies work together to assist me and the State of New York in protecting against persons travelling into the state to commit terrorist activities?
Both the ICE and the Customers and Border Protection, in their nationwide capacities, can assist the Governor to prevent more ISIS extremists from entering New York State. The ICE, within its investigative capacity, can review the profiles of foreign nationals are deemed to have connections with the ISIS. Such can assist the Governor to prevent operations designed to conduct terrorist attacks from further progressing, given that such are conducted by ISIS extremists residing in New York State who may be gathering information on how best such can be conducted therein. Deportation can uproot the operations of ISIS extremists in New York State, subject to the applicable powers provided to the ICE by the USA PATRIOT Act, FISA and FISC (BorderPatrolEdu.org). The Customs and Border Protection, for its part, assists the Governor in terms of physically preventing ISIS extremists from entering New York State. At the same time, the Customs and Border Protection may prevent the entry of contraband products that may prove useful for ISIS extremists into New York State (Julia at Legal Language). Taken together, both the ICE and the Customs and Border Protection work on two sides in order to prevent terrorist attacks conducted by ISIS extremists from ever happening within New York State.
- During the Ebola crisis of 2014, on what authority did the Governors of New York and New Jersey order mandatory quarantines?
Andrew Cuomo and Chris Christie, the governors of New York and New Jersey, respectively, acted in their executive capacity as they jointly issued a mandatory quarantine policy for persons exposed to Ebola patients in West Africa. The quarantine policy, which exceeds the rules set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), requires all persons from West Africa entering into New York and New Jersey to undergo a mandatory 21-day quarantine, following news that a doctor for Doctors Without Borders (MSF), Craig Spencer, has tested positive for Ebola. Both Cuomo and Christie justified the joint quarantine policy, noting their dissatisfaction over the self-quarantine policy imposed by the CDC, which has allowed Spencer to roam around New York City. However, aid agencies warned that a mandatory quarantine policy would discourage doctors from the US to travel to West Africa in order to help combat Ebola, a disease that is “very difficult to contract,” according to New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio (Swaine & Glenza).
- What was the public response to these efforts? What kind of public backlash can I expect if I try to enforce the proposed curfews?
The public response to the efforts of Cuomo and Christie against Ebola in New York and New Jersey, respectively, was divided. Some people know the Ebola problem is vastly misconceived, noting their awareness on the fact that it is not exactly a disease that can be easily contracted through “casual contact,” as emphasized by De Blasio. Others, however, are highly worried over the possible effects of Ebola to their respective communities, particularly those who reside in the community where Spencer resides, where many of them have questioned why his house has not been quarantined immediately (Swaine & Glenza). Therefore, should the proposed curfews designed to quell the threat of ISIS extremists within New York City push through as planned, public opinion is expected to be divided. Some people would definitely find the curfew highly inconvenient, particularly to those whose work involve late-night hours. Others, however, would rather take the misconceptions about ISIS extremists into account by deeming the curfew necessary for their safety.
- How did the Governor of New York address the “gas shortage” that occurred in New York immediately after the storm? What lessons from that situation can we use to better address the gas crisis on hand now?
Following the onslaught of Hurricane Sandy in New York, Cuomo issued an update containing information on his directives meant to address the gas shortage in the state. The update, issued on November 3, 2012, noted that there are around 8 million gallons of petroleum immediately available for all New Yorkers, with a further 28 million gallons en route to New York at the time (New York State). Cuomo also signed two Executive Orders directly addressing the gas shortage in New York. The first Executive Order has allowed the distribution and transportation of petroleum products into New York without the application of registration requirements normally mandated by the State Department of Taxation and Finance (New York State). The second Executive Order has eased requirements on petroleum, lowering gasoline vapor pressure and diesel sulfur content requisites in order to allow freer entry of petroleum products into New York while the gas shortage is in place (New York State).
- If I want to encourage volunteers to assist in local traffic control, what laws can I reference to ensure them that they will be adequately protected from criminal or civil liability?
The Auxiliary Police Program of New York allows volunteers, called Auxiliary Police, from the citizenry to assist in local traffic control in times of “imminent or actual attack by enemy forces, or during official duties” (Kelly 3). Section 2.20 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law grants Peace Officer status to Auxiliary Officers, formally allowing them to hold local traffic control duties (Kelly 3). As Peace Officers, Auxiliary Officers have the authority to manage widespread fears of terrorist threats from ISIS extremists by redirecting traffic from major roads caused by people panicking to leave New York. At the same time, Auxiliary Officers can be protected from criminal and civil liabilities as Peace Officers, as they protect the people of New York from terrorists through measures provided by the USA PATRIOT Act and other relevant laws (Kelly 6-8). In that way, interested volunteers can be encouraged to become Auxiliary Officers, especially in light of the situation presented.
Works Cited
"Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)." Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). EPIC, n.d. Web. 14 December 2014.
"Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)." Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). EPIC, n.d. Web. 14 December 2014.
Governor Cuomo updates New Yorkers on progress to address gas shortage. (2012, November 3). New York State. Retrieved from http://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-updates-new-yorkers-progress-address-gas-shortage
Julia at Legal Language. "CBP vs. ICE: The Roles of Two Immigration Agencies." Legal Language Services. Legal Language Services, 10 August 2011. Web. 14 December 2014.
Kelly, T. (Police Commissioner). (2008). Auxiliary Police program overview. New York, NY: New York City Police Department Auxiliary Police.
Swaine, J., and Glenza, J. (2014, October 24). New York and New Jersey issue tough new Ebola quarantine measure. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/24/ebola-quarantine-new-york-new-jersey-west-africa
"USA PATRIOT Act." Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). EPIC, n.d. Web. 14 December 2014.
"What is ICE - Immigration and Customs Enforcement?" BorderPatrolEdu.org. BorderPatrolEdu.org, n.d. Web. 14 December 2014.
