Whats the difference between FISA Legislation and the USA PATRIOT ACT?

Which one is more controversial in terms of the 4th amendment? ThanxWhats the difference between FISA Legislation and the USA PATRIOT ACT?FISA sets rules for granting warrants. The patriot act tries to repeal most of the 4th amendment.

Whats the difference between FISA Legislation and the USA PATRIOT ACT?Actually, neither is conroversial.



The FISA Act exists as authorizing for a special court to handle cases in which h national security requires surveillance but also requires secrecy. Under the act, the FISA court can issue warrants for surveillance if the intelligence agencies need it. In addition, the act recognizes that emergency situations can arise in which immediate action is required and there isn't time to get a warrant. In such cases, the action (surveillance) must be submitted to the court for review within a reasonable time period.



The FISA act revision recently passed is essentially the same--the main feature is that it extends the court's power to authorize surveillance to technologies (mostly the Internet) that did not exist at teh time the original act was passed (1970s). As such, the FISA act conforms to the requirements and restrictions of the Constitution, and at the same time covers any possible legitimate needfor surveillance.



The Patriot act is not constitutional. That does not mean it is "controversial." There is no controversy over an law that does not meet constitutional requirements--it is simply invalid. The reason the Patriot Act is not constitutional is that it does not incorporate the provisions for court oversight of covert government surveillance actions (plus a few otether things). As such it attempts to allow the government to act withot any means of preventing or rectifying abuses. The Patriot Act has been revised to remove some of the unacceptable provisions--bu tit is still not in conformity with the Constitution on several points. For example (although this is more a violation of the 14th amendment) it continues to allow the DHS to arbitrary deny Americans the right to fly on commercial aircraft. The arbitrary nature of this provision stems from the fact that if a name appears on the "NO Fly" list, the person has no legal right to know why or to appeal and have errors corrected. As such it violates the due process clause of the 14th amendment.



The argument for exempting the government from court oversight made by the Bush administration rests on two claims: a) that secrecy would be compromised and b) that time constraints can preclude getting a warrant. Since the whole point of FISA is to facilitate secrecy when required, the first point is not valid. Since the FISA act also provides for later court review when emergency actions are required, the second point is not valid. Finally, the Bush administration argued that the FIsA act was inadequate and attempts to prevent them from having a blanket authority outside FISA impaired national security. However, since no one on either side of the dispute ever objected to revising FISA to take in current needs, this arguement cannot be sustained either.



As to teh motives of the Bush administration for demanding an authority that was and is clearly not needed, that is something you'll have to decide for yourself.