Public Law 107-56 Is Public

Public Law 107-56

Is Public Law 107-56 the right approach to combating terrorist?

Public Law 107-56 contains various provisions that are helpful to any law enforcement investigations of suspected terrorists but it is not necessarily the right approach to rely upon as the primary means of combating terrorism. In principle, the U.S.A. PATRIOT ACT expands the authorities of the government by restricting various aspects of fundamental constitutional protections, most notably, in connection with the Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted searches and seizures predicated on the importance of investigating financial support for terrorism (Larsen, 2007; Lichtblau, 2003).

Critics of this approach point out that Public Law 107-56 fails to distinguish appropriately between individuals and acts because many of the expanded authorities it provides government agents are triggered by transactions rather than by any reasonable connection between specific individuals and specific acts in relation to possible terrorism (Dershowitz, 2002; Larsen, 2007). Without a nexus between terrorism and the application of PL 107-56 provisions to a specific individual, the law can be (and frequently has been) used to investigate individuals who had no connection to terrorism, most notably, former New York State Governor Elliot Spitzer in connection with the financial transactions that appear to have played a role in his political downfall, according to widely-broadcast public news reports at the time.

According to many experts in the field, the much better approach would be to require a predicate nexus to terrorism instead of allowing the type of financial transaction to trigger expanded government authority. In that regard, it has also been proposed that a civilian intelligence agency (i.e. without arrest or prosecution powers) would have greater latitude to conduct certain important investigations without having to comply with constitutionally protected rights that only limit government action (Larsen, 2007).

What are the trade offs you see in implementing this law?

In general, any law that increases the authority of government in relation to the constitutionally protected rights of individuals always entails a trade-off of benefits and negative consequences (Dershowitz, 2002; Larsen, 2007). In practice, the use of various provisions of PL 107-56 did not conform to required protocols, demonstrated the difficulty of ensuring proper adherence to intended safeguards against misuse, and, in fact, included numerous instances where government agents misused provisions intended to address terrorism for acts of political persecution and to intimidate public critics of the U.S. government (Huffington Post, 2009).

Should terrorism be treated as a criminal act or an act of war?