CSI 2008, Legal Developments In Security and Privacy Law padler01
The document provides an overview of key developments in security and privacy law from November 2007 to November 2008. It discusses new and proposed federal and state legislation, federal agency rules and guidelines, and agency enforcement actions related to data security and privacy. Key topics covered include proposed amendments to regulations, new data breach notification laws in many states, and emerging state laws requiring businesses to implement data security programs.
This letter from Elizabeth Warren urges President Obama to replace Mary Jo White as Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It argues that White has undermined the SEC's mission of investor protection and transparency. Specifically, White has refused to develop rules requiring disclosure of corporate political spending despite widespread public and investor support. The letter urges Obama to exercise his authority to immediately designate another SEC commissioner as Chair in order to advance the administration's priorities.
STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN PUBLIC INTEREST OFTRANSPARENCY OF.docxjohniemcm5zt
STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN PUBLIC INTEREST OF
TRANSPARENCY OF GOVERNMENT AND THE PRIVACY
OF PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION AND SECURITY
INFORMATION: AN EXAMINATION OF TRIBUNE-REVIEW
PUBLISHING CO. V BODACK
I. INTRODUCTION
Pennsyivanians generally want the government to work
properly and to be free from corruption. They also generally want
to know how tax dollars are spent and how efficiently the
government works. The Right-to-Know Law provides access to
state government public records to any individual or entity that
properly requests them. ' The purpose of this law is to give a level
of transparency to the inner workings of the state government.^
However, this right to access public records could lead to the
inadvertent disclosure of important personal identification and
security information of innocent, private citizens.
Under the Right-to-Know Act, the state court system took
responsibility for determining not only what fits into the definition
of a "public record," but also whether the public interest in the
information outweighs the possible " 'impairment of a person's
reputation or personal security' " by the disclosure of that
information.^ Because, historically, Pennsylvania courts have
broadly interpreted the public record definition, individuals are at a
' Right-to-Know Law, 65 PA. STAT. ANN. §§ 67.101- .1102 (West Supp.
2009). The Right-to-Know Law completely overhauled public records access in
Pennsylvania, effective January 1, 2009. Id. §67.101. However, this act only
applies to requests for public records after December 31, 2008. Id. § 67.3101. So
any case pending with a request for information prior to December 31, 2008,
should be decided under the former Right-to-Know Act. The implications of the
revised Right-to-Know Law are discussed in the evaluation section. See infra pt.
IV.
' Pa. State Univ. v. State Employees' Ret. Bd. {Penn State), 935 A.2d 530,
533 (Pa. 2007) (citing Sapp Roofmg Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n,
Local Union No. 12, 713 A.2d 627, 629 (Pa. 1998)).
^ Id. at 538 (quoting § 66.1(2), repealed by Right-to-Know Law, 65 PA.
STAT. ANN. §67.102 (West Supp. 2009)) (citing Goppelt v. City of Phila.
Revenue Dep't, 841 A.2d 599, 603-04 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998)).
577
578 WiDENER LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 19
greater risk of having personal identification and security
information released to the public; and therefore, the courts have
been forced to carefully balance the competing interests of the
public and of the private individual.'*
This survey will examine how Pennsylvania courts have
attempted to achieve a balance between the public's interest in the
transparency of government and the private individual's interest in
the confidentiality of personal identification and security
information. Part II examines the case law prior to Tribune-Review
Publishing Co. v. Bodaclê as well as the development of the
exception to the required disclosure of information in public
records. Part III discusses Tribune-Review Publish.
Warrants. Wiretaps. PRTTs. Subpoenas. Section 702. 2703(d) order. National Security Letters. All Writs Act. Many in the infosec community are aware that the government has an array of legal authorities to use in investigating crimes which allow them access to user content and metadata, but few people could articulate the differences among these types of orders. This talk will review each type of legal process used by state and federal agencies to request access to various types of user data and content.
The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by Congress in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks. It gives federal officials greater authority to track communications for counterterrorism purposes. It also increases the government's ability to monitor financial transactions and provides new criminal offenses and penalties related to terrorism. While providing some new safeguards, critics argue some provisions undermine civil liberties.
The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General plays a critical role in protecting whistleblowers in DoD intelligence agencies by investigating allegations of reprisal. While early laws exempted intelligence community employees from protections, the ICWPA and IG Act now provide channels for issues of "urgent concern" to be disclosed and investigated. The DoD IG's Civilian Reprisal Investigations directorate specifically investigates cases of whistleblower reprisal in DoD intelligence agencies, including actions involving security clearances which can be tantamount to termination. Notable cases include substantiated reprisal allegations at NSA and CIFA.
Patent Reform 2015 - Andrew Baluch presentation to Rutgers UniversityDipanjan "DJ" Nag
This document discusses various efforts at patent reform in 2015 at both the federal and state levels. At the federal level, the executive branch proposed reforms and Congress considered bills like the Innovation Act. These addressed issues like fee shifting, real party in interest disclosure, and staying customer suits. Meanwhile, states passed laws regulating abusive patent demand letters. Courts also addressed several patent reform issues through decisions that intersected with proposed legislation. Overall, the document analyzes the complex interplay between different government entities on the multi-faceted topic of patent reform.
This document provides a summary of legislative updates related to technology, internet, and privacy from a February 14, 2018 interest group call. It discusses proposed legislation around net neutrality, sex trafficking and online classified sites, and other bills around email privacy, cybersecurity for small businesses, and regulating online political ads. Critics argue some bills may have unintended consequences, while supporters say they aim to curb illegal activity without stifling innovation. The status and details of several bills are outlined.
CSI 2008, Legal Developments In Security and Privacy Law padler01
The document provides an overview of key developments in security and privacy law from November 2007 to November 2008. It discusses new and proposed federal and state legislation, federal agency rules and guidelines, and agency enforcement actions related to data security and privacy. Key topics covered include proposed amendments to regulations, new data breach notification laws in many states, and emerging state laws requiring businesses to implement data security programs.
This letter from Elizabeth Warren urges President Obama to replace Mary Jo White as Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It argues that White has undermined the SEC's mission of investor protection and transparency. Specifically, White has refused to develop rules requiring disclosure of corporate political spending despite widespread public and investor support. The letter urges Obama to exercise his authority to immediately designate another SEC commissioner as Chair in order to advance the administration's priorities.
STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN PUBLIC INTEREST OFTRANSPARENCY OF.docxjohniemcm5zt
STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN PUBLIC INTEREST OF
TRANSPARENCY OF GOVERNMENT AND THE PRIVACY
OF PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION AND SECURITY
INFORMATION: AN EXAMINATION OF TRIBUNE-REVIEW
PUBLISHING CO. V BODACK
I. INTRODUCTION
Pennsyivanians generally want the government to work
properly and to be free from corruption. They also generally want
to know how tax dollars are spent and how efficiently the
government works. The Right-to-Know Law provides access to
state government public records to any individual or entity that
properly requests them. ' The purpose of this law is to give a level
of transparency to the inner workings of the state government.^
However, this right to access public records could lead to the
inadvertent disclosure of important personal identification and
security information of innocent, private citizens.
Under the Right-to-Know Act, the state court system took
responsibility for determining not only what fits into the definition
of a "public record," but also whether the public interest in the
information outweighs the possible " 'impairment of a person's
reputation or personal security' " by the disclosure of that
information.^ Because, historically, Pennsylvania courts have
broadly interpreted the public record definition, individuals are at a
' Right-to-Know Law, 65 PA. STAT. ANN. §§ 67.101- .1102 (West Supp.
2009). The Right-to-Know Law completely overhauled public records access in
Pennsylvania, effective January 1, 2009. Id. §67.101. However, this act only
applies to requests for public records after December 31, 2008. Id. § 67.3101. So
any case pending with a request for information prior to December 31, 2008,
should be decided under the former Right-to-Know Act. The implications of the
revised Right-to-Know Law are discussed in the evaluation section. See infra pt.
IV.
' Pa. State Univ. v. State Employees' Ret. Bd. {Penn State), 935 A.2d 530,
533 (Pa. 2007) (citing Sapp Roofmg Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n,
Local Union No. 12, 713 A.2d 627, 629 (Pa. 1998)).
^ Id. at 538 (quoting § 66.1(2), repealed by Right-to-Know Law, 65 PA.
STAT. ANN. §67.102 (West Supp. 2009)) (citing Goppelt v. City of Phila.
Revenue Dep't, 841 A.2d 599, 603-04 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998)).
577
578 WiDENER LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 19
greater risk of having personal identification and security
information released to the public; and therefore, the courts have
been forced to carefully balance the competing interests of the
public and of the private individual.'*
This survey will examine how Pennsylvania courts have
attempted to achieve a balance between the public's interest in the
transparency of government and the private individual's interest in
the confidentiality of personal identification and security
information. Part II examines the case law prior to Tribune-Review
Publishing Co. v. Bodaclê as well as the development of the
exception to the required disclosure of information in public
records. Part III discusses Tribune-Review Publish.
Warrants. Wiretaps. PRTTs. Subpoenas. Section 702. 2703(d) order. National Security Letters. All Writs Act. Many in the infosec community are aware that the government has an array of legal authorities to use in investigating crimes which allow them access to user content and metadata, but few people could articulate the differences among these types of orders. This talk will review each type of legal process used by state and federal agencies to request access to various types of user data and content.
The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by Congress in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks. It gives federal officials greater authority to track communications for counterterrorism purposes. It also increases the government's ability to monitor financial transactions and provides new criminal offenses and penalties related to terrorism. While providing some new safeguards, critics argue some provisions undermine civil liberties.
The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General plays a critical role in protecting whistleblowers in DoD intelligence agencies by investigating allegations of reprisal. While early laws exempted intelligence community employees from protections, the ICWPA and IG Act now provide channels for issues of "urgent concern" to be disclosed and investigated. The DoD IG's Civilian Reprisal Investigations directorate specifically investigates cases of whistleblower reprisal in DoD intelligence agencies, including actions involving security clearances which can be tantamount to termination. Notable cases include substantiated reprisal allegations at NSA and CIFA.
Patent Reform 2015 - Andrew Baluch presentation to Rutgers UniversityDipanjan "DJ" Nag
This document discusses various efforts at patent reform in 2015 at both the federal and state levels. At the federal level, the executive branch proposed reforms and Congress considered bills like the Innovation Act. These addressed issues like fee shifting, real party in interest disclosure, and staying customer suits. Meanwhile, states passed laws regulating abusive patent demand letters. Courts also addressed several patent reform issues through decisions that intersected with proposed legislation. Overall, the document analyzes the complex interplay between different government entities on the multi-faceted topic of patent reform.
This document provides a summary of legislative updates related to technology, internet, and privacy from a February 14, 2018 interest group call. It discusses proposed legislation around net neutrality, sex trafficking and online classified sites, and other bills around email privacy, cybersecurity for small businesses, and regulating online political ads. Critics argue some bills may have unintended consequences, while supporters say they aim to curb illegal activity without stifling innovation. The status and details of several bills are outlined.
2010 Privacy in the Workplace: Electronic Surveillance under State and Federa...Charles Mudd
The document summarizes key issues regarding privacy and electronic surveillance in the workplace under state and federal law. It discusses trends in increasing workplace monitoring and highlights several applicable laws, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Stored Communications Act, and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It also covers relevant state statutes and common law privacy torts, as well as more common surveillance issues like email monitoring.
This document provides a report on a resolution to bring two bills to a vote in the House of Representatives. The resolution provides structured rules for debating and voting on the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), allowing for amendments, and the Interest Rate Reduction Act. It also allows for consideration of other cybersecurity bills and appropriations measures. The report explains the resolution's provisions, waivers of procedural rules, and 13 amendments allowed for CISPA concerning its scope, privacy protections, and definitions.
This document is a complaint filed by Twitter against the U.S. Department of Justice and other government agencies and officials. Twitter seeks a declaratory judgment that government restrictions on its ability to publish information about national security requests it receives, such as National Security Letters and court orders issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, violate its free speech rights under the First Amendment. The government has classified information in Twitter's draft transparency report and has only approved preapproved formats established in a settlement with other tech companies for reporting aggregated data about national security requests. Twitter argues these restrictions are unconstitutional.
This document is a complaint filed by Twitter against the U.S. Department of Justice and other government agencies and officials. Twitter seeks a declaratory judgment that government restrictions on its ability to publish information about national security requests it receives, such as National Security Letters and court orders issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, violate its free speech rights under the First Amendment. The government has classified information in Twitter's draft transparency report and has only approved preapproved formats established in a settlement with other tech companies for reporting aggregated data about national security requests. Twitter argues these restrictions are unconstitutional.
This document provides an overview of securities fraud law, including what constitutes securities fraud, relevant statutes, criminal penalties, and potential defense strategies. Securities fraud laws were enacted in the 1930s to promote transparency and fair disclosure in financial markets. Violations of these laws, including the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934, can carry criminal penalties such as fines and incarceration. The definition of a "security" that is covered is also very broad. Successful defense strategies must understand the specific elements and statutes involved in each securities fraud case.
This document is a legal response filed by the Governor of Kentucky arguing that the state's ban on same-sex marriage should be upheld. It argues that the ban is rationally related to legitimate government interests in encouraging relationships that can procreate and in promoting population growth and economic stability. It contends these interests are different than the impermissible racial discrimination at issue in Loving v. Virginia. The response aims to show the ban satisfies rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause.
Cell Phones/Devices - The Government has provided a proposed Order that directs the manufacturer to provide “reasonable technical assistance” in unlocking the device although omits process allows challenge. Cell Phone Seizure, Search Warrant.
242018 NSA Reform and the Patriot Act in Congress - The Atla.docxtamicawaysmith
2/4/2018 NSA Reform and the Patriot Act in Congress - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/a-long-awaited-reform-to-the-usa-patriot-act/393197/ 1/5
Subscribe to The Atlantic’s Politics & Policy Daily, a roundup of ideas and events in American
politics.
Email SIGN UP
Fourteen years after the Patriot Act gave sweeping spy powers to the government in
its war against terrorism, a consensus is finally emerging in Congress that the
government needs to be reined in—at least a bit. The next two weeks could
determine whether that consensus will yield a new law.
A Long-Awaited Reform to the Patriot Act
A bipartisan bill passed by the House on Wednesday would end the NSA’s bulk-
data-collection program.
RUSSELL BERMAN
MAY 14, 2015 | POLITICS
Pawel Kopczynski / Reuters
http://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/politics-daily/
https://www.theatlantic.com/author/russell-berman/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/
2/4/2018 NSA Reform and the Patriot Act in Congress - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/a-long-awaited-reform-to-the-usa-patriot-act/393197/ 2/5
In a bipartisan vote of 338-88, the House on Wednesday afternoon passed the USA
Freedom Act, which seeks to restrain the nation’s surveillance state while extending
other key parts of the 2001 Patriot Act that are set to expire at the end of the
month. At its core, the House measure ends the NSA’s bulk collection program first
exposed two years ago by Edward Snowden, and requires the government to be
more transparent about the data it seeks from citizens. The vote comes just a week
after a federal appeals court ruled that the Patriot Act’s controversial Section 215
did not authorize the bulk collection program, which allowed the NSA to access
domestic telephone metadata. The ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
didn’t end the program, which the Freedom Act would.
The House measure represented a rare and genuine bipartisan compromise,
drawing support from the original author of the Patriot Act, conservative
Representative James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, along with liberal Democrats
like John Conyers of Michigan and Jerrold Nadler of New York, staunch civil
libertarians. The White House has said that President Obama would sign it. Yet it
faces an uncertain fate in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
wants to extend the entire Patriot Act, untouched, for another five years.
Democrats have vowed to block that effort and are hoping that the strong House
vote and the chance that the surveillance programs could expire altogether on June
1 will force McConnell to accept the reform bill. A short-term extension, giving the
Senate more time to debate, is also possible. (The Senate has a recess scheduled
after next week.)
“Today, we have a rare opportunity to restore a measure of
restraint to surveillance programs that have simply gone
too far.”
The bill’s supporters say it’s the most far-reac ...
Twitter v. holder suit to disclose ns lsPublicLeaks
This document is a complaint filed by Twitter against the U.S. Department of Justice and other government agencies and officials. Twitter seeks a declaratory judgment that government restrictions on its ability to publish information about national security requests it receives, such as National Security Letters, violate its free speech rights under the First Amendment. The government has prohibited Twitter and other companies from publishing any information about such requests unless it follows pre-approved disclosure formats established by the government, which Twitter argues unconstitutionally restrict its right to discuss matters of public concern.
Senate Bill 1733, also known as the People's Freedom of Information Act of 2013, consolidates 10 previous legislative proposals and a Senate resolution regarding freedom of information. It aims to implement the constitutional right of the people to access government information, with some exceptions. Key points include requiring disclosure of budgets, contracts and officials' asset statements; a presumption of access; procedures for requests; and penalties for non-compliance including possible imprisonment. It also mandates inclusion of freedom of information in public education curriculum.
Final presentation rev 1 - USA Patriot Actgbsmith5
The USA PATRIOT Act was passed 45 days after 9/11 to enhance domestic security and increase surveillance powers. It impacted laws around intelligence gathering, immigration, and more. While proponents argued it granted needed powers to fight terrorism, critics said it infringed on civil liberties. There have been ongoing legal challenges around its scope and application. As time has passed, there are calls to reevaluate the act and ensure powers are not abused.
This document discusses the protections available for whistleblowers within the U.S. Intelligence Community and analyzes three cases of whistleblowers - Frank Snepp, Thomas Drake, and Edward Snowden. It outlines the history of legislation providing some protections, such as the ability to report issues to Inspectors General, but also notes laws like the Espionage Act that can punish unauthorized disclosures. The document then summarizes the cases of Snepp, Drake, and Snowden, noting that while Snepp and Drake faced penalties for unauthorized disclosures, the consequences for Snowden remain unclear given his actions were the most recent and high-profile.
Here are my thoughts on the USA Patriot Act:
- I believe national security is important, but government surveillance powers must be balanced with civil liberties protections. Some provisions of the Patriot Act gave security agencies broad authority with little oversight.
- If certain provisions were affecting my personal privacy or constitutional rights, I would want to see if legal challenges could limit the scope of those authorities or add more transparency and accountability.
- In the future, I think Congress should have an open debate on any reauthorization that weighs both sides of this issue carefully. Blanket extensions without addressing legitimate concerns about privacy and due process do not seem like the best approach. National security and civil liberties do not always have to be at odds.
Here are my thoughts on the USA Patriot Act:
- I believe national security is important, but government surveillance powers must be balanced with civil liberties protections. Some provisions of the Patriot Act gave security agencies broad authority with little oversight.
- If certain provisions were affecting my personal privacy or constitutional rights, I would want to see if legal challenges could limit the scope of those authorities or add more transparency and accountability.
- In the future, I think Congress should have an open debate on any extensions and consider input from experts on both sides. Narrowly tailored reforms may be needed to uphold security while also protecting civil liberties. A wholesale renewal or expansion without review may go too far.
Overall it's a complex issue
This document discusses a legal question regarding the authority of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to issue orders for the production of business records and tangible things under Section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). Specifically, it must determine whether the USA FREEDOM Act effectively reinstated the Court's authority under Section 501 that had lapsed on June 1, 2015, or if the pre-USA PATRIOT Act version of Section 501 remains in effect. The Court finds that appointing an amicus curiae is not necessary to assist it in resolving this legal question. It then analyzes Section 102(b)(1) of the USA PATRIOT Act, as amended by the USA F
Senators Specter, Smith, and Representative Andrews voted in favor of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 despite having reservations or believing parts of the bill were unconstitutional. Voting for legislation one believes to be unconstitutional violates the oath members of Congress take to uphold the Constitution. This obligation stems from their oath and the presumption that Congress does not pass intentionally unconstitutional laws. However, some argue Congress has shifted to a model where it defers questions of constitutionality to courts rather than conducting their own analysis.
How the Patriot Act Works by Ed Grabianowski Browse th.docxwellesleyterresa
How the Patriot Act Works
by Ed Grabianowski
Browse the article How the Patriot Act Works
Homeland Security National Operations Center
Photo Courtesy of U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Introduction to How the Patriot Act Works
The Patriot Act is a U.S. law passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Its
goals are to strengthen domestic security and broaden the powers of law-enforcement agencies
with regards to identifying and stopping terrorists. The passing and renewal of the Patriot Act has
been extremely controversial. Supporters claim that it's been instrumental in a number of
investigations and arrests of terrorists, while critics counter the act gives the government too
much power, threatens civil liberties and undermines the very democracy it seeks to protect.
Let's take a look at what the Patriot Act is, the support and criticism behind it and if the Patriot
Act is really working.
Main Provisions of the Patriot Act
The Patriot Act's full title is Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. It's split into 10 parts, and it covers a
lot of ground. Here is a summary.
Title I - This section pertains to the protection of civil liberties. It authorizes federal money to
accomplish much of the act's provisions and authorizes the Secret Service to create a nationwide
electronic crime task force. This section also gives the president the authority to confiscate the
property of any foreign person who is believed to have aided in a war or attack on the United
States. Such seizures can be submitted secretly to courts as evidence.
Title II - This section broadens the ability of law-enforcement agencies to conduct surveillance
on "agents of foreign powers." It allows the interception of communications if they're related to
terrorist activities and allows law-enforcement agencies to share information related to terrorist
http://people.howstuffworks.com/patriot-act.htm/about-author.htm#grabianowski
http://people.howstuffworks.com/patriot-act.htm
http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm
http://people.howstuffworks.com/government-channel.htm
http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/money-index.htm
http://money.howstuffworks.com/question449.htm
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/workplace-surveillance.htm
activities with federal authorities. In addition, Title II authorizes roving surveillance -- that is, a
court order allowing surveillance on a particular person allows officers to use any means
available to intercept that person's communications, regardless of where the person goes.
Previously, a court order would only allow a wiretap on a specific line in one location. Further, it
allows the government to order files from the providers of communications services with details
about specific customers' use of the service. For example, an Internet service provider can be
ordered to provide in ...
The final disposition of the Act 13 law that was challenged by seven selfish PA towns, an anti-drilling doctor and a wacko environmental group. The PA Supreme Court couldn't be bothered deciding these points and sent it back to a lower court for a final decision. The Commonwealth Court found that the Public Utility Commission could not evaluate a town's zoning ordinances to be sure they don't violate state standards. It also found the language in Act 13 limiting a doctor from making public the specific formulas used by drillers in their fracking fluids. There were a few other notable decisions as well.
There is rarely a time that goes by that there is not some discuss.docxchristalgrieg
There is rarely a time that goes by that there is not some discussion in the news of how to establish the critical balance between privacy and national security. In fact, for some, it is not a matter of balance. They would advocate that we err on ensuring that the nation is secure no matter the infringement upon privacy rights; or conversely that the right to privacy trump all other endeavors, including national security. However, most contend that there is indeed a balance between the two, but it remains a significant challenge to determine exactly what that looks like.
This challenge is particularly prevalent in the intelligence field. As you have learned, much of what occurs in the intelligence field in conducted in secrecy. While the inputs to the intelligence process may very well be open source material that everyone can access, once analyzed and combined the intelligence products contain very sensitive and guarded information of national significance. However, the U.S. is a democracy that embraces the ideals of government transparency and the protection of constitution rights. As such, congressional oversight of intelligence activities is employed to ensure these ideals are upheld.
Congressional Oversight
It is not difficult to imagine that the intelligence community and congress can often find themselves at odds with one another. This is in part due to the fact that congress has three distinct mechanisms by which to mange the IC:
1. Controlling Resources
2. Passage of new legislation
3. Release of information to the public
Controlling Resources: Like all agencies, Congress is responsible for the review and authorization of funding for intelligence agencies. The power for Congress to do this function comes from the Intelligence Authorization Act. By controlling the funding, Congress can effectively threaten to withhold funding from the IC until the IC is able to thoroughly justify their needs and proposed expenditures (Riley & Schneider, 2010).
Passage of New Legislation: Another function that Congress exerts over all agencies, including the IC, is legal in nature. Congress is charged with ensuring that new legislation is passed that “authorizes, constrains, or otherwise affects the operations of the intelligence agencies”. Therefore, Congress has the ultimate ability to control the actions that the IC is legally allowed to execute. The IC does not grant their rights or powers (Riley & Schneider, 2010).
Release of Information to the Public: Senate Resolution 400 created the Senate’s intelligence oversights committee and also provides for the ability for Congress to declassify information for public release. This action has never been executed, although the ability for Congress to do so remains a power (Riley & Schneider, 2010).
Events Leading to Congressional Control
Interestingly, Congress did not always have the powers over the IC that they do today. In fact, there were several events that lead to this current relationship. Histo ...
· Describe strategies to build rapport with inmates and offenders .docxgerardkortney
· Describe strategies to build rapport with inmates and offenders in a correctional treatment or supervision program.
· Describe the effect of group dynamics on facilitating programs.
· Describe techniques for establishing a therapeutic environment.
Generalist Case Management
Woodside and McClam
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/books/9781483342047/pageid/44
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781323128800
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781483342047
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781133795247
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259760413
Use book and two outside sources.
At least 100 words per question
THANKS
1 The Role of the Correctional Counselor CHAPTER OBJECTIVES After reading this chapter, you will be able to: 1. Identify the functions and parameters of the counseling process. 2. Discuss the competing interests between security and counseling in the correctional counseling process. 3. Know common terms and concerns associated with custodial corrections. 4. Understand the role of the counselor as facilitator. 5. Identify the various personal characteristics associated with effective counselors. 6. Be aware of the impact that burnout can have on a counselor’s professional performance. 7. Identify the various means of training and supervision associated with counseling. PART ONE: A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO COUNSELING AND CORRECTIONS There are many myths concerning the concept of counseling. Although the image of the counseling field has changed dramatically over the past two or three decades, much of society still views counseling and therapy as a mystic process reserved for those who lack the ability to handle life issues effectively. While the concept of counseling is often misunderstood, the problem is exacerbated when attempting to introduce the idea of correctional counseling. Therefore, the primary goal of this chapter is to provide a working definition of correctional counseling that includes descriptions of how and when it is carried out. In order to understand the concept of correctional counseling, however, the two words that derive the concept must first be defined: “corrections” and “counseling.” In addition, a concerted effort is made to identify the myriad of legal and ethical issues that pertain to counselors working with offenders. It is very difficult to identify a single starting point for the counseling profession. In essence, there were various movements occurring simultaneously that later evolved into what we now describe as counseling. One of the earliest connections to the origins of counseling took place in Europe during the Middle Ages (Brown & Srebalus, 2003). The primary objective was assisting individuals with career choices. This type of counseling service is usually described by the concept of “guidance.” In the late 1800s Wilhelm Wundt and G. Stanley Hall created two of the first known psychological laboratories aimed at studying and treating individuals with psychological and e.
· Debates continue regarding what constitutes an appropriate rol.docxgerardkortney
· Debates continue regarding what constitutes an appropriate role for the judiciary. Some argue that federal judges have become too powerful and that judges “legislate from the bench.”
1. What does it mean for a judge to be an activist?
2. What does it mean for a judge to be a restrainist?
· Although conservatives had long complained about the activism of liberal justices and judges, in recent years conservative judges and justices have been likely to overturn precedents and question the power of elected institutions of government.
3. When is judicial activism appropriate? Explain.
· To defenders of the right to privacy, it is implicitly embodied in the Constitution in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. To opponents, it is judge-made law because there is no explicit reference to it under the Constitution. The right to privacy dates back to at least 1890, when Boston attorneys Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis equated it with the right to be left alone from journalists who engaged in yellow journalism.
4. In short, do you believe a right to privacy exists in the federal Constitution. Why or why not?
.
2010 Privacy in the Workplace: Electronic Surveillance under State and Federa...Charles Mudd
The document summarizes key issues regarding privacy and electronic surveillance in the workplace under state and federal law. It discusses trends in increasing workplace monitoring and highlights several applicable laws, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Stored Communications Act, and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It also covers relevant state statutes and common law privacy torts, as well as more common surveillance issues like email monitoring.
This document provides a report on a resolution to bring two bills to a vote in the House of Representatives. The resolution provides structured rules for debating and voting on the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), allowing for amendments, and the Interest Rate Reduction Act. It also allows for consideration of other cybersecurity bills and appropriations measures. The report explains the resolution's provisions, waivers of procedural rules, and 13 amendments allowed for CISPA concerning its scope, privacy protections, and definitions.
This document is a complaint filed by Twitter against the U.S. Department of Justice and other government agencies and officials. Twitter seeks a declaratory judgment that government restrictions on its ability to publish information about national security requests it receives, such as National Security Letters and court orders issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, violate its free speech rights under the First Amendment. The government has classified information in Twitter's draft transparency report and has only approved preapproved formats established in a settlement with other tech companies for reporting aggregated data about national security requests. Twitter argues these restrictions are unconstitutional.
This document is a complaint filed by Twitter against the U.S. Department of Justice and other government agencies and officials. Twitter seeks a declaratory judgment that government restrictions on its ability to publish information about national security requests it receives, such as National Security Letters and court orders issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, violate its free speech rights under the First Amendment. The government has classified information in Twitter's draft transparency report and has only approved preapproved formats established in a settlement with other tech companies for reporting aggregated data about national security requests. Twitter argues these restrictions are unconstitutional.
This document provides an overview of securities fraud law, including what constitutes securities fraud, relevant statutes, criminal penalties, and potential defense strategies. Securities fraud laws were enacted in the 1930s to promote transparency and fair disclosure in financial markets. Violations of these laws, including the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934, can carry criminal penalties such as fines and incarceration. The definition of a "security" that is covered is also very broad. Successful defense strategies must understand the specific elements and statutes involved in each securities fraud case.
This document is a legal response filed by the Governor of Kentucky arguing that the state's ban on same-sex marriage should be upheld. It argues that the ban is rationally related to legitimate government interests in encouraging relationships that can procreate and in promoting population growth and economic stability. It contends these interests are different than the impermissible racial discrimination at issue in Loving v. Virginia. The response aims to show the ban satisfies rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause.
Cell Phones/Devices - The Government has provided a proposed Order that directs the manufacturer to provide “reasonable technical assistance” in unlocking the device although omits process allows challenge. Cell Phone Seizure, Search Warrant.
242018 NSA Reform and the Patriot Act in Congress - The Atla.docxtamicawaysmith
2/4/2018 NSA Reform and the Patriot Act in Congress - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/a-long-awaited-reform-to-the-usa-patriot-act/393197/ 1/5
Subscribe to The Atlantic’s Politics & Policy Daily, a roundup of ideas and events in American
politics.
Email SIGN UP
Fourteen years after the Patriot Act gave sweeping spy powers to the government in
its war against terrorism, a consensus is finally emerging in Congress that the
government needs to be reined in—at least a bit. The next two weeks could
determine whether that consensus will yield a new law.
A Long-Awaited Reform to the Patriot Act
A bipartisan bill passed by the House on Wednesday would end the NSA’s bulk-
data-collection program.
RUSSELL BERMAN
MAY 14, 2015 | POLITICS
Pawel Kopczynski / Reuters
http://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/politics-daily/
https://www.theatlantic.com/author/russell-berman/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/
2/4/2018 NSA Reform and the Patriot Act in Congress - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/a-long-awaited-reform-to-the-usa-patriot-act/393197/ 2/5
In a bipartisan vote of 338-88, the House on Wednesday afternoon passed the USA
Freedom Act, which seeks to restrain the nation’s surveillance state while extending
other key parts of the 2001 Patriot Act that are set to expire at the end of the
month. At its core, the House measure ends the NSA’s bulk collection program first
exposed two years ago by Edward Snowden, and requires the government to be
more transparent about the data it seeks from citizens. The vote comes just a week
after a federal appeals court ruled that the Patriot Act’s controversial Section 215
did not authorize the bulk collection program, which allowed the NSA to access
domestic telephone metadata. The ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
didn’t end the program, which the Freedom Act would.
The House measure represented a rare and genuine bipartisan compromise,
drawing support from the original author of the Patriot Act, conservative
Representative James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, along with liberal Democrats
like John Conyers of Michigan and Jerrold Nadler of New York, staunch civil
libertarians. The White House has said that President Obama would sign it. Yet it
faces an uncertain fate in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
wants to extend the entire Patriot Act, untouched, for another five years.
Democrats have vowed to block that effort and are hoping that the strong House
vote and the chance that the surveillance programs could expire altogether on June
1 will force McConnell to accept the reform bill. A short-term extension, giving the
Senate more time to debate, is also possible. (The Senate has a recess scheduled
after next week.)
“Today, we have a rare opportunity to restore a measure of
restraint to surveillance programs that have simply gone
too far.”
The bill’s supporters say it’s the most far-reac ...
Twitter v. holder suit to disclose ns lsPublicLeaks
This document is a complaint filed by Twitter against the U.S. Department of Justice and other government agencies and officials. Twitter seeks a declaratory judgment that government restrictions on its ability to publish information about national security requests it receives, such as National Security Letters, violate its free speech rights under the First Amendment. The government has prohibited Twitter and other companies from publishing any information about such requests unless it follows pre-approved disclosure formats established by the government, which Twitter argues unconstitutionally restrict its right to discuss matters of public concern.
Senate Bill 1733, also known as the People's Freedom of Information Act of 2013, consolidates 10 previous legislative proposals and a Senate resolution regarding freedom of information. It aims to implement the constitutional right of the people to access government information, with some exceptions. Key points include requiring disclosure of budgets, contracts and officials' asset statements; a presumption of access; procedures for requests; and penalties for non-compliance including possible imprisonment. It also mandates inclusion of freedom of information in public education curriculum.
Final presentation rev 1 - USA Patriot Actgbsmith5
The USA PATRIOT Act was passed 45 days after 9/11 to enhance domestic security and increase surveillance powers. It impacted laws around intelligence gathering, immigration, and more. While proponents argued it granted needed powers to fight terrorism, critics said it infringed on civil liberties. There have been ongoing legal challenges around its scope and application. As time has passed, there are calls to reevaluate the act and ensure powers are not abused.
This document discusses the protections available for whistleblowers within the U.S. Intelligence Community and analyzes three cases of whistleblowers - Frank Snepp, Thomas Drake, and Edward Snowden. It outlines the history of legislation providing some protections, such as the ability to report issues to Inspectors General, but also notes laws like the Espionage Act that can punish unauthorized disclosures. The document then summarizes the cases of Snepp, Drake, and Snowden, noting that while Snepp and Drake faced penalties for unauthorized disclosures, the consequences for Snowden remain unclear given his actions were the most recent and high-profile.
Here are my thoughts on the USA Patriot Act:
- I believe national security is important, but government surveillance powers must be balanced with civil liberties protections. Some provisions of the Patriot Act gave security agencies broad authority with little oversight.
- If certain provisions were affecting my personal privacy or constitutional rights, I would want to see if legal challenges could limit the scope of those authorities or add more transparency and accountability.
- In the future, I think Congress should have an open debate on any reauthorization that weighs both sides of this issue carefully. Blanket extensions without addressing legitimate concerns about privacy and due process do not seem like the best approach. National security and civil liberties do not always have to be at odds.
Here are my thoughts on the USA Patriot Act:
- I believe national security is important, but government surveillance powers must be balanced with civil liberties protections. Some provisions of the Patriot Act gave security agencies broad authority with little oversight.
- If certain provisions were affecting my personal privacy or constitutional rights, I would want to see if legal challenges could limit the scope of those authorities or add more transparency and accountability.
- In the future, I think Congress should have an open debate on any extensions and consider input from experts on both sides. Narrowly tailored reforms may be needed to uphold security while also protecting civil liberties. A wholesale renewal or expansion without review may go too far.
Overall it's a complex issue
This document discusses a legal question regarding the authority of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to issue orders for the production of business records and tangible things under Section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). Specifically, it must determine whether the USA FREEDOM Act effectively reinstated the Court's authority under Section 501 that had lapsed on June 1, 2015, or if the pre-USA PATRIOT Act version of Section 501 remains in effect. The Court finds that appointing an amicus curiae is not necessary to assist it in resolving this legal question. It then analyzes Section 102(b)(1) of the USA PATRIOT Act, as amended by the USA F
Senators Specter, Smith, and Representative Andrews voted in favor of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 despite having reservations or believing parts of the bill were unconstitutional. Voting for legislation one believes to be unconstitutional violates the oath members of Congress take to uphold the Constitution. This obligation stems from their oath and the presumption that Congress does not pass intentionally unconstitutional laws. However, some argue Congress has shifted to a model where it defers questions of constitutionality to courts rather than conducting their own analysis.
How the Patriot Act Works by Ed Grabianowski Browse th.docxwellesleyterresa
How the Patriot Act Works
by Ed Grabianowski
Browse the article How the Patriot Act Works
Homeland Security National Operations Center
Photo Courtesy of U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Introduction to How the Patriot Act Works
The Patriot Act is a U.S. law passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Its
goals are to strengthen domestic security and broaden the powers of law-enforcement agencies
with regards to identifying and stopping terrorists. The passing and renewal of the Patriot Act has
been extremely controversial. Supporters claim that it's been instrumental in a number of
investigations and arrests of terrorists, while critics counter the act gives the government too
much power, threatens civil liberties and undermines the very democracy it seeks to protect.
Let's take a look at what the Patriot Act is, the support and criticism behind it and if the Patriot
Act is really working.
Main Provisions of the Patriot Act
The Patriot Act's full title is Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. It's split into 10 parts, and it covers a
lot of ground. Here is a summary.
Title I - This section pertains to the protection of civil liberties. It authorizes federal money to
accomplish much of the act's provisions and authorizes the Secret Service to create a nationwide
electronic crime task force. This section also gives the president the authority to confiscate the
property of any foreign person who is believed to have aided in a war or attack on the United
States. Such seizures can be submitted secretly to courts as evidence.
Title II - This section broadens the ability of law-enforcement agencies to conduct surveillance
on "agents of foreign powers." It allows the interception of communications if they're related to
terrorist activities and allows law-enforcement agencies to share information related to terrorist
http://people.howstuffworks.com/patriot-act.htm/about-author.htm#grabianowski
http://people.howstuffworks.com/patriot-act.htm
http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm
http://people.howstuffworks.com/government-channel.htm
http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/money-index.htm
http://money.howstuffworks.com/question449.htm
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/workplace-surveillance.htm
activities with federal authorities. In addition, Title II authorizes roving surveillance -- that is, a
court order allowing surveillance on a particular person allows officers to use any means
available to intercept that person's communications, regardless of where the person goes.
Previously, a court order would only allow a wiretap on a specific line in one location. Further, it
allows the government to order files from the providers of communications services with details
about specific customers' use of the service. For example, an Internet service provider can be
ordered to provide in ...
The final disposition of the Act 13 law that was challenged by seven selfish PA towns, an anti-drilling doctor and a wacko environmental group. The PA Supreme Court couldn't be bothered deciding these points and sent it back to a lower court for a final decision. The Commonwealth Court found that the Public Utility Commission could not evaluate a town's zoning ordinances to be sure they don't violate state standards. It also found the language in Act 13 limiting a doctor from making public the specific formulas used by drillers in their fracking fluids. There were a few other notable decisions as well.
There is rarely a time that goes by that there is not some discuss.docxchristalgrieg
There is rarely a time that goes by that there is not some discussion in the news of how to establish the critical balance between privacy and national security. In fact, for some, it is not a matter of balance. They would advocate that we err on ensuring that the nation is secure no matter the infringement upon privacy rights; or conversely that the right to privacy trump all other endeavors, including national security. However, most contend that there is indeed a balance between the two, but it remains a significant challenge to determine exactly what that looks like.
This challenge is particularly prevalent in the intelligence field. As you have learned, much of what occurs in the intelligence field in conducted in secrecy. While the inputs to the intelligence process may very well be open source material that everyone can access, once analyzed and combined the intelligence products contain very sensitive and guarded information of national significance. However, the U.S. is a democracy that embraces the ideals of government transparency and the protection of constitution rights. As such, congressional oversight of intelligence activities is employed to ensure these ideals are upheld.
Congressional Oversight
It is not difficult to imagine that the intelligence community and congress can often find themselves at odds with one another. This is in part due to the fact that congress has three distinct mechanisms by which to mange the IC:
1. Controlling Resources
2. Passage of new legislation
3. Release of information to the public
Controlling Resources: Like all agencies, Congress is responsible for the review and authorization of funding for intelligence agencies. The power for Congress to do this function comes from the Intelligence Authorization Act. By controlling the funding, Congress can effectively threaten to withhold funding from the IC until the IC is able to thoroughly justify their needs and proposed expenditures (Riley & Schneider, 2010).
Passage of New Legislation: Another function that Congress exerts over all agencies, including the IC, is legal in nature. Congress is charged with ensuring that new legislation is passed that “authorizes, constrains, or otherwise affects the operations of the intelligence agencies”. Therefore, Congress has the ultimate ability to control the actions that the IC is legally allowed to execute. The IC does not grant their rights or powers (Riley & Schneider, 2010).
Release of Information to the Public: Senate Resolution 400 created the Senate’s intelligence oversights committee and also provides for the ability for Congress to declassify information for public release. This action has never been executed, although the ability for Congress to do so remains a power (Riley & Schneider, 2010).
Events Leading to Congressional Control
Interestingly, Congress did not always have the powers over the IC that they do today. In fact, there were several events that lead to this current relationship. Histo ...
· Describe strategies to build rapport with inmates and offenders .docxgerardkortney
· Describe strategies to build rapport with inmates and offenders in a correctional treatment or supervision program.
· Describe the effect of group dynamics on facilitating programs.
· Describe techniques for establishing a therapeutic environment.
Generalist Case Management
Woodside and McClam
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/books/9781483342047/pageid/44
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781323128800
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781483342047
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781133795247
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259760413
Use book and two outside sources.
At least 100 words per question
THANKS
1 The Role of the Correctional Counselor CHAPTER OBJECTIVES After reading this chapter, you will be able to: 1. Identify the functions and parameters of the counseling process. 2. Discuss the competing interests between security and counseling in the correctional counseling process. 3. Know common terms and concerns associated with custodial corrections. 4. Understand the role of the counselor as facilitator. 5. Identify the various personal characteristics associated with effective counselors. 6. Be aware of the impact that burnout can have on a counselor’s professional performance. 7. Identify the various means of training and supervision associated with counseling. PART ONE: A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO COUNSELING AND CORRECTIONS There are many myths concerning the concept of counseling. Although the image of the counseling field has changed dramatically over the past two or three decades, much of society still views counseling and therapy as a mystic process reserved for those who lack the ability to handle life issues effectively. While the concept of counseling is often misunderstood, the problem is exacerbated when attempting to introduce the idea of correctional counseling. Therefore, the primary goal of this chapter is to provide a working definition of correctional counseling that includes descriptions of how and when it is carried out. In order to understand the concept of correctional counseling, however, the two words that derive the concept must first be defined: “corrections” and “counseling.” In addition, a concerted effort is made to identify the myriad of legal and ethical issues that pertain to counselors working with offenders. It is very difficult to identify a single starting point for the counseling profession. In essence, there were various movements occurring simultaneously that later evolved into what we now describe as counseling. One of the earliest connections to the origins of counseling took place in Europe during the Middle Ages (Brown & Srebalus, 2003). The primary objective was assisting individuals with career choices. This type of counseling service is usually described by the concept of “guidance.” In the late 1800s Wilhelm Wundt and G. Stanley Hall created two of the first known psychological laboratories aimed at studying and treating individuals with psychological and e.
· Debates continue regarding what constitutes an appropriate rol.docxgerardkortney
· Debates continue regarding what constitutes an appropriate role for the judiciary. Some argue that federal judges have become too powerful and that judges “legislate from the bench.”
1. What does it mean for a judge to be an activist?
2. What does it mean for a judge to be a restrainist?
· Although conservatives had long complained about the activism of liberal justices and judges, in recent years conservative judges and justices have been likely to overturn precedents and question the power of elected institutions of government.
3. When is judicial activism appropriate? Explain.
· To defenders of the right to privacy, it is implicitly embodied in the Constitution in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. To opponents, it is judge-made law because there is no explicit reference to it under the Constitution. The right to privacy dates back to at least 1890, when Boston attorneys Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis equated it with the right to be left alone from journalists who engaged in yellow journalism.
4. In short, do you believe a right to privacy exists in the federal Constitution. Why or why not?
.
· Critical thinking paper · · · 1. A case study..docxgerardkortney
· Critical thinking paper
·
·
· 1.
A case study.
Deborah Shore, aged 45, works for a small corporation in the Research and Development department.
When she first became a member of the department 15 years ago, Deborah was an unusually creative and productive researcher; her efforts quickly resulted in raises and promotions within the department and earned her the respect of her colleagues. Now, Deborah finds herself less interested in doing research; she is no longer making creative contributions to her department, although she is making contributions to its administration.
She is still respected by the coworkers who have known her since she joined the firm, but not by her younger coworkers.
Analyze the case study from the psychoanalytic, learning, and contextual perspectives: how would a theorist from each perspective explain Deborah's development? Which perspective do you believe provides the most adequate explanation, and why?
2. Interview your mother (and grandmothers, if possible), asking about experiences with childbirth. Include your own experiences if you have had children. Write a paper summarizing these childbirth experiences and comparing them with the contemporary experiences described in the text.
3. Identify a "type" of parent (e.g., single parent, teenage parent, low-income parent, dual-career couple) who is most likely to be distressed because an infant has a "difficult" temperament. Explain why you believe that this type of parent would have particular problems with a difficult infant. Write an informational brochure for the selected type of parent. The brochure should include an explanation of temperament in general and of the difficult temperament in particular, and give suggestions for parents of difficult infants.
4. Plan an educational unit covering nutrition, health, and safety for use with preschoolers and kindergartners. Take into account young children's cognitive and linguistic characteristics. The project should include (1) an outline of the content of the unit; and (2) a description of how the content would be presented, given the intellectual abilities of preschoolers. For example, how long would each lesson be? What kinds of pictures or other audiovisual materials would be used? How would this content be integrated with the children's other activities in preschool or kindergarten?
5. Visit two day care centers and evaluate each center using the information from the text as a guide. Request a fee schedule from each center. Write a paper summarizing your evaluation of each center.
Note:
Unless you are an actual potential client of the center, contact the director beforehand to explain the actual purpose of the visit, obtain permission to visit, and schedule your visit so as to minimize disruption to the center's schedule.
6. Watch some children's television programs and advertising, examine some children's toys and their packaging, read some children's books, and listen to some children's recor.
· Coronel & Morris Chapter 7, Problems 1, 2 and 3
· Coronel & Morris Chapter 8, Problems 1 and 2
A People’s History of Modern Europe
“A fascinating journey across centuries towards the world as we experience it today. ... It is
the voice of the ordinary people, and women in particular, their ideas and actions, protests
and sufferings that have gone into the making of this alternative narrative.”
——Sobhanlal Datta Gupta, former Surendra Nath Banerjee
Professor of Political Science, University of Calcutta
“A history of Europe that doesn’t remove the Europeans. Here there are not only kings,
presidents and institutions but the pulse of the people and social organizations that shaped
Europe. A must-read.”
——Raquel Varela, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
“Lively and engaging. William A Pelz takes the reader through a thousand years of
European history from below. This is the not the story of lords, kings and rulers. It is the
story of the ordinary people of Europe and their struggles against those lords, kings and
rulers, from the Middle Ages to the present day. A fine introduction.”
——Francis King, editor, Socialist History
“This book is an exception to the rule that the winner takes all. It highlights the importance
of the commoners which often is only shown in the dark corners of mainstream history
books. From Hussites, Levellers and sans-culottes to the women who defended the Paris
Commune and the workers who occupied the shipyards during the Carnation revolution in
Portugal. The author gives them their deserved place in history just like Howard Zinn did
for the American people.”
——Sjaak van der Velden, International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam
“The author puts his focus on the lives and historical impact of those excluded from
power and wealth: peasants and serfs of the Middle Ages, workers during the Industrial
Revolution, women in a patriarchic order that transcended different eras. This focus not
only makes history relevant for contemporary debates on social justice, it also urges the
reader to develop a critical approach.”
——Ralf Hoffrogge, Ruhr-Universität Bochum
“An exciting story of generations of people struggling for better living conditions, and for
social and political rights. ... This story has to be considered now, when the very notions of
enlightenment, progress and social change are being questioned.”
——Boris Kagarlitsky, director of Institute for globalization studies and social
movements, Moscow, and author of From Empires to Imperialism
“A splendid antidote to the many European histories dominated by kings, businessmen
and generals. It should be on the shelves of both academics and activists ... A lively and
informative intellectual tour-de-force.”
——Marcel van der Linden, International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam
A People’s History
of Modern Europe
William A. Pelz
First published 2016 by Pluto Press
345 Archway Road, London N6 5AA
www.pluto.
· Complete the following problems from your textbook· Pages 378.docxgerardkortney
· Complete the following problems from your textbook:
· Pages 378–381: 10-1, 10-2, 10-16, and 10-20.
· Pages 443–444: 12-7 and 12-9.
· Page 469: 13-5.
· 10-1 How would each of the following scenarios affect a firm’s cost of debt, rd(1 − T); its cost of equity, rs; and its WACC? Indicate with a plus (+), a minus (−), or a zero (0) whether the factor would raise, lower, or have an indeterminate effect on the item in question. Assume for each answer that other things are held constant, even though in some instances this would probably not be true. Be prepared to justify your answer but recognize that several of the parts have no single correct answer. These questions are designed to stimulate thought and discussion.
Effect on
rd(1 − T)
rs
WACC
a. The corporate tax rate is lowered.
__
__
__
b. The Federal Reserve tightens credit.
__
__
__
c. The firm uses more debt; that is, it increases its debt ratio.
__
__
__
d. The dividend payout ratio is increased.
__
__
__
e. The firm doubles the amount of capital it raises during the year.
__
__
__
f. The firm expands into a risky new area.
__
__
__
g. The firm merges with another firm whose earnings are countercyclical both to those of the first firm and to the stock market.
__
__
__
h. The stock market falls drastically, and the firm’s stock price falls along with the rest.
__
__
__
i. Investors become more risk-averse.
__
__
__
j. The firm is an electric utility with a large investment in nuclear plants. Several states are considering a ban on nuclear power generation.
__
__
__
· 10-2 Assume that the risk-free rate increases, but the market risk premium
· 10-16COST OF COMMON EQUITY The Bouchard Company’s EPS was $6.50 in 2018, up from $4.42 in 2013. The company pays out 40% of its earnings as dividends, and its common stock sells for $36.00.
· a. Calculate the past growth rate in earnings. (Hint: This is a 5-year growth period.)
· b. The last dividend was D0 = 0.4($6.50) = $2.60. Calculate the next expected dividend, D1, assuming that the past growth rate continues.
· c. What is Bouchard’s cost of retained earnings, rs?
· 10-20WACC The following table gives Foust Company’s earnings per share for the last 10 years. The common stock, 7.8 million shares outstanding, is now (1/1/19) selling for $65.00 per share. The expected dividend at the end of the current year (12/31/19) is 55% of the 2018 EPS. Because investors expect past trends to continue, g may be based on the historical earnings growth rate. (Note that 9 years of growth are reflected in the 10 years of data.)
The current interest rate on new debt is 9%; Foust’s marginal tax rate is 40%, and its target capital structure is 40% debt and 60% equity.
· a. Calculate Foust’s after-tax cost of debt and common equity. Calculate the cost of equity as rs = D1/P0 + g.
· b. Find Foust’s WACC
· 12-7SCENARIO ANALYSIS Huang Industries is considering a proposed project whose estimated NPV is $12 million. This estimate assumes that economic conditions wi.
· Consider how different countries approach aging. As you consid.docxgerardkortney
· Consider how different countries approach aging. As you consider different countries, think about the following:
o Do older adults live with their children, or are they more likely to live in a nursing home?
o Are older adults seen as wise individuals to be respected and revered, or are they a burden to their family and to society?
· Next, select two different countries and compare and contrast their approaches to aging.
· Post and identify each of the countries you selected. Then, explain two similarities and two differences in how the countries approach aging. Be specific and provide examples. Use proper APA format and citation. LSW10
.
· Clarifying some things on the Revolution I am going to say som.docxgerardkortney
· Clarifying some things on the Revolution
I am going to say something, and I want you to hear me.
I am a scholar of the Revolution. That's the topic of my dissertation. Please believe me when I say that I know a lot about it.
I also happen to know--and this is well-supported by historians--that the Revolution was a civil war in which, for the first several years, Revolutionaries and Loyalists were evenly matched.
I will repeat that. Evenly matched. Loyalists were not merely too cowardly to fight, and they were not old fogies who hated the idea of freedom. Most had been in the Colonies for generations. Many of them took up arms for their King and their country. And when they lost, you confiscated their homes and they fled with the clothes on their back to Canada, England, and other places of the Empire. Both sides--both sides--committed unspeakable atrocities against civilians whom they disagreed with.
Now, a lot of you love to repeat some very fervent patriotic diatribe about how great the Revolution was. That's not history. That's propaganda. Know the difference.
History has shades of gray. History is complex and ambiguous. Washington, for instance, wore dentures made from the teeth of his slaves. Benjamin Franklin's son was the last royal governor of New Jersey. Did you know that the net tax rate for Americans--they always conveniently leave this out of the textbooks--was between 1.9 and 2.1%, depending on colony.? And that was if they had paid the extra taxes on tea and paper.
And, wait for it, people who support California independence use the same logic and arguments as they did in 1775. Did you know that the Los Angeles and Washington are only a few hundred miles closer than Boston and London? That many of the same issues, point by point, are repeating here in California? So put yourself in those shoes. How many of you would have sided with the Empire (whether American or British) based on the fact that you don't know how this will shake out? Would you call someone who supports Calexit a Patriot? Revolutionary? Nutcase? Who gets to own that word, anyway?
You can choose that you would have supported the revolutionaries--but think. Think about the other side. They matter, and their experiences got to be cleansed out of history to make you feel better about the way the revolutionaries behaved during the War. Acknowledge that they are there, and that their point of view has merit, even if you not agree with it.
· Clarifying Unit III's assignment
I have noticed a few consistent problems with the letter in the Unit III issue. Here are some pointers to make it better.
1. Read the clarifying note I wrote above. Note that the taxes aren't actually as high as you have been led to believe, but the point is that they should not be assigned at all without your consent.
2. Acknowledge that this is a debate, that a certain percentage are radicalized for independence, but there are is also a law-and-order group who find this horrific, and want .
· Chapter 9 – Review the section on Establishing a Security Cultur.docxgerardkortney
· Chapter 9 – Review the section on Establishing a Security Culture. Review the methods to reduce the chances of a cyber threat noted in the textbook. Research other peer-reviewed source and note additional methods to reduce cyber-attacks within an organization.
· Chapter 10 – Review the section on the IT leader in the digital transformation era. Note how IT professionals and especially leaders must transform their thinking to adapt to the constantly changing organizational climate. What are some methods or resources leaders can utilize to enhance their change attitude?
.
· Chapter 10 The Early Elementary Grades 1-3The primary grades.docxgerardkortney
· Chapter 10: The Early Elementary Grades: 1-3
The primary grades are grades 1-3.
Although educational reform has had an effect on all children, it is most apparent in the early elementary years. Reform and change comes from a number of sources and the chapter begins by reminding you of this. Let’s examine a few of these sources...
Diversity. There has been a rise in the number of racial and ethnic minority students enrolled in the nation's public schools; this number will (most likely) continue to rise. Teaching children from different cultures and backgrounds is an important piece to account for when planning curriculum.
Standards. Standards is a reason for reform. We've already looked at standards; these are something you must keep in mind when planning lessons.
Data-Driven Instruction may sound new, but it is not a new concept to you. We’ve done a great deal of discussing the outcomes of test-taking and assessments. You've probably all heard "teaching to the test."
Technology. Today’s students have had much experience with technology, therefore, it’s important to provide them with opportunities to learn with technology. It may take a while for you to be creative and think of ways to use it in your teaching (if you haven’ t been).
Health and Wellness. Obesity is a major concern in this country. Therefore, it is important to make sure that children have the opportunity to be active. Unfortunately, due to the pressure of academics, many schools have been taking physical education/activity time out of the curriculum.
Violence: One issue that I notice this new edition of the text has excluded is violence. However, I think that this topic is important; we need to keep children safe when they are at school. As a result of 9/11 (and, not to mention that many violent events have happened on school campuses in recent years), many school districts now have an emergency system in place that they can easily use if there is any type of incident in which the children’s safety is at risk.
WHAT ARE CHILDREN IN GRADES ONE TO THREE LIKE?
Your text explains that the best way to think of a child’s development during this time is: slow and steady. During this stage, there is not much difference between boys and girls when it comes to physical capabilities. Although it is always important to not stereotype based on one’s gender, it is especially important during these years. These children are also entering into their "tween" years, thus; being sensitive to the children's and parents' needs in regards to such changes is important.
It is important to remember that children in the primary grades are in the Concrete Operations Stage. This stage is children ages 7 to 12. The term operation refers to an action that can be carried out in thought as well as executed materially and that is mentally and physically reversible.
These children are at an age in which they can compare their abilities to their peers. And, therefore, children may develop learned helplessnes.
· Chap 2 and 3· what barriers are there in terms of the inter.docxgerardkortney
· Chap 2 and 3
· what barriers are there in terms of the interpersonal communication model?
Typically, communication breakdowns result from lack of understanding without clarification; often, there wasn't even an attempt at clarification. If barriers to interpersonal communication are not acknowledged and addressed, workplace productivity can suffer.
Language Differences
Interpersonal communication can go awry when the sender and receiver of the message speak a different language -- literally and figuratively. Not everyone in the workplace will understand slang, jargon, acronyms and industry terminology. Instead of seeking clarification, employees might guess at the meaning of the message and then act on mistaken assumptions. Also, misunderstandings may occur among workers who do not speak the same primary language. As a result, feelings may be hurt, based on misinterpretation of words or of body language.
Cultural Differences
Interpersonal communication may be adversely affected by lack of cultural understanding, mis-perception, bias and stereotypical beliefs. Workers may have limited skill or experience communicating with people from a different background. Many companies offer diversity training to help employees understand how to communicate more effectively across cultures and relate to those who may have different background experiences. Similarly, gender barriers can obstruct interpersonal communication if men and women are treated differently, and held to different standards, causing interpersonal conflicts in the workplace.
Personality Differences
Like any skill, some people are better at interpersonal communication than others. Personality traits also influence how well an individual interacts with subordinates, peers and supervisors. Extraversion can be an advantage when it comes to speaking out, sharing opinions and disseminating information. However, introverts may have the edge when it comes to listening, reflecting and remembering. Barriers to interpersonal communication may occur when employees lack self-awareness, sensitivity and flexibility. Such behavior undermines teamwork, which requires mutual respect, compromise and negotiation. Bullying, backstabbing and cut throat competition create a toxic workplace climate that will strain interpersonal relationships.
Generational Differences
Interpersonal communication can be complicated by generational differences in speech, dress, values, priorities and preferences. For instance, there may be a generational divide as to how team members prefer to communicate with one another. If younger workers sit in cubicles, using social networking as their primary channel of communication, it can alienate them from older workers who may prefer face-to-face communication. Broad generalizations and stereotypes can also cause interpersonal rifts when a worker from one generation feels superior to those who are younger or older. Biases against workers based on age can constitute a form of disc.
· Case Study 2 Improving E-Mail Marketing ResponseDue Week 8 an.docxgerardkortney
The document provides a case study and instructions for an assignment on improving the response rate of email marketing. Students are asked to: 1) conduct a design of experiment using the provided data to test cause-and-effect relationships, 2) determine an appropriate graphical display for the results and provide rationale, 3) recommend actions to increase email response rates with rationale, and 4) propose an overall strategy to develop a process model to increase response rates and obtain effective business processes with rationale. The assignment requires a 2-3 page paper following APA formatting guidelines.
· Briefly describe the technologies that are leading businesses in.docxgerardkortney
· Briefly describe the technologies that are leading businesses into the third wave of electronic commerce.
· In about 100 words, describe the function of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Include a discussion of the differences between gTLDs and sTLDs in your answer.
· In one or two paragraphs, describe how the Internet changed from a government research project into a technology for business users.
· In about 100 words, explain the difference between an extranet and an intranet. In your answer, describe when you might use a VPN in either.
· Define “channel conflict” and describe in one or two paragraphs how a company might deal with this issue.
· In two paragraphs, explain why a customer-centric Web site design is so important, yet is so difficult to accomplish.
· In about two paragraphs, distinguish between outsourcing and offshoring as they relate to business processes.
· In about 200 words, explain how the achieved trust level of a company’s communications using blogs and social media compare with similar communication efforts conducted using mass media and personal contact.
· Write a paragraph in which you distinguish between a virtual community and a social networking Web site
· Write two or three paragraphs in which you describe the role that culture plays in the development of a country’s laws and ethical standards.
QUESTION 1
Lakota peoples of the Great Plains are notably:
nomadic and followed the buffalo herds
Sedentary farmers, raising corn, northern beans, and potatoes
peaceful people who tried to live in harmony with neighboring tribes and the environment
religious and employed a variety of psychoactive plants during religious ceremonies
QUESTION 2
Tribal peoples of the Great Plains experienced greater ease at hunting and warfare after the introduction of:
Hotchkiss guns
smokeless gunpowder
horses
Intertribal powwows
all of the above
QUESTION 3
The Apaches and Navajos (Dine’) of the southwestern region of North America speak a language similar to their relatives of northern California and western Canada called:
Yuman
Uto-Aztecan
Tanoan
Athabaskan
Algonkian
QUESTION 4
The Navajo lived in six or eight-sided domed earth dwellings called:
wickiups
kivas
hogans
roadhouses
sweat lodge
QUESTION 5
Pueblo Indians, such as the Zuni and Hopi tribes, are descendants of the ancient people known as the:
Anasazi
Ashkenazi
Athabaskan
Aztecanotewa
Atlantean
2 points
QUESTION 6
1. Kachinas, or spirits of nature, were believed to:
Assist in the growth of crops and send rain
Help defend the Navajo against all foreign invaders
Provide medical assistance to the Hopi when doctors were not available
Combat evil spirits such as Skin-walkers or Diablitos
All of the above
2 points
QUESTION 7
1. The preferred dwellings among the Lakota Sioux were:
wickiups
adobe pueblos
pit houses
teepees
buffalo huts
2 points
QUESTION 8
1. Native Americansbenef.
· Assignment List· My Personality Theory Paper (Week Four)My.docxgerardkortney
· Assignment List
· My Personality Theory Paper (Week Four)
My Personality Theory Paper (Week Four)
DUE: May 31, 2020 11:55 PM
Grade Details
Grade
N/A
Gradebook Comments
None
Assignment Details
Open Date
May 4, 2020 12:05 AM
Graded?
Yes
Points Possible
100.0
Resubmissions Allowed?
No
Attachments checked for originality?
Yes
Top of Form
Assignment Instructions
My Personality Theory Paper
Instructions:
For this assignment, you will write a paper no less than 7 pages in length, not including required cover and Reference pages, describing a single personality theory from the course readings that best explains your own personality and life choices. You are free to select from among the several theories covered in the course to date but only one theory may be used.
Your task is to demonstrate your knowledge of the theory you choose via descriptions of its key concepts and use of them to explain how you developed your own personality. It is recommended that you revisit the material covered to date to refresh your knowledge of theory details. This is a "midterm" assignment and you should show in your work that you have studied and comprehended the first four weeks of course material. Your submission should be double-spaced with 1 inch margins on all sides of each page and should be free of spelling and grammar errors. It must include source crediting of any materials used in APA format, including source citations in the body of your paper and in a Reference list attached to the end. Easy to follow guides to APA formatting can be found on the tutorial section of the APUS Online Library.
Your paper will include three parts:
I. A brief description of the premise and key components of the theory you selected. You should be thorough and concise in this section and not spend the bulk of the paper detailing the theory, but rather just give enough of a summary of the key points so that an intelligent but uniformed reader would be able to understand its basics. If you pick a more complicated theory, you should expect explaining its premise and key components to take longer than explaining the same for one of the simpler theories but, in either case, focus on the basics and keep in mind that a paper that is almost all theory description and little use of the theory described to explain your own personality will receive a significant point deduction as will the reverse case of the paper being largely personal experience sharing with little linkage to clearly described key theory components.
II. A description of how your chosen theory explains your personality and life choices with supporting examples.
III. A description of the limitations of the theory in explaining your personality or anyone else’s.
NOTE: Although only your instructor will be reading your paper, you should still think about how much personal information you want to disclose. The purpose of this paper is not to get you to share private information, but rather to bring one .
· Assignment List
· Week 7 - Philosophical Essay
Week 7 - Philosophical Essay
DUE: Mar 22, 2020 11:55 PM
Grade Details
Grade
N/A
Gradebook Comments
None
Assignment Details
Open Date
Feb 3, 2020 12:05 AM
Graded?
Yes
Points Possible
100.0
Resubmissions Allowed?
No
Attachments checked for originality?
Yes
Top of Form
Assignment Instructions
Objective: Students will write a Philosophical Essay for week 7 based on the course concepts.
Course Objectives: 2, 3, & 4
Task:
This 4 - 5 full page (not to exceed 6 pages) Philosophical Essay you will be writing due Week 7 is designed to be a thoughtful, reflective work. The 4 - 5 full pages does not include a cover page or a works cited page. It will be your premier writing assignment focused on the integration and assessment relating to the course concepts. Your paper should be written based on the outline you submitted during week 4 combined with your additional thoughts and instructor feedback. You will use at least three scholarly/reliable resources with matching in-text citations and a Works Cited page. All essays are double spaced, 12 New Times Roman font, paper title, along with all paragraphs indented five spaces.
Details:
You will pick one of the following topics only to do your paper on:
· According to Socrates, must one heed popular opinion about moral matters? Does Socrates accept the fairness of the laws under which he was tried and convicted? Would Socrates have been wrong to escape?
· Consider the following philosophical puzzle: “If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?” (1) How is this philosophical puzzle an epistemological problem? And (2) how would John Locke answer it?
· Evaluate the movie, The Matrix, in terms of the philosophical issues raised with (1) skepticism and (2) the mind-body problem. Explain how the movie raises questions similar to those found in Plato’s and Descartes’ philosophy. Do not give a plot summary of the movie – focus on the philosophical issues raised in the movie as they relate to Plato and Descartes.
· Socrates asks Euthyphro, “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?” (1) How does this question relate to the Divine Command Theory of morality? (2) What are the philosophical implications associated with each option here?
· Explain (1) the process by which Descartes uses skepticism to refute skepticism, and (2) what first principle does this lead him to? (3) Explain why this project was important for Descartes to accomplish.
Your paper will be written at a college level with an introduction, body paragraphs, a conclusion, along with in-text citations/Works Cited page in MLA formatting. Students will follow MLA format as the sole citation and formatting style used in written assignments submitted as part of coursework to the Humanities Department. Remember - any resource that is listed on the Works Cited page must .
· Assignment 3 Creating a Compelling VisionLeaders today must be .docxgerardkortney
· Assignment 3: Creating a Compelling Vision
Leaders today must be able to create a compelling vision for the organization. They also must be able to create an aligned strategy and then execute it. Visions have two parts, the envisioned future and the core values that support that vision of the future. The ability to create a compelling vision is the primary distinction between leadership and management. Leaders need to create a vision that will frame the decisions and behavior of the organization and keep it focused on the future while also delivering on the short-term goals.
To learn more about organizational vision statements, do an Internet search and review various vision statements.
In this assignment, you will consider yourself as a leader of an organization and write a vision statement and supporting values statement.
Select an organization of choice. This could be an organization that you are familiar with, or a fictitious organization. Then, respond to the following:
· Provide the name and description of the organization. In the description, be sure to include the purpose of the organization, the products or services it provides, and the description of its customer base.
· Describe the core values of the organization. Why are these specific values important to the organization?
· Describe the benefits and purpose for an organizational vision statement.
· Develop a vision statement for this organization. When developing a vision statement, be mindful of the module readings and lecture materials.
· In the vision statement, be sure to communicate the future goals and aspirations of the organization.
· Once you have developed the vision statement, describe how you would communicate the statement to the organizational stakeholders, that is, the owners, employees, vendors, and customers.
· How would you incorporate the communication of the vision into the new employee on-boarding and ongoing training?
Write your response in approximately 3–5 pages in Microsoft Word. Apply APA standards to citation of sources.
Use the following file naming convention: LastnameFirstInitial_M1_A3.doc. For example, if your name is John Smith, your document will be named SmithJ_M1_A3.doc.
By the due date assigned, deliver your assignment to the Submissions Area.
Assignment 3 Grading Criteria
Maximum Points
Chose and described the organization. The description included the purpose of the organization, the products or services the organization provides, and the description of its customer base.
16
Developed a vision statement for the organization. Ensured to accurately communicate the goals and aspirations of the organization in the vision statement.
24
Ensured that the incorporation and communication strategy for the vision statement is clear, detailed, well thought out and realistic.
28
Evaluated and explained which values are most important to the organization.
24
Wrote in a clear, concise, and organized manner; demonstrated ethical scholarship in accurate r.
· Assignment 4
· Week 4 – Assignment: Explain Theoretical Perspectives for Real-life Scenarios
Assignment
Updated
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
For each of the following three scenarios, use a chart format to assess how each traditional theoretical perspective would best explain the situation that a social worker would need to address. You may create your charts in Word or another software program of your choice. An example chart follows the three scenarios.
Scenario 1
You are a hospital social worker who is working with a family whose older adult relative is in end-stage renal failure. There are no advanced directives and the family is conflicted over what the next steps should be.
Scenario 2
You are a caseworker in a drug court. Your client has had three consecutive dirty urine analyses. She is unemployed and has violated her probation order.
Scenario 3
You are a school social worker. A teacher sends her 9-year-old student to you because he reports that he has not eaten in 2 days and there are no adults at home to take care of him.
Chart Example:
Your client, an 11-year-old girl, was removed from home because of parental substance abuse. She is acting out in her foster home, disobeying her foster parents and not following their rules.
Theory
Explanation for Scenario – please respond to the questions below in your explanation
Systems Theory
What systems need to be developed or put in place to support the child? Would Child Protective Services need to become involved? What other systems would support her and a successful outcome for being in foster care?
Generalist Theory
What is the best intervention or therapy to use based on this child’s situation? Given her circumstances, how could you best improve her functioning?
Behavioral Theory
What behaviors are being reinforced? What behaviors are being ignored or punished? What would you suggest to maintain this placement? Would this involve working with the foster parents?
Cognitive Theory
How would you help your client to examine her thinking, emotions, and behavior? What would this entail from a cognitive developmental framework?
Support your assignment with a minimum of three resources.
Length: 3 charts, not including title and reference pages
Your assignment should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards where appropriate. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University's Academic Integrity Policy.
Assignement 3
State the function of each of the following musculoskeletal system structures: Describe the structures of the musculoskeletal system.
Skeletal muscle
Tendons
Ligaments
Bone
Cartilage
Describe each of the following types of joints:
Ball-and-socket
Hinge
Pivot
Gliding
Saddle
Condyloid
Newspaper Rubric
CATEGORY
4
3
2
1
Headline & Byline & images
16 points
Article has a .
· Assignment 2 Leader ProfileMany argue that the single largest v.docxgerardkortney
· Assignment 2: Leader Profile
Many argue that the single largest variable in organizational success is leadership. Effective leadership can transform an organization and create a positive environment for all stakeholders. In this assignment, you will have the chance to evaluate a leader and identify what makes him/her effective.
Consider all the leaders who have affected your life in some way. Think of people with whom you work—community leaders, a family member, or anyone who has had a direct impact on you.
· Choose one leader you consider to be effective. This can be a leader you are personally aware of, or someone you don’t know, but have observed to be an effective leader. Write a paper addressing the following:
· Explain how this leader has influenced you and why you think he or she is effective.
· Analyze what characteristics or qualities this person possesses that affected you most.
· Rate this leader by using a leadership scorecard. This can be a developed scorecard, or one you develop yourself. If you use a developed scorecard, please be sure to cite the sources of the scorecard. Once you have identified your scorecard, rate your leader. You decide what scores to include (for example, scale of 1–5, 5 being the highest) but be sure to assess the leader holistically across the critical leadership competencies you feel are most important (for example, visioning, empowering, strategy development and communication).
· Critique this individual’s skills against what you have learned about leadership so far in this course. Consider the following:
· How well does he/she meet the practices covered in your required readings?
· How well has he/she adapted to the challenges facing leaders today?
· If you could recommend changes to his/her leadership approach, philosophy, and style, what would you suggest? Why?
· Using the assigned readings, the Argosy University online library resources, and the Internet including general organizational sources like the Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek, or Harvard Business Review, build a leadership profile of the leader you selected. Include information from personal experiences as well as general postings on the selected leader from Internet sources such as blogs. Be sure to include 2–3 additional resources not already included in the required readings in support of your leadership profile.
Write a 3–5-page paper in Word format. Apply APA standards to citation of sources. Use the following file naming convention: LastnameFirstInitial_M2_A2.doc.
By the due date assigned, deliver your assignment to the Submissions Area.
Assignment 2 Grading Criteria
Maximum Points
Explained how this leader has been influential and why you think the leader is effective showing analysis of the leader’s characteristics or qualities.
16
Analyzed the characteristics or qualities the leader possesses that have affected you most..
16
Rated your leader using a leadership scorecard and supported your rationale for your rating.
32
Criti.
· Assignment 1 Diversity Issues in Treating AddictionThe comple.docxgerardkortney
· Assignment 1: Diversity Issues in Treating Addiction
The complexities of working with diverse populations in treating disorders, such as addictions, require special considerations. Some approaches work better with some populations than with others. For example, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) programs are spiritually based and focus on a higher power. Some populations have difficulty with these concepts and are averse to participating in such groups.
Select a population—for example, African Americans; Native Americans; or lesbians, gays, or bisexual individuals. Research your topic by using articles from the supplemental readings for this course or from other resources such as the Web, texts, experience, or other journal articles related to diversity issues and addictions.
Write a three- to five-page paper discussing the following:
· Some specific considerations for working with your chosen population in the area of addiction treatment
· Whether your research indicates that 12-step groups work with this population
· Any special problems associated with this population that make acknowledging the addiction and seeking treatment more difficult
· Any language or other barriers that this population faces when seeking treatment
Prepare your paper in Microsoft Word document format. Name your file M4_A1_LastName_Research.doc, and submit it to the Submissions Area by the due date assigned Follow APA guidelines for writing and citing text.
Assignment 1 Grading Criteria
Maximum Points
Discussed some specific considerations for working with your chosen population in the area of addiction.
8
Discussed whether your research indicates that 12-step groups work with your chosen population.
8
Discussed any special problems associated with this population that make acknowledging the addiction and seeking treatment more difficult .
8
Discussed any language or other barriers that this population faces when seeking treatment.
8
Wrote in a clear, concise, and organized manner; demonstrated ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of sources, displayed accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
4
Total:
36
· M4 Assignment 2 Discussion
Discussion Topic
Top of Form
Due February 9 at 11:59 PM
Bottom of Form
Assignment 2: Discussion Questions
Your facilitator will guide you in the selection of two of the three discussion questions. Submit your responses to these questions to the appropriate Discussion Area by the due date assigned. Through the end of the module, comment on the responses of others.
All written assignments and responses should follow APA rules for attributing sources.
You will be attempting two discussion questions in this module; each worth 28 points. The total number of points that can be earned for this assignment is 56.
Minority Groups
Many minority groups experience stress secondary to their social surroundings. For example, a family living in poverty may face frequent violence. Limited income makes meeting the day-to-day need.
বাংলাদেশের অর্থনৈতিক সমীক্ষা ২০২৪ [Bangladesh Economic Review 2024 Bangla.pdf] কম্পিউটার , ট্যাব ও স্মার্ট ফোন ভার্সন সহ সম্পূর্ণ বাংলা ই-বুক বা pdf বই " সুচিপত্র ...বুকমার্ক মেনু 🔖 ও হাইপার লিংক মেনু 📝👆 যুক্ত ..
আমাদের সবার জন্য খুব খুব গুরুত্বপূর্ণ একটি বই ..বিসিএস, ব্যাংক, ইউনিভার্সিটি ভর্তি ও যে কোন প্রতিযোগিতা মূলক পরীক্ষার জন্য এর খুব ইম্পরট্যান্ট একটি বিষয় ...তাছাড়া বাংলাদেশের সাম্প্রতিক যে কোন ডাটা বা তথ্য এই বইতে পাবেন ...
তাই একজন নাগরিক হিসাবে এই তথ্য গুলো আপনার জানা প্রয়োজন ...।
বিসিএস ও ব্যাংক এর লিখিত পরীক্ষা ...+এছাড়া মাধ্যমিক ও উচ্চমাধ্যমিকের স্টুডেন্টদের জন্য অনেক কাজে আসবে ...
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...Levi Shapiro
Letter from the Congress of the United States regarding Anti-Semitism sent June 3rd to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, MIT Corp Chair, Mark Gorenberg
Dear Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Gorenberg,
The US House of Representatives is deeply concerned by ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic
harassment and intimidation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe learning environment for all students would be a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of MIT and Chair of the MIT Corporation.
This Congress will not stand idly by and allow an environment hostile to Jewish students to persist. The House believes that your institution is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the inability or
unwillingness to rectify this violation through action requires accountability.
Postsecondary education is a unique opportunity for students to learn and have their ideas and beliefs challenged. However, universities receiving hundreds of millions of federal funds annually have denied
students that opportunity and have been hijacked to become venues for the promotion of terrorism, antisemitic harassment and intimidation, unlawful encampments, and in some cases, assaults and riots.
The House of Representatives will not countenance the use of federal funds to indoctrinate students into hateful, antisemitic, anti-American supporters of terrorism. Investigations into campus antisemitism by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means have been expanded into a Congress-wide probe across all relevant jurisdictions to address this national crisis. The undersigned Committees will conduct oversight into the use of federal funds at MIT and its learning environment under authorities granted to each Committee.
• The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating your institution since December 7, 2023. The Committee has broad jurisdiction over postsecondary education, including its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, campus safety concerns over disruptions to the learning environment, and the awarding of federal student aid under the Higher Education Act.
• The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the sources of funding and other support flowing to groups espousing pro-Hamas propaganda and engaged in antisemitic harassment and intimidation of students. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the US House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X.
• The Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating several universities since November 15, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing entitled From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing. The Committee followed the hearing with letters to those institutions on January 10, 202
A review of the growth of the Israel Genealogy Research Association Database Collection for the last 12 months. Our collection is now passed the 3 million mark and still growing. See which archives have contributed the most. See the different types of records we have, and which years have had records added. You can also see what we have for the future.
Strategies for Effective Upskilling is a presentation by Chinwendu Peace in a Your Skill Boost Masterclass organisation by the Excellence Foundation for South Sudan on 08th and 09th June 2024 from 1 PM to 3 PM on each day.
This presentation was provided by Steph Pollock of The American Psychological Association’s Journals Program, and Damita Snow, of The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), for the initial session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session One: 'Setting Expectations: a DEIA Primer,' was held June 6, 2024.
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRMCeline George
Odoo 17 CRM allows us to track why we lose sales opportunities with "Lost Reasons." This helps analyze our sales process and identify areas for improvement. Here's how to configure lost reasons in Odoo 17 CRM
Biological screening of herbal drugs: Introduction and Need for
Phyto-Pharmacological Screening, New Strategies for evaluating
Natural Products, In vitro evaluation techniques for Antioxidants, Antimicrobial and Anticancer drugs. In vivo evaluation techniques
for Anti-inflammatory, Antiulcer, Anticancer, Wound healing, Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, Cardio protective, Diuretics and
Antifertility, Toxicity studies as per OECD guidelines
2. (NSA) to
eavesdrop without a warrant on people in the United States —
includ-
ing American citizens — for evidence of terrorist activity.^ As
part of
the "terrorist surveillance program"^ (TSP), the executive
branch had
"provided written requests or directives to U.S. electronic
communica-
tion service providers to obtain their assistance with
communications
intelligence activities that had been authorized by the President.
"̂ Af-
ter this information became public, over forty lawsuits were
filed
against a number of telecommunications companies for their
alleged
role in assisting the TSP; collectively, "these suits s[ought]
hundreds of
billions of dollars in damages."'* The Bush Administration
urged Con-
gress to provide retroactive immunity for these companies;^
civil liber-
ties advocates and other groups opposed the idea.*'
On July 10, 2008, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act
of
2008,' which provides blanket retroactive* immunity to
telecommuni-
' James Risen & Eric Lichtblau, Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers
Without Courts, N.Y. TIMES,
Dec. 16, 2005, at A i .
2 John Diamond & David Jackson, White House on Offense in
NSA Debate, USA TODAY,
3. Jan. 24, 2006, at ioA.
3 S. R E P . N O . 110-209, at 9 (2007).
'* Id. at 7. Normally, electronic communication service
providers may only provide assistance
in intelligence gathering activities if they are presented with
either a court order or a written certi-
fication "that no warrant or court order is required by law, that
all statutory requirements have
been met, and that the specified assistance is required." i8
U.S.C. § 25ii{2)(a)(ii) (2006).
5 See, e.g.. Press Release, John M. McConnell, Dir. of Nat'l
Intelligence, Modernization of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (Aug. 2, 2007),
available at http://www.dni.gov/
press_releases/20070802_release.pdf ("[T]hose who assist the
Government in protecting us from
harm must be protected from liability.").
* See, e.g.. Letter from Caroline Fredrickson, Dir., Wash.
Legislative Office, ACLU, & Mi-
chelle Richardson, Legislative Consultant, to the Senate (Feb. 4,
2008), http://www.aclu.org/
safefree/general/339O9leg200802O4.html [hereinafter
Fredrickson & Richardson] (urging Senators
to "vote ' n o ' on final passage to any spying bill t h a t . . .
grants retroactive immunity to companies
who broke the law by facilitating illegal spying"); Letter from
MoveOn.org Political Action Team
to MoveOn Members (June 21, 2008),
http://pol.moveon.org/immunity/o8o621obama.html (urging
members to call Senator Barack Obama to "[a]sk him to block
any compromise that includes im-
munity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law").
4. ' Pub. L. No. 110-261, 122 Stat. 2436 (to be codified in
scattered sections of 50 U.S.C).
* FISA already provided for prospective civil immunity for
private parties that assist with
electronic surveillance, so long as they do it under the auspices
of the statutory framework.
I 2 7 1
1 2 7 2 HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 122:1271
cations companies that assisted the TSP.̂ This provision allows
the
Attorney General to immunize these private parties from suit by
certi-
fying that the President requested their assistance and assured
them
that their actions were legal.*° The provision undermines both
the
statutory scheme of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978"
(FISA) and Congress's role in striking the proper balance
between na-
tional security and civil liberties. Although proponents argued
that
blanket immunity was necessary to protect telecommunications
com-
panies from unfair penalties and to encourage their compliance
in the
future,12 an amendment proposed by Senator Arlen Specter'^
would
have a(idressed these concerns while reducing some of the
5. problems
associated with the blanket immunity provision. Congress
should
have passed Senator Specter's amendment rather than the
blanket
immunity provision that it ultimately enacted.'"*
The first version of the bill, entitled the RESTORE Act of
2007,'̂
was introduced in the House by Representative John Conyers on
Oc-
tober 9, 2007.'̂ This bill did not provide for any retroactive
immu-
nity." After extensive debate, the House passed the bill on
November
15.̂ 8 Meanwhile, on October 26, the Senate Select Committee
on In-
telligence reported an original bill entitled the FISA
Amendments Act
of 2007,'' which contained a provision for retroactive immunity
simi-
lar to the provision that was ultimately enacted.2° The
Intelligence
See 50 U.S.C. § i8o5(i) (2000) ("No cause of action shall lie in
any c o u r t a g a i n s t
a n y . . . person . . . t h a t furnishes any information, facilities,
or technical assistance in a c c o r d a n c e
with a court order or request for emergency assistance u n d e r
this c h a p t e r for electronic
surveillance . . . .").
5 See F I S A A m e n d m e n t s Act of 2008 § 201, 122 Stat. a
t 2468-70 (adding § 802 to FISA).
10 See id. § 201, 122 Stat. a t 2468-69 (adding § 802(a) to
FISA).
6. " P u b . L. N o . 95-511, 92 Stat. 1783 (codified as a m e n d e
d in scattered sections of 50 U . S . C ) .
'2 See, e.g.. Letter from Michael B. Mukasey, A t t ' y Gen., & J
. M . McConnell, Dir. of N a t ' l I n -
telligence, to N a n c y Pelosi, Speaker, U.S. H o u s e of
Representatives (June 19, 2008) [hereinafter
M u k a s e y & McConnell], available at
http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/d0cs/ag-dni-fisa-letter061908
pdf.
'^ See 154 C O N G . R E C . S712 (daily ed. F e b . 6, 2008)
(statement of Sen. Specter).
'"* Senator Specter's a m e n d m e n t w a s not the only
proposed c o m p r o m i s e . For example. Sena-
tor D i a n n e Feinstein proposed providing i m m u n i t y for
telecommunications c o m p a n i e s only after
a finding by the F I S A court t h a t a c o m p a n y received a
w r i t t e n directive from the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
certifying t h a t compliance w a s lawful a n d t h a t the c o m
p a n y h a d held a n "objectively reasonable
belief u n d e r the circumstances t h a t compliance with the
written request or directive w a s lawful."
Id. a t S707. T h e s e compromises sought to provide protection
for c o m p a n i e s t h a t reasonably be-
lieved t h a t they were complying with the law, w i t h o u t
effectively authorizing the President to use
private parties to c i r c u m v e n t t h e law.
'5 H.R. 3773, I i o t h Cong. (2007).
'6 Id.
1' 153 C O N G . R E C . H I I , 6 6 3 (daily ed. Oct. 17, 2007)
(statement of R e p . Conyers).
1* Id. a t H i 4 , o 6 2 (daily ed. Nov. 15, 2007). T h e bill
passed by a vote of 227 to 189. Id.
7. 19 S. 2248, I i o t h Cong, (as reported by S. C o m m . on
Intelligence, Oct. 26, 2007).
20 See id. tit. U.
2OO9] RECENT LEGISLATION 1 2 7 3
Committee report stated that the bill extended retroactive
immunity to
telecommunications companies because "they acted in good
faith and
should be entitled to protection from civil suit,"^! On November
i6,
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary reported a different
version of
the bill,22 which "d[id] not include . . . blanket retroactive
immunity."^^
However, the Senate voted to table the Judiciary Committee
bilV'»
leaving the Intelligence Committee bill as the sole version
under con-
sideration in the Senate.
Senator Specter subsequently proposed an amendment that
would
"substitute the U.S. Government as a party defendant for the
tele-
phone companies," thereby shielding them from liability while
still al-
lowing courts to rule on the legality of the TSP and the
constitutional
questions raised by the President's assertions of executive
authority.^^
Government substitution would be dependent upon a finding by
the
8. FISA court that the telecommunications companies acted "in
good
faith."26 The Senate rejected this amendment by a vote of sixty-
eight
to thirty." Ultimately, the Senate passed the bill and sent it back
to
the House with the blanket immunity provision intact.^»
On June 19, 2008, Representative Silvestre Reyes introduced
the
FISA Amendments Act of 2008̂ 9 in the House.̂ o This bill was
sub-
stantially the same as the version passed by the Senate.^' On
June 20,
the House voted to pass the bill.̂ ^ The Senate subsequently
consid-
ered the House bill and rejected three more amendments that
would
have altered or eliminated the retroactive immunity provision.̂ ^
On
July 9, the Senate passed the House bill by a vote of sixty-nine
to
twenty-eight.34 The President signed the bill into law the next
day.̂ ^
The final version of the immunity provision states that courts
should dismiss any suit against an electronic service provider
alleged
21 S. REP. No. 110-209, at 10(2007).
22 153 C O N G . R E C . D 1 5 3 7 ( d a i l y e d . N o v . 15,
2007). T h e J u d i c i a r y C o m m i t t e e offered " a n
a m e n d m e n t in t h e n a t u r e of a s u b s t i t u t e . " Id.
23 S. REP. N o . 110-258, a t 4 (2008).
9. 24 154 C O N G . R E C . S 2 5 5 - S 6 (daily ed. J a n . 24,
2008). S e n a t o r K i t B o n d m o v e d to t a b l e t h e
a m e n d m e n t ; t h i s m o t i o n p a s s e d by a v o t e of 60
to 36. Id.
25 Id. a t S712 (daily ed. F e b . 6 , 2 0 0 8 ) ( s t a t e m e n t of
Sen. Specter).
26 Id. a t S713 ( s t a t e m e n t of Sen. W h i t e h o u s e ) .
2 ' Id. a t S889 (daily ed. F e b . 12, 2008).
28 Id. a t S904. T h e S e n a t e p a s s e d S. 2248 by a v o t e
of 68 to 29. Id.
29 H . R . 6304, i i o t h C o n g . (2008).
30 154 C O N G . R E C . H 5 7 2 8 (daily ed. J u n e 19, 2008).
3> Compare H . R . 6304, with H . R . 3 7 7 3 , i i o t h C o n g .
(2008) (as p a s s e d by t h e S e n a t e , F e b . 12,
2008).
32 154 C O N G . R E C . H S 7 7 4 ( d a i l y e d . J u n e 20,
2008). T h e bill p a s s e d b y a v o t e of 293 to 129.
Id.
33 Id. a t S 6 4 6 9 - 7 0 (daily ed. J u l y 9, 2008).
3't Id. a t S 6 4 7 6 .
35 Id. a t D 8 7 6 ( d a i l y e d . J u l y 1 1 , 2008).
10. 1274 HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 122:1271
to have provided assistance "in connection with an intelligence
activity
involving communications that was . . . designed to detect or
prevent a
terrorist attack . . . against the United States''̂ ^ jf ¿he Attorney
General
certifies that one of two conditions is met. Suits should be
dismissed if
the Attorney General certifies either that the company was
acting pur-
suant to a "written request or directive" from the government
indicat-
ing that such activity was "(i) authorized by the President; and
(ii) de-
termined to be lawful,"37 or else that the company "did not
provide the
alleged assistance."^» The Act provides for a "substantial
evidence"
standard for judicial review of the Attorney General's
certifications.^'
Additionally, the Act provides that courts may limit public
disclosure
of any certification or supplemental materials that would prove
harm-
ful to national security.''°
The blanket immunity provision retroactively validates
presidential
directives to private parties that ordered them to conduct
potentially
illegal actions.-*' This result is problematic for several reasons.
11. First,
it undermines the statutory framework that Congress originally
estab-
lished in FISA. Second, it undermines the ability of Congress to
play a
meaningful role in determining the proper procedures for
gathering in-
telligence, as it weakens the requirement that the
Administration get
statutory approval before fundamentally changing surveillance
policy.
Finally, it greatly reduces the chances that a court will be able
to re-
view the legality of the TSP and the constitutionality of the
President's
assertions of executive authority. Proponents of the blanket
immunity
provision argued that it was necessary for a number of reasons,
includ-
ing fairness and national security.̂ ^ However, the amendment
pro-
36 FISA Amendments Act of 2008 § 201, 122 Stat. at 2468-69
(adding § 8o2(a)(4)(A) to FISA).
" Id. § 201, 122 Stat. at 2469 (adding § 8o2(a)(4XB) to FISA).
38 Id. (adding § 8o2(a)(5) to FISA).
39 Id. (adding § 8o2(b)(i) to FISA).
••O Id. (adding § 802 (c) to FISA).
"• T h e question of whether the T S P was in fact legally
justified is still open to debate, as the
Supreme Court has not ruled directly on this issue. T h e
Administration's legal justifications are
at the very least of questionable merit. See Curtis Bradley et al.,
On NSA Spying: A Letter to
Congress, N.Y. REV. BOOKS, Feb. 9, 2006, at 42; see also M e
12. m o r a n d u m from Elizabeth B. Bazan
& Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Att'ys, Cong. Research Serv.
Am. Law Div., to Members of Con-
gress 42-44 g a n . 5, 2006), available at
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf [hereinafter
Bazan & Elsea] (stating that although the legality of the NSA
program is "impossible to determine
without an understanding of the specific facts involved," id. at
42-43, it nevertheless appears t h a t
"the Administration's legal justification . . . does not seem to be
as well-grounded" as the Admini-
stration had suggested, id. at 44).
"2 See, e.g., Mukasey & McConnell, supra note 12, at 3-4
("Providing this liability protection is
critical to the Nation's security As the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence recognized, 'the
intelligence community cannot obtain the intelligence it needs
without assistance from [the tele-
communications] companies.' T h a t committee also recognized
that companies in the future may
be less willing to assist the Government if they face the threat
of private lawsuits each time they
2009] RECENT LEGISLATION 12 7 5
posed by Senator Specter would have addressed most of these
concerns
while avoiding many of the problems of the blanket immunity
provi-
sion. Congress should have adopted this amendment instead.
When Congress enacted FISA, it attempted to establish a clear
and
13. exclusive framework for all parties to follow when the
government
seeks the aid of private companies in conducting electronic
surveil-
lance.'*^ Members of the Bush Administration appear to have
ac-
knowledged that the TSP operated outside this statutory
framework,"*-»
but they argue that the TSP was nevertheless legally justified
both by
the Authorization for Use of Military Forcê ^̂ (AUMF) passed
by Con-
gress in 2001 and by the President's inherent authority under
Article II
of the Constitution."**̂ The blanket immunity provision
undermines
FISA by granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications
compa-
nies without requiring any showing that they reasonably
believed that
assisting the intelligence agencies was legal;"*̂ the Attorney
General
merely has to certify that the company was told by the
government
that its actions were legal."*« Since the Administration appears
to have
based its legal reasoning upon executive authority rather than
compli-
ance with FISA,'*'' neither the companies nor the President
needed to
believe they were complying with FISA in order for the
companies to
receive immunity. Congress has therefore allowed the
Administration
and private companies to act outside of the statutory framework
that
14. Congress created. The effectiveness of FISA as a
comprehensive
scheme governing electronic surveillance is undermined if the
Presi-
dent can circumvent its procedures simply by asserting that he
has the
executive authority to act outside of its framework. FISA's
effective-
ness will be further undermined if telecommunications
companies are
willing to cooperate with intelligence agencies even when FISA
proce-
dures have not been followed.
are believed to have provided assistance. Finally, allowing
litigation over these matters risks the
disclosure of highly classified information regarding
intelligence sources and methods.").
t í See i8 U.S.C. § 25ii(2)(f) (2006) (The procedures listed in
FISA "shall be the exclusive
means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception
of domestic wire, oral, and elec-
tronic communications may be conducted.").
'•'* See, e.g.. Press Briefing, Alberto Gonzales, Att'y Gen., &
Gen. Michael Hayden, Principal
Deputy Dir. for Nat'l Intelligence (Dec. 19, 2005), available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/
releases/2oos/i2/2OO5i2ig-i.html ("I can say unequivocally that
we have used [the TSP] in lieu of
[the FISA process] and this program has been successful.").
•'S Pub. L. No. 107-40, IIS Stat. 224 (2001) (codified at so
U.S.C. § 1S41 note (Supp. V 200s)).
"•̂ For more on the Administration's arguments, see Bazan &
15. Elsea, supra note 41, at 27-42.
•" By contrast, the Specter amendment would have required a
company to have had a good
faith belief that its actions were legal in order to receive
immunity. See 154 CONG. REC. S713
(daily ed. Feb. 6, 2008) (statement of Sen. Whitehouse).
•»a FISA Amendments Act of 2008 § 201, 122 Stat. at 2469
(adding § 8o2(a)(4)(B) to FISA).
•" See Bazan & Elsea, supra note 41, at 27-42.
1276 HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 122:1271
Furthermore, as the intelligence community increasingly relies
on
the help of private companies to conduct electronic
surveillance, it is
essential that a range of government actors — including
Congress —
gets to weigh in on important policy considerations, including
the
proper balance between individual privacy rights and national
secu-
rity.so Congress can and should serve as a check on the
executive, as
the executive branch may be "institutionally predisposed" to
value se-
curity over civil liberties.^' It is therefore important that
Congress es-
tablish the proper procedures for the Administration to follow
when it
works with the private sector to conduct electronic surveillance,
and
16. that Congress then makes sure that these procedures are
followed.
When the Administration and private parties act outside of the
statu-
tory framework, they should pay a price, even if Congress
would have
approved of their actions had its approval been sought; in this
case,
that price should be civil liability. There is nothing wrong with
Con-
gress changing FISA at the request of the Administration; in
other
provisions of the Act, Congress does just that — it updates and
changes the procedures for conducting electronic surveillance."
How-
ever, in order for Congress to play a meaningful role in
determining
surveillance policy, the Administration should have to seek
Congress's
approval before making a major policy change and acting
outside the
statutory framework. Despite its intention to limit extralegal
arrange-
ments. Congress has signaled to both the Administration and the
tele-
communications companies that they can ignore the statutory
frame-
work without suffering adverse consequences. As a result, the
Administration is likely to rely more on informal agreements
with tele-
communications companies,53 ^nd Congress's role in making
policy
and providing oversight will be diminished.
Finally, the blanket immunity provision will also likely prevent
any
17. judicial rulings on the underlying legal issues at stake.^* No
court will
50 See J o n D . M i c h a e l s , All the President's Spies:
Private-Public Intelligence Partnerships in
the War on Terror, 96 C A L . L . R E V . 9 0 1 , 9 0 4 - 0 5
(2008); see also id. a t 9 3 2 - 3 5 .
51 Id. a t 903; see also H a m d i v. R u m s f e l d , 542 U . S .
507, 545 (2004) (Souter, J., c o n c u r r i n g in
p a r t , d i s s e n t i n g in p a r t , a n d c o n c u r r i n g in t h
e j u d g m e n t ) ("[D]eciding finally on w h a t is a r e a s o n
-
a b l e d e g r e e of g u a r a n t e e d l i b e r t y . . . is n o t
well e n t r u s t e d to t h e E x e c u t i v e B r a n c h of G o v
e r n -
m e n t , w h o s e p a r t i c u l a r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y is to
m a i n t a i n security. . . . [ T ] h e b r a n c h of the G o v e r n
m e n t
a s k e d to c o u n t e r a s e r i o u s t h r e a t is n o t t h e b r a
n c h on w h i c h to rest t h e N a t i o n ' s e n t i r e r e l i a n c
e in
s t r i k i n g t h e b a l a n c e b e t w e e n t h e will to w i n a n
d t h e cost in l i b e r t y on t h e w a y to victory; t h e re-
s p o n s i b i l i t y for s e c u r i t y will n a t u r a l l y amplify
t h e claim t h a t s e c u r i t y l e g i t i m a t e l y r a i s e s . '
A r e a -
s o n a b l e b a l a n c e is m o r e likely to be r e a c h e d on t
h e j u d g m e n t of a different b r a n c h . . . .").
52 See F I S A A m e n d m e n t s A c t of 2008 §§ i o i - i i o ,
122 Stat. a t 2 4 3 7 - 6 7 .
^^ See M i c h a e l s , supra n o t e 50, a t 9 1 0 - 1 2
(discussing these i n f o r m a l a r r a n g e m e n t s in t h e c o
n -
18. text of t h e T S P ) .
st EDWARD C. LIU, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., C R S
REPORT FOR CONGRESS: RETROAC-
TIVE IMMUNITY PROVIDED BY T H E FISA A M E N D M E
N T S ACT OF 2008, at 2 (2008), available
at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34600.pdf.
2009] RECENT LEGISLATION 1277
be able to determine the validity of the Administration's
argument
that the President has the inherent constitutional authority to
conduct
electronic surveillance without congressional approval and that
this
authority is supplemented by the AUMF.̂ ^ Regardless of
whether the
Administration's arguments would hold up in court, a decision
one
way or the other would provide more certainty to all parties
involved:
the Administration would know whether it has to follow FISA
under
all circumstances; Congress would know to what extent it can
limit the
President's ability to conduct surveillance; and the
telecommunications
companies would know whether they can rely on the
Administration's
assertions that providing assistance is legal. Also, since any
pending
lawsuits will almost certainly be dismissed, individuals whose
privacy
19. rights were violated will be unable to vindicate those rights in
court.̂ ^
Because of these problems. Congress should not have enacted
the
blanket immunity provision unless it was absolutely necessary,
which
it was not. Proponents of blanket immunity argued that it was
neces-
sary both to prevent unfairly punishing telecommunications
companies
that tried to assist the government in preventing another
terrorist at-
tack" and to ensure the cooperation of telecommunications
companies
in the future.̂ 8 However, the amendment proposed by Senator
Specter
would have accomplished both of these goals while avoiding
some of
the problems inherent in the blanket immunity provision. Under
this
amendment, any telecommunications company that complied
with the
government and acted in good faith would be shielded from
liability.
If the FISA court found that a company did act in good faith,
then the
government would take its place in any lawsuits.^^ According
to Sena-
tor Sheldon Whitehouse, it would be proper to hold the
government
accountable because "if the companies acted reasonably and in
good
faith at the direction of the Government but ended up breaking
the
law, the Government truly is the morally proper party to the
20. case."'̂ °
Furthermore, some companies had threatened that if they were
not
given immunity, they would refuse to cooperate with the
government
in the future "except under strict compulsion.'" '̂ The Specter
amend-
ment would enable most carriers to escape liability through a
showing
55 See B a z a n & E l s e a , supra n o t e 4 1 , a t 27 ( d i s c u
s s i n g t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s a r g u m e n t ) .
56 F r e d r i c k s o n & R i c h a r d s o n , supra n o t e 6. S i
m i l a r l a w s u i t s a g a i n s t t h e g o v e r n m e n t h a v e
a l -
r e a d y p r o v e d u n s u c c e s s f u l . See A C L U v. N S A
, 4 9 3 F.3d 644 ( 6 t h Cir. 2007), cert, denied, 128 S.
C t . 1334 (2008).
5 ' See, e.g.. P r e s s R e l e a s e , J o h n M . M c C o n n e l l
, supra n o t e 5.
58 See, e.g., M u k a s e y & M c C o n n e l l , supra n o t e 12,
a t 3 - 4 .
59 See F e d e r a l R u l e of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 2 5(c) for
t h e p r o c e d u r e o n s u b s t i t u t i o n of p a r t i e s .
60 154 C O N G . R E C . S 7 1 3 (daily e d . F e b . 6, 2008) ( s
t a t e m e n t of S e n . W h i t e h o u s e ) ; see also
SENATE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMM., FISA
MODERNIZATION AND CARRIER LIABILITY 3
(2008).
61 SENATE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMM., supra note 60, at
3.
21. 1278 HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 122:1271
of good faith, thereby providing them with the desired immunity
and
encouraging their future cooperation.
In addition to addressing many of the concerns of the
proponents
of blanket immunity, the Specter amendment would also have
reduced
some of the problems caused by the blanket immunity provision.
First, by protecting companies only after a judicial finding that
they
acted in reasonable good faith. Congress would have sent a
clear signal
to private companies that they must determine for themselves
whether
a government request for assistance is legal. Congress would
also have
sent a message to the President that he cannot ignore existing
statutes
and authorize private parties to commit potentially unlawful
actions
without being subjected to intense judicial scrutiny. Congress
would
therefore have encouraged both the Administration and the
private
sector to comply with FISA. As a result. Congress would have
reas-
serted its role in determining the proper surveillance procedures
by
holding parties accountable for circumventing those procedures.
The
Specter amendment may also have allowed courts to rule
22. directly on
the legality of several aspects of the TSR Finally, the
amendment
would have given private citizens the "ability to vindicate their
rights
in court regarding wiretapping abuses of the past."^^
Senator Specter's amendment presented Congress with an oppor-
tunity to encourage both the executive branch and the private
sector to
follow the law, to provide some accountability for what appear
to be
extensive violations of the law, and to reassert itself as an
important
player in the debate over how to conduct electronic
surveillance. Con-
gress could have achieved these goals without making any
major sacri-
fices in terms of fairness or national security. Yet Congress, at
the be-
hest of the Administration and the telecommunications industry,
instead chose to provide blanket immunity to the
telecommunications
companies and virtually ensure that important legal questions
about
the TSP will remain unanswered." Although it is important to
en-
courage cooperation between telecommunications companies
and the
intelligence agencies, it is also important for Congress to play a
role in
determining the proper balance between security and civil
liberties
rather than leaving such a determination to the
Administration.^" By
allowing the Administration and telecommunications companies
23. to ig-
nore FISA with impunity. Congress has abdicated this
responsibility.
Fredrickson & Richardson, supra note 6.
See L I U , supra note 54, at 2.
See Michaels, supra note 50, at 903 & n.s.
RECENT LEGISLATION
E L E C T R O N I C SURVEILLANCE — C O N G R E S S G
R A N T S T E L E -
COMMUNICATIONS C O M P A N I E S R E T R O A C T I V
E I M M U N I T Y E R O M
C I V I L SUITS E O R COMPLYING W I T H N S A T E R R
O R I S T SURVEIL-
L A N C E PROGRAM. — FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub.
L. No.
110-261, 122 Stat. 2436.
In December 2005, the New York Times reported that President
Bush had secretly authorized the National Security Agency
(NSA) to
eavesdrop without a warrant on people in the United States —
includ-
ing American citizens — for evidence of terrorist activity.^ As
part of
the "terrorist surveillance program"^ (TSP), the executive
branch had
"provided written requests or directives to U.S. electronic
communica-
24. tion service providers to obtain their assistance with
communications
intelligence activities that had been authorized by the President.
"̂ Af-
ter this information became public, over forty lawsuits were
filed
against a number of telecommunications companies for their
alleged
role in assisting the TSP; collectively, "these suits s[ought]
hundreds of
billions of dollars in damages."'* The Bush Administration
urged Con-
gress to provide retroactive immunity for these companies;^
civil liber-
ties advocates and other groups opposed the idea.*'
On July 10, 2008, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act
of
2008,' which provides blanket retroactive* immunity to
telecommuni-
' James Risen & Eric Lichtblau, Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers
Without Courts, N.Y. TIMES,
Dec. 16, 2005, at A i .
2 John Diamond & David Jackson, White House on Offense in
NSA Debate, USA TODAY,
Jan. 24, 2006, at ioA.
3 S. R E P . N O . 110-209, at 9 (2007).
'* Id. at 7. Normally, electronic communication service
providers may only provide assistance
in intelligence gathering activities if they are presented with
either a court order or a written certi-
fication "that no warrant or court order is required by law, that
25. all statutory requirements have
been met, and that the specified assistance is required." i8
U.S.C. § 25ii{2)(a)(ii) (2006).
5 See, e.g.. Press Release, John M. McConnell, Dir. of Nat'l
Intelligence, Modernization of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (Aug. 2, 2007),
available at http://www.dni.gov/
press_releases/20070802_release.pdf ("[T]hose who assist the
Government in protecting us from
harm must be protected from liability.").
* See, e.g.. Letter from Caroline Fredrickson, Dir., Wash.
Legislative Office, ACLU, & Mi-
chelle Richardson, Legislative Consultant, to the Senate (Feb. 4,
2008), http://www.aclu.org/
safefree/general/339O9leg200802O4.html [hereinafter
Fredrickson & Richardson] (urging Senators
to "vote ' n o ' on final passage to any spying bill t h a t . . .
grants retroactive immunity to companies
who broke the law by facilitating illegal spying"); Letter from
MoveOn.org Political Action Team
to MoveOn Members (June 21, 2008),
http://pol.moveon.org/immunity/o8o621obama.html (urging
members to call Senator Barack Obama to "[a]sk him to block
any compromise that includes im-
munity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law").
' Pub. L. No. 110-261, 122 Stat. 2436 (to be codified in
scattered sections of 50 U.S.C).
* FISA already provided for prospective civil immunity for
private parties that assist with
electronic surveillance, so long as they do it under the auspices
of the statutory framework.
26. I 2 7 1
1 2 7 2 HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 122:1271
cations companies that assisted the TSP.̂ This provision allows
the
Attorney General to immunize these private parties from suit by
certi-
fying that the President requested their assistance and assured
them
that their actions were legal.*° The provision undermines both
the
statutory scheme of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978"
(FISA) and Congress's role in striking the proper balance
between na-
tional security and civil liberties. Although proponents argued
that
blanket immunity was necessary to protect telecommunications
com-
panies from unfair penalties and to encourage their compliance
in the
future,12 an amendment proposed by Senator Arlen Specter'^
would
have a(idressed these concerns while reducing some of the
problems
associated with the blanket immunity provision. Congress
should
have passed Senator Specter's amendment rather than the
blanket
immunity provision that it ultimately enacted.'"*
The first version of the bill, entitled the RESTORE Act of
2007,'̂
27. was introduced in the House by Representative John Conyers on
Oc-
tober 9, 2007.'̂ This bill did not provide for any retroactive
immu-
nity." After extensive debate, the House passed the bill on
November
15.̂ 8 Meanwhile, on October 26, the Senate Select Committee
on In-
telligence reported an original bill entitled the FISA
Amendments Act
of 2007,'' which contained a provision for retroactive immunity
simi-
lar to the provision that was ultimately enacted.2° The
Intelligence
See 50 U.S.C. § i8o5(i) (2000) ("No cause of action shall lie in
any c o u r t a g a i n s t
a n y . . . person . . . t h a t furnishes any information, facilities,
or technical assistance in a c c o r d a n c e
with a court order or request for emergency assistance u n d e r
this c h a p t e r for electronic
surveillance . . . .").
5 See F I S A A m e n d m e n t s Act of 2008 § 201, 122 Stat. a
t 2468-70 (adding § 802 to FISA).
10 See id. § 201, 122 Stat. a t 2468-69 (adding § 802(a) to
FISA).
" P u b . L. N o . 95-511, 92 Stat. 1783 (codified as a m e n d e
d in scattered sections of 50 U . S . C ) .
'2 See, e.g.. Letter from Michael B. Mukasey, A t t ' y Gen., & J
. M . McConnell, Dir. of N a t ' l I n -
telligence, to N a n c y Pelosi, Speaker, U.S. H o u s e of
Representatives (June 19, 2008) [hereinafter
M u k a s e y & McConnell], available at
http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/d0cs/ag-dni-fisa-letter061908
28. pdf.
'^ See 154 C O N G . R E C . S712 (daily ed. F e b . 6, 2008)
(statement of Sen. Specter).
'"* Senator Specter's a m e n d m e n t w a s not the only
proposed c o m p r o m i s e . For example. Sena-
tor D i a n n e Feinstein proposed providing i m m u n i t y for
telecommunications c o m p a n i e s only after
a finding by the F I S A court t h a t a c o m p a n y received a
w r i t t e n directive from the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
certifying t h a t compliance w a s lawful a n d t h a t the c o m
p a n y h a d held a n "objectively reasonable
belief u n d e r the circumstances t h a t compliance with the
written request or directive w a s lawful."
Id. a t S707. T h e s e compromises sought to provide protection
for c o m p a n i e s t h a t reasonably be-
lieved t h a t they were complying with the law, w i t h o u t
effectively authorizing the President to use
private parties to c i r c u m v e n t t h e law.
'5 H.R. 3773, I i o t h Cong. (2007).
'6 Id.
1' 153 C O N G . R E C . H I I , 6 6 3 (daily ed. Oct. 17, 2007)
(statement of R e p . Conyers).
1* Id. a t H i 4 , o 6 2 (daily ed. Nov. 15, 2007). T h e bill
passed by a vote of 227 to 189. Id.
19 S. 2248, I i o t h Cong, (as reported by S. C o m m . on
Intelligence, Oct. 26, 2007).
20 See id. tit. U.
2OO9] RECENT LEGISLATION 1 2 7 3
Committee report stated that the bill extended retroactive
29. immunity to
telecommunications companies because "they acted in good
faith and
should be entitled to protection from civil suit,"^! On November
i6,
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary reported a different
version of
the bill,22 which "d[id] not include . . . blanket retroactive
immunity."^^
However, the Senate voted to table the Judiciary Committee
bilV'»
leaving the Intelligence Committee bill as the sole version
under con-
sideration in the Senate.
Senator Specter subsequently proposed an amendment that
would
"substitute the U.S. Government as a party defendant for the
tele-
phone companies," thereby shielding them from liability while
still al-
lowing courts to rule on the legality of the TSP and the
constitutional
questions raised by the President's assertions of executive
authority.^^
Government substitution would be dependent upon a finding by
the
FISA court that the telecommunications companies acted "in
good
faith."26 The Senate rejected this amendment by a vote of sixty-
eight
to thirty." Ultimately, the Senate passed the bill and sent it back
to
the House with the blanket immunity provision intact.^»
On June 19, 2008, Representative Silvestre Reyes introduced
30. the
FISA Amendments Act of 2008̂ 9 in the House.̂ o This bill was
sub-
stantially the same as the version passed by the Senate.^' On
June 20,
the House voted to pass the bill.̂ ^ The Senate subsequently
consid-
ered the House bill and rejected three more amendments that
would
have altered or eliminated the retroactive immunity provision.̂ ^
On
July 9, the Senate passed the House bill by a vote of sixty-nine
to
twenty-eight.34 The President signed the bill into law the next
day.̂ ^
The final version of the immunity provision states that courts
should dismiss any suit against an electronic service provider
alleged
21 S. REP. No. 110-209, at 10(2007).
22 153 C O N G . R E C . D 1 5 3 7 ( d a i l y e d . N o v . 15,
2007). T h e J u d i c i a r y C o m m i t t e e offered " a n
a m e n d m e n t in t h e n a t u r e of a s u b s t i t u t e . " Id.
23 S. REP. N o . 110-258, a t 4 (2008).
24 154 C O N G . R E C . S 2 5 5 - S 6 (daily ed. J a n . 24,
2008). S e n a t o r K i t B o n d m o v e d to t a b l e t h e
a m e n d m e n t ; t h i s m o t i o n p a s s e d by a v o t e of 60
to 36. Id.
25 Id. a t S712 (daily ed. F e b . 6 , 2 0 0 8 ) ( s t a t e m e n t of
Sen. Specter).
31. 26 Id. a t S713 ( s t a t e m e n t of Sen. W h i t e h o u s e ) .
2 ' Id. a t S889 (daily ed. F e b . 12, 2008).
28 Id. a t S904. T h e S e n a t e p a s s e d S. 2248 by a v o t e
of 68 to 29. Id.
29 H . R . 6304, i i o t h C o n g . (2008).
30 154 C O N G . R E C . H 5 7 2 8 (daily ed. J u n e 19, 2008).
3> Compare H . R . 6304, with H . R . 3 7 7 3 , i i o t h C o n g .
(2008) (as p a s s e d by t h e S e n a t e , F e b . 12,
2008).
32 154 C O N G . R E C . H S 7 7 4 ( d a i l y e d . J u n e 20,
2008). T h e bill p a s s e d b y a v o t e of 293 to 129.
Id.
33 Id. a t S 6 4 6 9 - 7 0 (daily ed. J u l y 9, 2008).
3't Id. a t S 6 4 7 6 .
35 Id. a t D 8 7 6 ( d a i l y e d . J u l y 1 1 , 2008).
1274 HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 122:1271
to have provided assistance "in connection with an intelligence
activity
involving communications that was . . . designed to detect or
prevent a
32. terrorist attack . . . against the United States''̂ ^ jf ¿he Attorney
General
certifies that one of two conditions is met. Suits should be
dismissed if
the Attorney General certifies either that the company was
acting pur-
suant to a "written request or directive" from the government
indicat-
ing that such activity was "(i) authorized by the President; and
(ii) de-
termined to be lawful,"37 or else that the company "did not
provide the
alleged assistance."^» The Act provides for a "substantial
evidence"
standard for judicial review of the Attorney General's
certifications.^'
Additionally, the Act provides that courts may limit public
disclosure
of any certification or supplemental materials that would prove
harm-
ful to national security.''°
The blanket immunity provision retroactively validates
presidential
directives to private parties that ordered them to conduct
potentially
illegal actions.-*' This result is problematic for several reasons.
First,
it undermines the statutory framework that Congress originally
estab-
lished in FISA. Second, it undermines the ability of Congress to
play a
meaningful role in determining the proper procedures for
gathering in-
telligence, as it weakens the requirement that the
Administration get
33. statutory approval before fundamentally changing surveillance
policy.
Finally, it greatly reduces the chances that a court will be able
to re-
view the legality of the TSP and the constitutionality of the
President's
assertions of executive authority. Proponents of the blanket
immunity
provision argued that it was necessary for a number of reasons,
includ-
ing fairness and national security.̂ ^ However, the amendment
pro-
36 FISA Amendments Act of 2008 § 201, 122 Stat. at 2468-69
(adding § 8o2(a)(4)(A) to FISA).
" Id. § 201, 122 Stat. at 2469 (adding § 8o2(a)(4XB) to FISA).
38 Id. (adding § 8o2(a)(5) to FISA).
39 Id. (adding § 8o2(b)(i) to FISA).
••O Id. (adding § 802 (c) to FISA).
"• T h e question of whether the T S P was in fact legally
justified is still open to debate, as the
Supreme Court has not ruled directly on this issue. T h e
Administration's legal justifications are
at the very least of questionable merit. See Curtis Bradley et al.,
On NSA Spying: A Letter to
Congress, N.Y. REV. BOOKS, Feb. 9, 2006, at 42; see also M e
m o r a n d u m from Elizabeth B. Bazan
& Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Att'ys, Cong. Research Serv.
Am. Law Div., to Members of Con-
gress 42-44 g a n . 5, 2006), available at
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf [hereinafter
Bazan & Elsea] (stating that although the legality of the NSA
program is "impossible to determine
without an understanding of the specific facts involved," id. at
42-43, it nevertheless appears t h a t
34. "the Administration's legal justification . . . does not seem to be
as well-grounded" as the Admini-
stration had suggested, id. at 44).
"2 See, e.g., Mukasey & McConnell, supra note 12, at 3-4
("Providing this liability protection is
critical to the Nation's security As the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence recognized, 'the
intelligence community cannot obtain the intelligence it needs
without assistance from [the tele-
communications] companies.' T h a t committee also recognized
that companies in the future may
be less willing to assist the Government if they face the threat
of private lawsuits each time they
2009] RECENT LEGISLATION 12 7 5
posed by Senator Specter would have addressed most of these
concerns
while avoiding many of the problems of the blanket immunity
provi-
sion. Congress should have adopted this amendment instead.
When Congress enacted FISA, it attempted to establish a clear
and
exclusive framework for all parties to follow when the
government
seeks the aid of private companies in conducting electronic
surveil-
lance.'*^ Members of the Bush Administration appear to have
ac-
knowledged that the TSP operated outside this statutory
framework,"*-»
but they argue that the TSP was nevertheless legally justified
35. both by
the Authorization for Use of Military Forcê ^̂ (AUMF) passed
by Con-
gress in 2001 and by the President's inherent authority under
Article II
of the Constitution."**̂ The blanket immunity provision
undermines
FISA by granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications
compa-
nies without requiring any showing that they reasonably
believed that
assisting the intelligence agencies was legal;"*̂ the Attorney
General
merely has to certify that the company was told by the
government
that its actions were legal."*« Since the Administration appears
to have
based its legal reasoning upon executive authority rather than
compli-
ance with FISA,'*'' neither the companies nor the President
needed to
believe they were complying with FISA in order for the
companies to
receive immunity. Congress has therefore allowed the
Administration
and private companies to act outside of the statutory framework
that
Congress created. The effectiveness of FISA as a
comprehensive
scheme governing electronic surveillance is undermined if the
Presi-
dent can circumvent its procedures simply by asserting that he
has the
executive authority to act outside of its framework. FISA's
effective-
ness will be further undermined if telecommunications
36. companies are
willing to cooperate with intelligence agencies even when FISA
proce-
dures have not been followed.
are believed to have provided assistance. Finally, allowing
litigation over these matters risks the
disclosure of highly classified information regarding
intelligence sources and methods.").
t í See i8 U.S.C. § 25ii(2)(f) (2006) (The procedures listed in
FISA "shall be the exclusive
means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception
of domestic wire, oral, and elec-
tronic communications may be conducted.").
'•'* See, e.g.. Press Briefing, Alberto Gonzales, Att'y Gen., &
Gen. Michael Hayden, Principal
Deputy Dir. for Nat'l Intelligence (Dec. 19, 2005), available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/
releases/2oos/i2/2OO5i2ig-i.html ("I can say unequivocally that
we have used [the TSP] in lieu of
[the FISA process] and this program has been successful.").
•'S Pub. L. No. 107-40, IIS Stat. 224 (2001) (codified at so
U.S.C. § 1S41 note (Supp. V 200s)).
"•̂ For more on the Administration's arguments, see Bazan &
Elsea, supra note 41, at 27-42.
•" By contrast, the Specter amendment would have required a
company to have had a good
faith belief that its actions were legal in order to receive
immunity. See 154 CONG. REC. S713
(daily ed. Feb. 6, 2008) (statement of Sen. Whitehouse).
•»a FISA Amendments Act of 2008 § 201, 122 Stat. at 2469
37. (adding § 8o2(a)(4)(B) to FISA).
•" See Bazan & Elsea, supra note 41, at 27-42.
1276 HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 122:1271
Furthermore, as the intelligence community increasingly relies
on
the help of private companies to conduct electronic
surveillance, it is
essential that a range of government actors — including
Congress —
gets to weigh in on important policy considerations, including
the
proper balance between individual privacy rights and national
secu-
rity.so Congress can and should serve as a check on the
executive, as
the executive branch may be "institutionally predisposed" to
value se-
curity over civil liberties.^' It is therefore important that
Congress es-
tablish the proper procedures for the Administration to follow
when it
works with the private sector to conduct electronic surveillance,
and
that Congress then makes sure that these procedures are
followed.
When the Administration and private parties act outside of the
statu-
tory framework, they should pay a price, even if Congress
would have
approved of their actions had its approval been sought; in this
case,
that price should be civil liability. There is nothing wrong with
38. Con-
gress changing FISA at the request of the Administration; in
other
provisions of the Act, Congress does just that — it updates and
changes the procedures for conducting electronic surveillance."
How-
ever, in order for Congress to play a meaningful role in
determining
surveillance policy, the Administration should have to seek
Congress's
approval before making a major policy change and acting
outside the
statutory framework. Despite its intention to limit extralegal
arrange-
ments. Congress has signaled to both the Administration and the
tele-
communications companies that they can ignore the statutory
frame-
work without suffering adverse consequences. As a result, the
Administration is likely to rely more on informal agreements
with tele-
communications companies,53 ^nd Congress's role in making
policy
and providing oversight will be diminished.
Finally, the blanket immunity provision will also likely prevent
any
judicial rulings on the underlying legal issues at stake.^* No
court will
50 See J o n D . M i c h a e l s , All the President's Spies:
Private-Public Intelligence Partnerships in
the War on Terror, 96 C A L . L . R E V . 9 0 1 , 9 0 4 - 0 5
(2008); see also id. a t 9 3 2 - 3 5 .
51 Id. a t 903; see also H a m d i v. R u m s f e l d , 542 U . S .
39. 507, 545 (2004) (Souter, J., c o n c u r r i n g in
p a r t , d i s s e n t i n g in p a r t , a n d c o n c u r r i n g in t h
e j u d g m e n t ) ("[D]eciding finally on w h a t is a r e a s o n
-
a b l e d e g r e e of g u a r a n t e e d l i b e r t y . . . is n o t
well e n t r u s t e d to t h e E x e c u t i v e B r a n c h of G o v
e r n -
m e n t , w h o s e p a r t i c u l a r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y is to
m a i n t a i n security. . . . [ T ] h e b r a n c h of the G o v e r n
m e n t
a s k e d to c o u n t e r a s e r i o u s t h r e a t is n o t t h e b r a
n c h on w h i c h to rest t h e N a t i o n ' s e n t i r e r e l i a n c
e in
s t r i k i n g t h e b a l a n c e b e t w e e n t h e will to w i n a n
d t h e cost in l i b e r t y on t h e w a y to victory; t h e re-
s p o n s i b i l i t y for s e c u r i t y will n a t u r a l l y amplify
t h e claim t h a t s e c u r i t y l e g i t i m a t e l y r a i s e s . '
A r e a -
s o n a b l e b a l a n c e is m o r e likely to be r e a c h e d on t
h e j u d g m e n t of a different b r a n c h . . . .").
52 See F I S A A m e n d m e n t s A c t of 2008 §§ i o i - i i o ,
122 Stat. a t 2 4 3 7 - 6 7 .
^^ See M i c h a e l s , supra n o t e 50, a t 9 1 0 - 1 2
(discussing these i n f o r m a l a r r a n g e m e n t s in t h e c o
n -
text of t h e T S P ) .
st EDWARD C. LIU, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., C R S
REPORT FOR CONGRESS: RETROAC-
TIVE IMMUNITY PROVIDED BY T H E FISA A M E N D M E
N T S ACT OF 2008, at 2 (2008), available
at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34600.pdf.
40. 2009] RECENT LEGISLATION 1277
be able to determine the validity of the Administration's
argument
that the President has the inherent constitutional authority to
conduct
electronic surveillance without congressional approval and that
this
authority is supplemented by the AUMF.̂ ^ Regardless of
whether the
Administration's arguments would hold up in court, a decision
one
way or the other would provide more certainty to all parties
involved:
the Administration would know whether it has to follow FISA
under
all circumstances; Congress would know to what extent it can
limit the
President's ability to conduct surveillance; and the
telecommunications
companies would know whether they can rely on the
Administration's
assertions that providing assistance is legal. Also, since any
pending
lawsuits will almost certainly be dismissed, individuals whose
privacy
rights were violated will be unable to vindicate those rights in
court.̂ ^
Because of these problems. Congress should not have enacted
the
blanket immunity provision unless it was absolutely necessary,
which
it was not. Proponents of blanket immunity argued that it was
neces-
41. sary both to prevent unfairly punishing telecommunications
companies
that tried to assist the government in preventing another
terrorist at-
tack" and to ensure the cooperation of telecommunications
companies
in the future.̂ 8 However, the amendment proposed by Senator
Specter
would have accomplished both of these goals while avoiding
some of
the problems inherent in the blanket immunity provision. Under
this
amendment, any telecommunications company that complied
with the
government and acted in good faith would be shielded from
liability.
If the FISA court found that a company did act in good faith,
then the
government would take its place in any lawsuits.^^ According
to Sena-
tor Sheldon Whitehouse, it would be proper to hold the
government
accountable because "if the companies acted reasonably and in
good
faith at the direction of the Government but ended up breaking
the
law, the Government truly is the morally proper party to the
case."'̂ °
Furthermore, some companies had threatened that if they were
not
given immunity, they would refuse to cooperate with the
government
in the future "except under strict compulsion.'" '̂ The Specter
amend-
ment would enable most carriers to escape liability through a
showing
42. 55 See B a z a n & E l s e a , supra n o t e 4 1 , a t 27 ( d i s c u
s s i n g t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s a r g u m e n t ) .
56 F r e d r i c k s o n & R i c h a r d s o n , supra n o t e 6. S i
m i l a r l a w s u i t s a g a i n s t t h e g o v e r n m e n t h a v e
a l -
r e a d y p r o v e d u n s u c c e s s f u l . See A C L U v. N S A
, 4 9 3 F.3d 644 ( 6 t h Cir. 2007), cert, denied, 128 S.
C t . 1334 (2008).
5 ' See, e.g.. P r e s s R e l e a s e , J o h n M . M c C o n n e l l
, supra n o t e 5.
58 See, e.g., M u k a s e y & M c C o n n e l l , supra n o t e 12,
a t 3 - 4 .
59 See F e d e r a l R u l e of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 2 5(c) for
t h e p r o c e d u r e o n s u b s t i t u t i o n of p a r t i e s .
60 154 C O N G . R E C . S 7 1 3 (daily e d . F e b . 6, 2008) ( s
t a t e m e n t of S e n . W h i t e h o u s e ) ; see also
SENATE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMM., FISA
MODERNIZATION AND CARRIER LIABILITY 3
(2008).
61 SENATE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMM., supra note 60, at
3.
1278 HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 122:1271
of good faith, thereby providing them with the desired immunity
and
encouraging their future cooperation.
In addition to addressing many of the concerns of the
43. proponents
of blanket immunity, the Specter amendment would also have
reduced
some of the problems caused by the blanket immunity provision.
First, by protecting companies only after a judicial finding that
they
acted in reasonable good faith. Congress would have sent a
clear signal
to private companies that they must determine for themselves
whether
a government request for assistance is legal. Congress would
also have
sent a message to the President that he cannot ignore existing
statutes
and authorize private parties to commit potentially unlawful
actions
without being subjected to intense judicial scrutiny. Congress
would
therefore have encouraged both the Administration and the
private
sector to comply with FISA. As a result. Congress would have
reas-
serted its role in determining the proper surveillance procedures
by
holding parties accountable for circumventing those procedures.
The
Specter amendment may also have allowed courts to rule
directly on
the legality of several aspects of the TSR Finally, the
amendment
would have given private citizens the "ability to vindicate their
rights
in court regarding wiretapping abuses of the past."^^
Senator Specter's amendment presented Congress with an oppor-
tunity to encourage both the executive branch and the private
44. sector to
follow the law, to provide some accountability for what appear
to be
extensive violations of the law, and to reassert itself as an
important
player in the debate over how to conduct electronic
surveillance. Con-
gress could have achieved these goals without making any
major sacri-
fices in terms of fairness or national security. Yet Congress, at
the be-
hest of the Administration and the telecommunications industry,
instead chose to provide blanket immunity to the
telecommunications
companies and virtually ensure that important legal questions
about
the TSP will remain unanswered." Although it is important to
en-
courage cooperation between telecommunications companies
and the
intelligence agencies, it is also important for Congress to play a
role in
determining the proper balance between security and civil
liberties
rather than leaving such a determination to the
Administration.^" By
allowing the Administration and telecommunications companies
to ig-
nore FISA with impunity. Congress has abdicated this
responsibility.
Fredrickson & Richardson, supra note 6.
See L I U , supra note 54, at 2.
See Michaels, supra note 50, at 903 & n.s.