The Protect America Act of 2007: A Framework for Improving Intelligence Collection in the War on Terror

The most important weapon in the War on Terror is intelligence. The Protect America Act of 2007, a modification of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), was favored by Congress for providing a positive framework for ensuring the proper rule of law kept pace with changes in technology. FISA closed the intelligence gaps that had arisen because of the application of the Act to foreign persons in foreign countries. FISA codifies in federal law the procedures associated with how electronic surveillance and searches of acquisition of foreign intelligence is conducted. In order to conduct electronic surveillance, a court order must be issued by a FISA judge. The judge must determine: (1) whether there is probable cause to believe that the target of the surveillance or search is a foreign power, or its agent; and (2) that the primary purpose is to collect foreign intelligence. The purpose of the Protect America Act was to provide an update to FISA in order to give the intelligence community the necessary tools to gather information about potential foreign enemies. One of the most relevant provisions is the requirement of the FISA court’s involvement in determining that reasonable procedures are used in ascertaining whether a target is outside the United States. These attempts to improve the U.S.’s national security policy have not been deprived of criticisms. The Act has been criticized for allowing massive, untargeted collection of international communications without court order or meaningful oversight. Despite this, the Protect America Act provides a framework for electronic intelligence gathering that keeps pace with heightened threats to national security due to advances in telecommunications technology

The Protect America Act of 2007: A Framework for Improving Intelligence Collection in the War on Terror

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of the efficacy of the Protect America Act in the context of the new ground it covers. If one couples the phenomenal technical advances in telecommunications technology) with an acknowledgement of the growing threats to national security posed by hostile nations, it is obvious that the nation's intelligence community must be properly equipped with the necessary tools to protect the nation. As Congress continues to revise and amend FISA, the Protect America Act of 2007 serves as a reminder of the many policy and legal tensions involved as the country grapples with balancing cherished civil liberties against the need for increased security and government accountability in this post-9/11 world

Congress\u27s Consistent Intent to Utilize Military Commissions in the War against Al-Qaeda and Its Adoption of Commission Rules That Fully Comply with Due Process.

Congress responded to the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 by passing the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). In the following years Congress augmented that authority with the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA of 2006) and the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (MCA of 2009). In passing these acts, Congress responded to the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which found that President Bush’s attempt to establish military commissions required Congressional authorization. When drafting both MCAs, Congress recognized numerous evidentiary and trial procedures from federal civilian court were inappropriate for trying unlawful combatants. By these Acts, Congress provided a forum which could bring enemy combatants to justice. Despite this forum, President Obama reversed the policy when he announced the Department of Justice would prosecute an enemy combatant in federal civilian court. This reversal effectively recast the war on terror as a criminal matter. The Supreme Court recognized in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that detention and trial of enemy combatants are fundamental incidents of war encompassed in the AUMF. Legislators who drafted the AUMF concluded the belligerents in this new war should be tried for violations of the laws of war by military commissions. Congress set forth detailed rules for these trials which fully comply with traditional American notions of due process. While the traditions of justice demand fair trial, often seized evidence cannot meet all the evidentiary requirements imposed in civil trials. This includes Congress permitting reliable hearsay, not requiring the overly formal chain of custody requirements, permitting reliable but potentially damaging statements made by enemy soldiers, and limiting the jury pool to qualified officers. The trials of enemy combatants should proceed in the forum which Congress created

Congress\u27s Consistent Intent to Utilize Military Commissions in the War against Al-Qaeda and Its Adoption of Commission Rules That Fully Comply with Due Process.

Congress responded to the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 by passing the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). In the following years Congress augmented that authority with the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA of 2006) and the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (MCA of 2009). In passing these acts, Congress responded to the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which found that President Bush’s attempt to establish military commissions required Congressional authorization. When drafting both MCAs, Congress recognized numerous evidentiary and trial procedures from federal civilian court were inappropriate for trying unlawful combatants. By these Acts, Congress provided a forum which could bring enemy combatants to justice. Despite this forum, President Obama reversed the policy when he announced the Department of Justice would prosecute an enemy combatant in federal civilian court. This reversal effectively recast the war on terror as a criminal matter. The Supreme Court recognized in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that detention and trial of enemy combatants are fundamental incidents of war encompassed in the AUMF. Legislators who drafted the AUMF concluded the belligerents in this new war should be tried for violations of the laws of war by military commissions. Congress set forth detailed rules for these trials which fully comply with traditional American notions of due process. While the traditions of justice demand fair trial, often seized evidence cannot meet all the evidentiary requirements imposed in civil trials. This includes Congress permitting reliable hearsay, not requiring the overly formal chain of custody requirements, permitting reliable but potentially damaging statements made by enemy soldiers, and limiting the jury pool to qualified officers. The trials of enemy combatants should proceed in the forum which Congress created

Neuroprotective therapies in the NICU in term infants: present and future

Outcomes of neonatal encephalopathy (NE) have improved since the widespread implementation of therapeutic hypothermia (TH) in high-resource settings. While TH for NE in term and near-term infants has proven beneficial, 30–50% of infants with moderate-to-severe NE treated with TH still suffer death or significant impairments. There is therefore a critical need to find additional pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions that improve the outcomes for these children. There are many potential candidates; however, it is unclear whether these interventions have additional benefits when used with TH. Although primary and delayed (secondary) brain injury starting in the latent phase after HI are major contributors to neurodisability, the very late evolving effects of tertiary brain injury likely require different interventions targeting neurorestoration. Clinical trials of seizure management and neuroprotection bundles are needed, in addition to current trials combining erythropoietin, stem cells, and melatonin with TH

Global wealth disparities drive adherence to COVID-safe pathways in head and neck cancer surgery

Peer reviewe

The Protect America Act of 2007: A Framework for Improving Intelligence Collection in the War on Terror

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of the efficacy of the Protect America Act in the context of the new ground it covers. If one couples the phenomenal technical advances in telecommunications technology) with an acknowledgement of the growing threats to national security posed by hostile nations, it is obvious that the nation's intelligence community must be properly equipped with the necessary tools to protect the nation. As Congress continues to revise and amend FISA, the Protect America Act of 2007 serves as a reminder of the many policy and legal tensions involved as the country grapples with balancing cherished civil liberties against the need for increased security and government accountability in this post-9/11 world