Answer

Role of USA PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, and Posse Comitatus Act (1878) in Combatting Terrorism

This paper crystalizes evidence from various literature to examine the roles of three laws, The USA PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, and Posse Comitatus Act (1878) in combatting terrorism. Subsequently, reviewed works delineate the three Acts’ as instrumental in combating terrorism.

The “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, was passed by Congress in the wake of September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and signed into law by President George W. Bush in October 2001. Studies by Duignan (2017) reveal that the Act considerably escalated “search and surveillance” capabilities of US federal agencies in the fight against terror. In principle, the Act brought multiple changes to the prevailing legislations on telephone and virtual communications, the functions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, money laundering, and immigration. Fundamental roles of the statute comprised of empowering federal enforcement and surveillance agencies to spy on private communications of citizens. The role was legitimized through far-reaching alterations to the seminal Wiretap Act (1968; subsequently amended in 1986 and 1994) (Duignan, 2017).  For instance, sections 201 and 202 aided the war on terror by criminalizing computer and terrorist crimes respectively, effectively authorizing federal authorities to spy on citizens. Section 210 facilitated acquisition of subscribers’ credit card and bank account details through a subpoena. To expedite collaboration among government agencies in antiterrorism functions, Section 203 permitted federal solicitors to share details of litigations from federal grand jury to relevant national agencies as long as they are concerned with “foreign intelligence or counterintelligence” (Duignan, 2017). The USA PATRIOT Act was also enacted to fight money laundering. As a result federal enforcement department intensified the frequency of border patrol, and operations of customs service, and Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) along the common border with Canada. The Act established fresh rationalizations for holding up, deporting, or denying entry to aliens. The Act also redefined “material support” for terrorist groups to comprise of “expert advice or assistance”. In addition, the law crafted new terrorism crimes, notably, targeted attacks on “a mass transit system” (Duignan, 2017).

Similarly, the Military Commissions Act (MCA) (2009), passed by congress in 2009 in place of the antique 2006 version, authorized the President to institute military commissions to prosecute “alien unprivileged enemy belligerents” for  contraventions of war-related laws and other transgressions.  McCall-Smith (2020) and Elsea (2014) essentially argue that the principal role of the MCA was to establish a unique setting external to the mainstream criminal justice system for “prosecution of suspected terrorists”. Crucially, the role of the Act was to prosecute terror convicts for crimes committed prior to, on and after 11 September 2001.  Elsea (2014) defines the “unique” commissions as military entities with authority to prosecute alien terror suspects for crimes related to “Sections 904 and 906 of Title 10” of helping terrorists and espionage, and the law of war, covering crimes committed before, during and after September 11, 2001. Further, to aid the fight on terror, the Act, through subchapter VIII delineates 63 crimes as prosecutable by military commission. The act also provides a comprehensive definition of terrorism related crimes. Accordingly, Elsea (2014) outlines a number of crimes covered in the Act, namely killing of protected persons; targeted attacks on civilians and civilian installations, and protected property. Other listed crimes include looting; “denying quarter” hostage taking, murder through poisoning, or other chemical and biological weapons, deploying human shields, perjury, extending material support for terrorism, torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, and related crimes (Elsea, 2014).

Correspondingly, the Posse Comitatus Act (1878), which gained prominence in colonial America and the first republican government, was developed as a power to coerce citizens to provide assistance to law enforcement officers in apprehending criminals, peacekeeping, and related duties. Rao (2019) affirms the authority to demand civilian support in antique America as posse comitatus or “power of the county.” Roles of Posse Comitatus Act are varied. The first, involves prevention of unauthorized surveillance on civilians by law enforcement and intelligence agencies through the exclusory rule. However, Alexander and Wiggins (2016) and Ghiotto (2019) contend that the exclusionary rule could inadvertently shield cybercriminals from uniformed forces as it bars military operatives from civilian cases. Another role of the Posse Comitatus is to synchronize responses to domestic disasters relating to chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction (McElreath et al., 2013).In this role the Act appropriates to civilian agencies the lead role in emergency response. In antiterrorism operations, the act precludes the possibility of military abuse of power, and is idealized as an effective approach for cementing the separation of government and military functions. Finally, the Act prevents acquisition of evidence from terror suspects through torture. Indeed, the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) prohibits military involvement in civilian law enforcement by proffering criminal punishment to anyone who, except in constitutionally mitigating circumstances, willfully deploys any part of the military apparatus as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws. This role came to gained national attention in the United States v. Dreyer, case in a split decision of the Court of Appeals determined that compromises to the evidence presented at a later criminal trial was invalid when that evidence was obtained in violation of the PCA, and suppression was necessary “to deter future violations.”

All things considered, the reviewed evidence shows how the three laws, USA PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, and Posse Comitatus Act (1878) dovetail in fighting terrorism. Generally, the USA PATRIOT Act intensified espionage on suspected terror attacks, while the Military Commissions Laws led to increased military involvement in civilian trials of terror suspects. The Posse Comitatus Act made mainly promotes cooperation between civilians and law enforcement to combat terror.