COURTS AND VENUE Patriot Act (2001) The Patriot Act, said to have been passed in the wake of the September 11 attacks, is an act to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement regulatory tools, and for other purposes (107th Congress 1).
The act grants greater powers to federal officials in tracing and intercepting the communication of terrorists for the purposes of foreign intelligence and law enforcement(Doyle 2).
Aside from this, the act is also said to prevent terrorists from launching future terrorist attacks through the reinforcement of anti-money laundering laws designed to choke the terrorists access to financial resources (Doyle 2).
The act also tightens immigration laws to close the United States borders to foreign terrorists and expel those among us (Doyle 2).
The Patriot Act is most controversial for the provisions on information sharing, which allows information from criminal probes to be shared with intelligence agencies and other parts of government; roving wiretaps, which allows for one wiretap authorization to cover multiple devices, eliminating the need for separate court authorizations; access to records, which allows for easier access to business records in foreign intelligence investigations; foreign intelligence wiretaps and searches, which is said to lower the bar for launching foreign intelligence wiretaps and searches; sneak and peakwarrants, which is said to allow authorities to search homes and businesses without immediately notifying the target of a probe, and the material support provision, which expands the existing ban on giving material support to terrorists to include expert advice or assistance (Abramson and Godoy).
The Term Paper on Gang Intelligence Methods In Law Enforcement
19 April 2002 GANG INTELLIGENCE METHODS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT The American headlines of any large city will site killings on street corners, robberies, assaults, intimidation, and drug interaction. While not all-criminal activity is associated with gangs, the 780, 000 strong members do account for a large majority of the problems that are plaguing America. There is no one-way to stop gang activity in ...
The American Civil Liberties Union warns that the Patriot Act, together with the actions of government under the act, that threaten civil liberties in various ways. One, the act is said to include domestic terrorism in the expanded scope of terrorism laws, thus subjecting political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy (1).The act lacks federal accountability for acts performed under the Act, the broadened sneak and peak search powers of government, the nearly unlimited powers given to federal agents to search business records, a too-broad definition of terrorism, the monitoring of computer trespassers without court orders, the allowing of secret investigations, the allowing of federal monitoring of email and web surfing, expansive roving wiretap authority, the allowance for the use of FISA standards that is said to effectively allow the FBI to collect evidence for criminal cases under lower standards (Center for Democracy & Technology 2).
The 1970 clean air Act The early experience with air quality regulation provided a starting point for comprehensive amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1970. The 1970 Amendments remain the centerpiece of the present-day system of air quality regulation. According to Hunton and Williams in their Clean Air Handbook, to overcome the inertia experienced in implementing the 1967 Act, Congress in 1970 gave the federal government a more prominent role in the regulation of air quality. Now, not only was the federal government required to develop air quality criteria describing levels of air quality associated with specific public health and welfare effects, but the federal government, through the newly created Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), was to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) that define specific levels of air quality that must be achieved in order to protect public health and welfare (Clean Air Act (CAA), p. 108-109).
The Term Paper on Regulation and Importance of Indoor Air Quality Control
The summer has hit once again along with extremities of weather. Hot and humid weather forces office buildings or any other workplace to crank up the air conditioner. Everything should be just fine as long as the heating ventilation air conditioning (HVAC) system has taken care of the indoor environment to be a comfortable setting.In past years, energy conservation and costs have taken its toll on ...
The NAAQS, in turn, would be used as the basis for individual source emission limitations to be established by the states in state implementation plans (SIPS, p.110).
Under the 1970 Amendments, if a state did not develop an adequate SIP, did not act in a timely fashion to adopt a SIP, or did not respond promptly to a notice from EPA that its SIP failed to meet the requirements of the Act, EPA would step in to implement the Act for the state (ibid, p.
110).
This basic federal-state partnership remains a hallmark of Clean Air Actregulation today.Besides creating a more detailed scheme for the protection of public health and welfare through ambient air quality regulation, Congress in 1970 was also concerned about the preservation of existing air qualitywhere air quality was better than required by the NAAQS. This was such a concern for Congress that it adopted stringent control technology requirements for new sources (i.e., the new source performance standards, or NSPS programs of section111 of the Act) and made clear in the Acts general purposes clause that a key objective guiding implementation of the Act was the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality in clean air areas (ibid).
In the end, Congress grappled separately with the issue of mobile source pollution in Title 2 of the Act. Recognizing the political and technical difficulties associated with control of vehicle tailpipe emissions; Congress balanced environmental and economic concerns and set specific, technology-forcing emissions standards and deadlines for attainment. References Air Pollution Fact Sheet for New Drivers. Environmental Health Center. Article 4 July 2006. http://www.nsc.org/ehc/mobile/airpollu.htm American Civil Liberties Union.
The Term Paper on In July 2003 Minnesota State Rep Arlon Lindner Viewed A
In July 2003 Minnesota state Rep. Arlon Lindner viewed a travelling Holocaust exhibit after that he defended his position that gays and lesbians were never persecuted during the Holocaust. His latest allegation goes even further, saying that "the main gay participants in the Holocaust were Nazi concentration camp guards," and he suggests that homosexuality helped lead to World War II. Lindner said ...
The Patriot Act: Key Controversies.4 July 2006. . Abramson, Larry and Maria Godoy. The Patriot Act: Key Controversies.NPR. 15 December 2005. 4 July 2006. .
Center for Democracy & Technology. Whats Wrong With the Patriot Act and How to Fix It. October 2003. 4 July 2006. . Doyle, Charles.
The USA Patriot Act: A Legal Analysis.CRS Report for Congress. 15 April 2002. 4 July 2006. . Hunton and Williams, 1998. Washington D.C.
Brownell, F.W. (ed) The Clean Air Act Handbook., Government Institute, Rockville, MD 107th Congress. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001. 24 October 2001. 4 July 2006. ..
