Three Days for the USA PATRIOT Act Of 2001 (PL 107-56)

Outdated

This was written in 2005 and thus is probably outdated.

Patriot Act Essay written March 11, 2005 in 8th Grade for English 8

A Microsoft Word version of this work is available here: File:8th Grade Research Paper.doc

Benjamin Franklin once stated, “Those who would give up essential liberties to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty, nor safety” (qtd. in Ball 65). However, Franklin’s principle has sadly been ignored in the world today. On October 26 2001, President George W. Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act (PL107-56). This so called Patriot Act violates civil liberties under the first and fourth amendments to the Constitution. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 takes away American’s freedom of speech. This right is supposedly protected to them by the first amendment. The Patriot Act also lets the government conduct unreasonable search and seizures against the fourth amendment primarily by being able to bypass the probable cause requirement. Further more, the USA PATRIOT Act was introduced, passed by Congress, and signed by the president in all of three days (Bill Summary & Status). How could Congress purchase this little temporary “safety” in three days with little debating, no amendments, and no regards to American’s civil liberties? The Patriot Act was passed way too fast for Congress to gauge the act’s affects on American’s civil liberties.

The sections 215, 505, and 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act take away American’s freedom of speech. This freedom is supposedly protected by the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. Section 215 lets the government search American’s “business records” (ACLU, FAQ). These records can be simple things like a list of library books checked out or videos rented (Lithwick and Turner 1). In fact, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reported in a survey by the University of Illinois, that the FBI had already approached about 85 out of 1500 libraries by December 2001 (FAQ). This was just 2 months after the Patriot act was passes. The government seemed a little eager to start conducting illegal search and seizures on Americans. These so called “business records” can also be a list of websites visited, medical records, or even as John Ashcroft put it before the House Judiciary Committee in June 2003, genetic information! (ACLU, FAQ). Officially, the law allows the FBI to make organizations turn over “any tangible things” related to a terrorism investigation (§215 (501)(a)(1)). All the government needs to do is certify to a judge, without any evidence being needed, that the information requested is related to an ongoing foreign power investigation (ACLU, Surveillance). That judge does not even have the power to reject that application. There is also no need to show “probable cause” or even a “reasonable suspicion” that the person violated the law. Again, the only requirement is that the information being requested must be relevant to an ongoing terrorism investigation (ACLU, Surveillance). This means that the American government can get genetic information by just going before a judge to demand the information. Neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion is even needed to search someone. The judge also has no authority to reject the application. The government only has to prove some “relevance” to a terrorism investigation.

Section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act is even worse and is used far more frequently says Dahlia Lithwick and Julia Turner of the online magazine MSN Slate (4). The government can simply write a “national security letter” to an organization. That organization must then turn over those same business records as mentioned before. What is different, however, is that there is no need for the government to approach a judge, even for a rubber stamp to approve the letter (Lithwick and Turner 4). The organizations or businesses can not even refuse to turn over the information (Locy). This makes getting genetic information on citizens even easier then with section 215. The government only has to write a letter in order to get important medical records for Americans. This new power is scary. The government can get information with almost no limits. What’s more is that sections 215 and 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act also prohibit the parties who have been forced to turn over business records on their clients, from telling anybody about the search (Lithwick and Turner 1). This means that the government can get a list of library books a citizen borrowed from the library, and the library is prohibited from telling anyone, including that citizen, that he or she were searched by the government. That citizen would never know if their privacy was compromised. However, there is no need for secrecy says the ACLU (Surveillance). These organizations who are being forced to turn over American’s records, are being denied their freedom of speech, by not being allowed to talk about the search. This basic human right of freedom of speech is normally protected by the first amendment in the Bill of Rights. Citizens are not able to talk about the government and make complaints against it. This is exactly the reason the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution.

Luckily, Section 505 was recently challenged in US District Court, where it was declared unconstitutional. District Court Judge Victor Marrero ruled that the government is not able to force a provider to turn over subscriber information, unless the provider is able to contest that request in court. The government is also not able to force a provider to remain quiet about the search forever. Marrero said, “an unlimited government warrant to conceal […] has no place in our open society” (qtd. in Locy). Marrero also said that in the 14 months since the Patriot Act’s passage, the national security letters have been used “hundreds” of times. He also believes that freedom must be guarded in a time of crisis (Locy). Sadly, the legislators who purchased this little temporary “safety” did not believe this. They thought they could solve the terrorism problem by granting the government new powers to violate civil liberties. Luckily sections of the Patriot Act are being declared unconstitutional. The courts are slowly restoring American’s civil liberties, which the Patriot Act stole. However, the some of these rights will never be returned.

Also, when the ACLU requested information on how many times Section 505 was used under the Freedom of Information Act, they received six pages of blanked-out logs without any details. Section 505 also does not require the probable cause or reasonable suspicion that one committed a crime. Again, the information requested just has to be relevant to an ongoing investigation (Lithwick and Turner 4). The government is now making searches in secret without the probable cause required by the fourth amendment. The government is clearly violating the Bill of Rights, which states that probable cause must be proven.

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 is the first of its kind (Lithwick and Turner 4). It creates the new crime of “domestic terrorism.” Domestic terrorism is defined in the Patriot Act as “involv[ing] acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States” and are meant “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; [or] to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion […]” (§802 (a)(5)). The ACLU believes that some right wing organizations like Eagle Forum and Operation Rescue may be targeted for executing their first amendment right to protest (Lithwick and Turner 4). This means that people who are out on the streets with picket signs can be labeled as domestic terrorists. The first amendment was specifically written to give Americans the right to complain about something. Arresting protesters for terrorism when they were just expressing their views is going way too far.

Sections 215, 505, and 802 hamper American’s first amendment rights. Section 215 and 505 makes organizations who are forced to turn over their customer information, without any grounds to contest, keep quiet about the search forever. Section 802 creates the new crime of domestic terrorism, and threatens to arrest people for merely protesting, which is also a right commonly protected to them by the first amendment. In addition to trampling over American’s first amendment rights, the USA PATRIOT Act also allows the government to walk right over the fourth amendment to the Constitution by allowing illegal search and seizures to take place.

Section 214 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 vastly improves the government’s ability to tap telephones. It allows the government to install pen-registers and trap-and-trace devices by simply declaring that the information gained from them would be “relevant to an ongoing investigation.” That’s right any investigation. The Patriot Act allows the devices to also be used for regular criminal investigation as well. No probable cause, nor reasonable suspicion that the suspect committed a crime, is needed to install any of these devices, even though the fourth amendment requires a probable cause. Again, the government is ignoring the fourth amendment of the Bill of Rights. Pen-registers are a list of phone numbers dialed from the suspect’s telephone. Trap-and-trace devices are like Caller ID, they record the source of incoming calls (Lithwick and Turner 3). These new telephone taps make it even easier for the government to conduct illegal searches against the fourth amendment.

Section 214 and its pen-registers and trap-and-trace devices, as well as the other phone tap rules now apply to the internet according to section 216. The government can now get “non-content” information of American’s surfing habits off the internet for any investigation. Again, the Patriot Act was written to affect more than just terrorism investigations. In fact the DOJ (Department of Justice) reports in its publication Report from the Field: The USA PATRIOT ACT at Work that it used Section 216 to catch “phishers” on the internet (27). Judges also have no authority to reject this warrant application (Lithwick and Turner 3). When judges don’t even have the authority to reject an application, the government can do whatever it wants.

In addition the Patriot Act threatens to expand the old definition of “non-content.” The ACLU has long considered “content” as being the inside of a letter (Surveillance). “Non-content” was always defined as the outside of the letter. These were the classic way of defining what was content. However, this is now changing. The ACLU says that law enforcement officials believe that the header of an e-mail is non-content (Surveillance). The part of the header that contains the routing address would have been considered non-content under the old definition. However, the header also includes the subject line of an e-mail. On a real letter, the subject line would clearly be on the inside of the letter, making it content. These expanded search powers make it easier and easier for the government to conduct illegal search and seizures. Also web addresses or URLs are also being called non-content (ACLU, Surveillance). However, URLs can contain content like search queries or private information which the citizen typed in on the last page. This private information can be anywhere from addresses to social security numbers. This information is considered non-content. Also, once the government has the URL they can visit most pages later, and see the articles on that page. This is like having the government know not only what newspaper the suspect were reading, but which articles, and the content of those articles! This severely infringes on American’s fourth amendment right to be protected form illegal searches. How can the article which one reads online possibly be defined as non-content?

Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001 allows “sneak and peek” warrants to be issued for any criminal investigations. These “delayed-notice search warrants,” as the DOJ calls them, allows the government to search, and in some cases, seize property without first announcing that it will (Lithwick and Turner 2). “Sneak and peek” warrants violate the age-old principle of “knock and announce” commonly associated with the first amendment says the ACLU (Surveillance). This delay of notice for the search can be anywhere from a day to forever, if the situation is right. Also the DOJ can request extensions “repeatedly and indefinitely” to the delay period says Lithwick (2). This has happened 248 times as of September 2003. Citizens may never know if they were searched. These warrants were previously allowed for when “foreign powers or their agents” were involved (Lithwick and Turner 2). Now they are available if “the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result” (§213 (3103a)(b)(1)). Again, the USA PATRIOT Act was written for more then “intercept[ing] and obstruct[ing] terrorism.” Dahlia Lithwick of MSN Slate makes the point that a suspect rarely helps the police find incriminating evidence against themselves while they are being searched (2). This means that these frightening new warrants could be used for almost any search. This has nothing to do with terrorism, even though the act’s title claims that PL 107-56 was written to protect America from terrorism. The act was passed so quickly because it was suppose to prevent another terrorist attack. However, the writers of the Patriot Act also included other clauses in the act that take away American’s constitutional rights without protecting Americans from terrorism.

Section 213 technicality also lets the government execute warrants in secret says the ACLU in Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act. Before “delayed-notice search warrants,” if the police were at the wrong address, the property owner could alert them to that fact when they “knocked and announced” that they had a warrant. Also, the police could be searching through drawers when they are should to be looking for a stolen car during a secret search. The ACLU simply says that, “when the searching officers have complete and unsupervised discretion over a search, a property owner cannot defend his or her rights” (Surveillance). This is true. If the owner can not make sure the police are searching correctly, his or her rights to a proper search are being violated. “Sneak and peek” warrants are also not supported by the House of Representatives, who voted 309-118 to de-fund “sneak and peek” warrants (Lithwick and Turner 2). However the Patriot Act continues to violate American’s civil liberties even though the House does not support parts of the act.

The fourth amendment to the Constitution states that “[N]o warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” However, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 violates this simple principle written in the fourth amendment.

Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 allows warrants to be issued permitting roving-wiretaps (Lithwick and Turner 3). A judge can authorize a wiretap to be put on every phone which the suspect might use. Before this, a warrant was served on a specific carrier or landlord. Section 220 also lets judges authorize warrants outside of their districts. Dahlia Lithwick says that this severely undercuts a judge’s ability to monitor if the warrant is being used appropriately (3). She also says that section 206 violates the fourth amendment because the amendment requires that warrants “particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Sections 206 and 220 do not describe which phone is to be searched. Lithwick also stated that all communications on the tapped devices could be theoretically intercepted (3). This is a crystal clear violation of the fourth amendment. This means that the government could read all communications for all the users at the computers in the public library. Those users at the library, whose surfing would be intercepted, are being searched illegally. There is no probable cause, no reasonable suspicion, and absolutely no relevance to any investigation, other then being at the same library as a suspect. The users at the library are just being searched illegally. This is not what the founding fathers envisioned when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

Section 206 is also worrisome because the DOJ is not releasing any details on how it was used. In June of 2002 the DOJ told the House Judiciary Committee that the number of times Section 206 was used was classified. This is not a good sign because the DOJ is trying to get Congress to renew Section 206 before it expires in December of 2005 (Lithwick and Turner 3). These expanded search powers entrusted to the government violates the fourth amendment which was written to protect Americans against illegal search and seizures.

Section 218 amends the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to further allow a detour around the probable cause requirement of the fourth amendment. In 1978, the FISA created a “secret court” where the government can authorize secret searches and wiretaps as long as the “significant purpose” of the investigation is to gather foreign intelligence. This court only rejected 5 out of 14,000 warrants issued before 2001 (Lithwick and Turner 2). This led MSN Slate author Dahlia Lithwick guess that the objectivity of the FISA courts is not to second guess the government (2). It is clear that these secret searches can be ordered at the government’s will and whim without probable cause.

The Patriot Act also changes the old “primary purpose” requirement of the FISA down a “significant purpose” requirement of finding foreign intelligence. Americans can be subject to a secret searches authorized by a secret court as long as there is almost any foreign intelligence connection. The results of these searches can now be used to prosecute criminals. Searches happening in secret remove the transparency of our government. They let the government work in almost total secret. The founders of our Constitution included the fourth amendment to protect the citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. However, it hasn’t helped. Congress still passed the Patriot Act. The number of times the FISA approved secret searches has risen to 1228 in 2002 up from 938 in 2001. The DOJ also will not reveal how many cases met the “significant purpose” requirement, but would have failed to meet the old “primary purpose” requirement (Lithwick and Turner 2). This means that the government is not releasing details on how their new powers helped them.

The ability to bypass the probable cause requirement of the fourth amendment to the Bill of Rights is unconstitutional. Sections 214, 216, and 218 of the Patriot Act allow this bypassing of the fourth amendment. The government also gains unconstitutional power to conduct “unreasonable search and seizures.” Section 213 allows searches to take place without the property owner’s knowledge or oversight. Section 206 lets the government make a blanket nation-wide wiretap with little judicial oversight.

Where will it end? Why does the government choose to violate the Constitution in order to “intercept and obstruct terrorism”? Why can’t they leave American’s civil liberties alone? The cause is September 11, 2001. On this day, which will be remembered forever in American history, 19 terrorist hijacked four airplanes. They then flew the airplanes into both World Trade Centers, the Pentagon and crashed one into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania (The 9/11 Commission Report). Thousands of people lost their lives on that day. This was a wake-up call to Congress to get tough on terrorism. They chose to give up “essential liberties to purchase a little temporary safety.” Ben Franklin believes that they now deserve “neither liberty nor safety” (qtd. in Ball 65). Why did Congress take this route, and why did they cut away American’s civil liberties?

The reason is that in the days after 9/11, the war on terrorism emerged into the public focus. Ball reports that this new war on terror was compared to the Cold War with Russia. Something had to be done to make people feel safer. Everyone wanted to protect the country from further attacks. The Bush administration stated it needed the 3 C’s: communication, cooperation, and coordination (Ball 42). John Ashcroft said, “We will seek every prosecutorial advantage” and he was referring to stopping terrorism (qtd. in Ball 68). This scary quote represented the government’s desire to cut away civil liberties for temporary safety. While most people wanted to do something about terrorism, some people thought the USA PATRIOT Act was not the best choice. 31% of House democrats voted against Public Law 107-56 (Passed by Congress). A Newsweek poll shows that support for giving the government new powers to fight terrorism was down to 35% by December 2001. Previously, in September, right after the attacks, 54% wanted to give the government new power to fight terrorism (Gottfried 26). However, still after a national disaster, this wasn’t much support. Support for giving up civil liberties was falling. However, the Patriot Act still passed. Former Vice President Al Gore spoke fierce words against the Patriot Act:

Under the Patriot Act, federal agents have been given authority to secretly enter your home and search it, even when there is no connection to terrorism. And for the first time in our history, Americans have been seized and imprisoned indefinitely, with no charges filed and no right to a trial, or even to see a lawyer. (qtd. in Ball 69)

However, the Patriot Act was still passed in three days. In Congress, the Senate version of the bill was sent straight to the floor to be voted on. There were no discussions, no debates, and no amendments made to the bill in the Senate. However in the House, a revised version of the bill was sent from the House Judiciary Committee. Then, this version was just thrown out by House leadership. There were no votes on the revised bill by the regular members of the House. These House members were then forced to vote on the same bill the Senate just passed. This bill included almost all of the sections which Ashcroft wanted (ACLU, Surveillance). This is clearly not the way our government was designed to work. Congress just made sweeping changes to American’s civil liberties in just three days. What’s more is that many components of the Patriot Act previously failed in Congress before 9/11 says Ball (37). They weren’t passed because they were thought to violate civil liberties. However strangely, after the attacks, these same bills no longer violate civil liberties and were passed. Why do 19 terrorist have the power to change American’s basic human rights?

The ACLU reports that members of Congress were “bullied” into passing the Patriot Act by the President (ACLU, Surveillance). The administration implied that members who voted against the USA PATRIOT Act would be blamed for future attacks (ACLU, Surveillance). Remember that the Patriot Act was passed during the anthrax scare and the country felt another attack was going to be coming shortly. However the act was still passed unfairly. No amendments or no debates took place in all of three days it took for the bill to pass (ACLU, Surveillance). Also, no one read the bill reported Nick Gillespie (164). How was Congress supposed to pass this monumental bill which takes away American’s first and fourth amendment rights in just the few days which the bill motored through Congress?

Whatever happened, the members of Congress thought that the USA PARTIOT Act of 2001 would protect Americans against terrorism. If they just would have had time to actually read the Patriot Act, think, and deliberate on it, the act may not have been passed or some of the sections would be deleted. But, the government does claim that the Patriot Act is working. In the DOJ publication Report From The Field: The USA Patriot Act At Work, there are several examples of how the Patriot Act helped “intercept and obstruct” terrorism. The DOJ claim that sections 218 and 504 of the Patriot Act let them dismantle an al Qaeda drugs-for-weapons plot (8).

Would the Patriot Act have prevented an attack in this situation? We will never know. We also don’t know if the Patriot Act has done any good. However, the swap of American’s civil liberties for “temporary safety” will never be over says Gillespie (164). The fact remains that the Patriot Act was written to affect more then just terrorism. Sections 213, 214, 216, and 218 allow for these new government powers to be used for investigations other then just terrorism investigations. In fact some sections of the Patriot Act are similar to section 218. With section 218, the FISA courts were already available to fight terrorism. Section 218 expands the requirements to cases beyond terrorism. These new powers were added to the Patriot Act under the mask of “fighting terrorism,” even though these powers were already available to terrorism investigations. In the three days in which the act passed, few were able to read the act and pick out these hidden parts. The ACLU says that the government does not need the extra powers which the Patriot Act provides. They claim that the government already has the power to prosecute anyone who they have probable cause to believe committed a crime (ACLU, FAQ).

However, the problem is that once a right is gone, it will never come back. The swap of civil liberties for temporary safety will never be over (Gillespie 165). As soon as another attack occurs, more of American’s civil liberties will be taken away in order to “fight terrorism” and provide “temporary security.” The government must be able to protect American’s basic human rights while still being able to fighting terrorism. These basic human rights were so important to the writers of the Constitution, that they included these rights into the basic framework of the new nation. 212 years later the 107th Congress tore those rights apart under the claim that they were fighting terrorism.

Three days is all that it took to violate the first and fourth amendments to the Constitution. The USA PATRIOT Act Of 2001 (PL 107-56) violates American’s first amendment rights to freedom of speech and the right to assemble. The Patriot Act allows for the government to perform unreasonable search and seizures in part by allowing the bypassing of probable cause. Three days, without any amendments, is all it took for Congress to pass Public Law 107-56. The USA PARTIOT Act of 2001 is a violation of the first and fourth amendments to the Constitution.

Works Cited

American Civil Liberties Union. Section 215 FAQ. 24 Oct 2002. 31 Jan 2005 <http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130>.
---. Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act. 31 Jan 2005 <http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12263&c=206>.
Ball, Howard. The USA Patriot Act. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2004.
Egendorf, Laura, ed. National Security. San Diego: Greenhaven-Gale, 2003.
Gillespie, Nick. “Efforts to Enhance National Security Threaten Civil Liberties.” National Security: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Helen Corthran. San Diego: Greenhaven-Gale, 2004. 162-166.
Gottfried, Ted. Homeland Security Versus Constitution Rights. Prodnfield, CT: Twenty-Fisrt Century-Millbrook, 2003.
Jaffer, Jameel. PATRIOT Propaganda: Justice Department’s PATRIOT Act Website Creates New Myths About Controversial Law. American Civil Liberties Union. 26 Aug 2003. 1 Feb 2005 <http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=13375>.
Lithwick, Dahlia, and Julia Turner. “A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 1.” MSN Slate 2087984 8 Sept 2003. 25 Jan 2005. <http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/>.
---. “A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 2.” MSN Slate 2088106 9 Sept 2003. 25 Jan 2005. <http://slate.msn.com/id/2088106/>.
---. “A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 3.” MSN Slate 2088161 10 Sept 2003. 25 Jan 2005. <http://slate.msn.com/id/2088161/>.
---. “A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 4.” MSN Slate 2088239 11 Sept 2003. 19 Jan 2005 <http://slate.msn.com/id/2088239/>.
Locy, Toni. “Court strikes down Patriot Act Provision.” USA Today. 30 Sept 2004. EBSCOhost Middle Search Plus. 1 Feb 2004. Keyword: Court strikes down Patriot Act provision.
United States. Dept. of Justice. Report From The Field: The USA Patriot Act At Work. 7 July 2004. 26 Jan 2005 <http://lifeandliberty.gov/docs/071304_report_from_the_field.pdf>.
---. ---. Passed by Congress. 13 Nov 2004. 1 Feb 2005 <http://lifeandliberty.gov/subs/p_congress.htm>.
---. House. Clerk. Final Vote Results For Roll Call 398. 24 Oct 2001. 2 Feb 2005 <http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml>.
---. Library of Congress. Thomas System. Bill Summary & Status for the 107th Congress. 2 Feb 2005 <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR03162:@@@L&summ2=m&#status>.
---. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. The 9/11 Commission Report. 17 July 2004. 2 Feb 2005 <http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf>.
Uniting And Strengthening America By Providing Appropriate Tools Required To Intercept And Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT Act) Act Of 2001. Pub. L. 107-56. 26 Oct 2001. 115. Stat. 272.

Website Evaluations

URL	http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/
Title	A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 1
Author/ Institution	Dahlia Lithwick, and Julia Turner/ MSN Slate

Professional Organization	Yes, MSN is a reliable site
Educational/Informative in Nature	Yes, it is trying to educate you about the Patriot Act
Dates Provided	Yes, September 8, 2003
Facts / Unbiased	Yes, it says mostly good things, but it does say that some things are too out of proportion.

Why is it a reliable website?:	I think that this site is reliable because it is tryin to help you understand what some of the new powers the government has through the Patriot Act.

URL	http://slate.msn.com/id/2088106/
Title	A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 2
Author/ Institution	Dahlia Lithwick, and Julia Turner/ MSN Slate

Professional Organization	Yes, MSN is a reliable site
Educational/Informative in Nature	Yes, it is trying to educate you about the Patriot Act
Dates Provided	Yes, September 9, 2003
Facts / Unbiased	Yes, it says mostly good things, but it does say that some things are too out of proportion.

Why is it a reliable website?:	I think that this site is reliable because it is trying to help you understand what some of the new powers the government has through the Patriot Act.

URL	http://slate.msn.com/id/2088161/
Title	A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 3
Author/ Institution	Dahlia Lithwick, and Julia Turner/ MSN Slate

Professional Organization	Yes, MSN is a reliable site
Educational/Informative in Nature	Yes, it is trying to educate you about the Patriot Act
Dates Provided	Yes, September 10, 2003
Facts / Unbiased	Yes, it says mostly good things, but it does say that some things are too out of proportion.

Why is it a reliable website?:	I think that this site is reliable because it is trying to help you understand what some of the new powers the government has through the Patriot Act.

URL	http://slate.msn.com/id/2088239/
Title	A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 4
Author/ Institution	Dahlia Lithwick, and Julia Turner/ MSN Slate

Professional Organization	Yes, MSN is a reliable site
Educational/Informative in Nature	Yes, it is trying to educate you about the Patriot Act
Dates Provided	Yes, September 11, 2003
Facts / Unbiased	Yes, it says mostly good things, but it does say that some things are too out of proportion.

Why is it a reliable website?:	I think that this site is reliable because it is trying to help you understand what some of the new powers the government has through the Patriot Act.

URL	http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12263&c=206
Title	Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act
Author/ Institution	American Civil Liberties Union

Professional Organization	Yes
Educational/Informative in Nature	Yes
Dates Provided	No
Facts / Unbiased	No

Why is it a reliable website?:	The site is biased against the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, so they would have anecdotes and testimony for my side, and it is the foremost opponent of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, according to the DOJ.

URL	http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130
Title	Section 215 FAQ
Author/ Institution	American Civil Liberties Union

Professional Organization	Yes
Educational/Informative in Nature	Yes
Dates Provided	Yes
Facts / Unbiased	No

Why is it a reliable website?:	The site is biased against the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, so they would have anecdotes and testimony for my side and it is the foremost opponent of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, according to the DOJ.

URL	http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=13375
Title	PATRIOT Propaganda: Justice Department’s PATRIOT Act Website Creates New Myths About Controversial Law
Author/ Institution	Jameel Jaffer / ACLU

Professional Organization	Yes
Educational/Informative in Nature	Yes
Dates Provided	No
Facts / Unbiased	Yes / No (Duh) 

Why is it a reliable website?:	This is a reply from the biased ACLU about what the DofJ is saying.

URL	http://lifeandliberty.gov/docs/071304_report_from_the_field.pdf
Title	Report From The Field: The USA Patriot Act At Work
Author/ Institution	United States Government/ Department of Justice

Professional Organization	Yes, but with Ashcroft…
Educational/Informative in Nature	Yes
Dates Provided	Yes
Facts / Unbiased	Yes/That’s a tough question…

Why is it a reliable website?:	This is a report of the DofJ highlighting some ways that they have used the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001

URL	http://lifeandliberty.gov/subs/p_congress.htm
Title	Passed by Congress
Author/ Institution	United States Government/ Department of Justice

Professional Organization	Yes
Educational/Informative in Nature	Yes
Dates Provided	Yes
Facts / Unbiased	Yes/Yes

Why is it a reliable website?:	These are just the vote repots direct from Congress

URL	http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml
Title	Final Vote Results For Roll Call 398
Author/ Institution	United States Government/ Clerk of the House

Professional Organization	Yes
Educational/Informative in Nature	Yes
Dates Provided	Yes
Facts / Unbiased	Yes/Yes

Why is it a reliable website?:	This is a vote tally direct from the Clerk of the House.

URL	http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR03162:@@@L&summ2=m&#status
Title	Bill Summary & Status for the 107th Congress
Author/ Institution	United States Government/ Library of Congress/ Thomas System

Professional Organization	Yes
Educational/Informative in Nature	Yes
Dates Provided	Sort-of
Facts / Unbiased	Yes

Why is it a reliable website?:	This is the stats of the bill from the Library of Congress

URL	http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
Title	The 9/11 Commission Report.
Author/ Institution	National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Professional Organization	Yes
Educational/Informative in Nature	Yes
Dates Provided	No???
Facts / Unbiased	Yes/Yes (or it is suppose to be)

Why is it a reliable website?:	It’s just the 9/11 Commission Report, straight for the non-partisan committee.

ANTI-PLAGIARISM STATEMENT

Definition of Plagiarism

Plagiarism is using someone else’s ideas or words without clearly acknowledging the source of that information. For this research paper you must acknowledge the source of the information by using MLA formatting. A minimum of two class periods will be spent learning about plagiarism, how to avoid it, and MLA formatting.

Plagiarism is a serious offense and will be treated as such by your teachers. If you are caught plagiarizing you will receive a grade of zero for your research paper. Remember, ignorance is not an excuse to plagiarize! If you are unsure how to properly acknowledge the source of information you should ask your teacher or our librarian, Mrs. Kratzinger.

To the best of my knowledge, I have not copied any information directly from any source. The information used in this paper has been correctly cited within the paper and credited on the "Works Cited" page.

Student Signature (in pen): _____/s/ Michael Plasmeier_______________ Date: __3/10/2005__

RESEARCH PAPER RUBRIC

Cover Page

______/15

*Creative title

*Name, period, date

*Standard cover page format

Minimum Page Requirement

______/30

*Minimum pages met with full pages according to proper format

*Margins correctly followed

Thesis