The USA Patriot Act is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.The USA Patriot Act prevents the application of civilian justice principles from inappropriately applying to those designated enemy combatants taken in arms against this country. The constitutional procedural due process protections were devised in response to the opposite conditions, the inappropriate application of military justice principles to the civilian population. This application in 18th century New England in response to civil disobedience and unrest stimulated the very procedural due process protections. It should be patently obvious to even the most casual observer that the destruction of the World Trade Towers and the Boston tea party while both acts of terrorism, are not equivalent events. Similarly the detention of allied prisoners of war and the final solution were not equivalent whatever similarity there may have been between the final solution and Bataan or the Burma railway.
The Supreme Court has never countermanded or rescinded the acquiescence of Congress to the Presidential direction to conduct wiretaps or physical searches of foreign agents. This principle was devised during the cold war in response to attempts to undermine our liberty by totalitarian régimes. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was created by Congress during the cold war. The patriot act merely expands it to cover expanded contingencies in a post-Soviet world. This court was created by Congress in 1978 to approve requests for warrants to search or surveil foreign agents during the cold war. This was necessary because our counter-intelligence was never able to turn a soviet agent that did not volunteer. And every soviet agent that worked against their government was eventually sold out by american agents and executed by the soviets.[1] The bench of this court is a panel of sitting federal district judges. This court meets in secret, a tradition established from counterespionage. Under the patriot act, the size of this court has been enlarged. The standard for approval of warrants in cases involving terrorism has been exempted from provisions meant to protect the same innocents that the patriot act was meant to protect by giving the federal government the capacity to conduct investigations of terrorists, using wiretap methods established in drug interdiction and law enforcement operations to counter organized crime. Lower courts have upheld the national security exemption from ordinary thresholds for obtaining warrants. The primary challenges to the patriot act have been concerned with national security letters and electronic communication. The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the constitutionality of national security letters based upon the lack of provision to challenge a subpoena so procured. A reasonable expectation of privacy may be expected when one seals an envelope. This is why tampering with the mails is a federal offense. But, when leakage of radio signals between a portable phone and its base, and the imperceptibility of cell phone usage and internet communications is a known factor, then the expect ability of privacy is some what lessened. The interception and release of cell phone calls between republican leaders, and the existence of a plethora of internet security software demonstrates this. Furthermore, courts have ruled that where information is possessed and controlled by a third party, that expectation of privacy does not exist. This is why HIPPA laws were enacted to govern the use and distribution of personal health information. HIPPA stands for Health Insurance Portability and Protection Act. If there were an expectation of privacy with information controlled by a third party, HIPPA laws would be unnecessary.