SurveillanceFour questions Belgians should ask about the Patriot Act
The Paris and Brussels terrorist attacks added a sense of urgency to calls for Belgium to enact its own counterterrorism bill. It is a call the French government has already answered. Increased use of surveillance is a worldwide trend. There is no guarantee, however, that even with the most sophisticated surveillance technology out there today, passing a bill or law to collect private information on citizens will protect us from terrorist threats and violence. Even more vexing: the nature of intelligence gathering means we may never know exactly how many attacks have been prevented by the Patriot Act, the French surveillance law — or a similar law that Belgium may soon pass.
Professor Lacey Wallace, Pennsylvania State University // Source: psu.edu
In March, three bombings in Brussels claimed thirty-two lives and injured more than 300. The Islamic State, or ISIS, claimed responsibilityfor the attacks.
These events are disturbingly similar to the November 2015 terror attacks in Paris that claimed 130 lives – and for which ISIS also claimed responsibility.
The attacks added a sense of urgency to calls for Belgium to enact its own counterterrorism bill. It is a call the French government has already answered. After the attacks against Charlie Hebdo last January, France passed a surveillance law giving the government greater authority in counterterrorism investigations. Valérie Pécresse, a minister under former president Nicolas Sarkozy, described the pending legislation as a “French Patriot Act,“ suggesting that France looked to the U.S. law, which was passed just 45 days after September 11, 2001, as a model.
Increased use of surveillance is a worldwide trend. According to a 2013 study, 35 of 60 countries examined have increased regulation and monitoring of online activity. Several human rights groups, including Amnesty International, have criticized these measures as a violation of privacy and free expression.
I have been studying how the U.S. media is covering the French surveillance law, and how this derivative law compares to the U.S. Patriot Act.
If Belgium decides to pass similar legislation, what questions should Belgians ask about these existing laws?
1. What powers do the laws grant?
Under the French surveillance law, investigators can now monitor phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists without a court order. Officials only have to obtain permission from an administrative committee, the National Commission for the Control of Intelligence Techniques. This committee is managed by French Prime Minister Manuel Valls and consists of magistrates, members of parliament and senators.
In the U.S., it is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA court, that serves this purpose.
Unlike a traditional courtroom, the FISA court is closed to the public. Hearings include only the judge, attorneys licensed to practice in front of the U.S. government and other government officials. The secrecy is designed to prevent the exposure of classified information. For this reason, the FISA courts have sometimes been criticized as a “rubber stamp” for the National Security Administration.
