You limited your search to:

 Collection: Congressional Research Service Reports
Detention of American Citizens as Enemy Combatants
This report provides background information regarding the cases of two U.S. citizens deemed “enemy combatants,” Yaser Esam Hamdi, who has been returned to Saudi Arabia, and Jose Padilla, who remains in military custody. The report addresses the constitutional and statutory sources that arguably provide authority for the detention of enemy combatants, as well as those that may prevent the exercise of that power with respect to U.S. citizens. The report concludes that historically, even during declared wars, additional statutory authority has been seen as necessary to validate the detention of citizens not members of any armed forces, casting in some doubt the argument that the power to detain is necessarily implied by an authorization to use force. Finally, the report briefly analyzes the Detention of Enemy Combatants Act, H.R. 1029, which would authorize the President to detain U.S. citizens and residents who are determined to be “enemy combatants” in certain circumstances. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5753/
Detention of American Citizens as Enemy Combatants
This report provides background information regarding the cases of two U.S. citizens deemed “enemy combatants,” Yaser Esam Hamdi, who has been returned to Saudi Arabia, and Jose Padilla, who remains in military custody. A brief introduction to the law of war pertinent to the detention of different categories of individuals is offered, followed by brief analyses of the main legal precedents invoked to support the President’s actions, as well as Ex parte Milligan, which some argue supports the opposite conclusion. The report concludes that historically, even during declared wars, additional statutory authority has been seen as necessary to validate the detention of citizens not members of any armed forces, casting in some doubt the argument that the power to detain persons arrested in a context other than actual hostilities is necessarily implied by an authorization to use force. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6142/
Detention of American Citizens as Enemy Combatants
This report provides background information regarding the cases of two U.S. citizens deemed “enemy combatants,” Yaser Esam Hamdi, who has been returned to Saudi Arabia, and Jose Padilla, who remains in military custody. A brief introduction to the law of war pertinent to the detention of different categories of individuals is offered, followed by brief analyses of the main legal precedents invoked to support the President’s actions, as well as Ex parte Milligan, which some argue supports the opposite conclusion. The report concludes that historically, even during declared wars, additional statutory authority has been seen as necessary to validate the detention of citizens not members of any armed forces, casting in some doubt the argument that the power to detain persons arrested in a context other than actual hostilities is necessarily implied by an authorization to use force. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6143/
Privacy: Total Information Awareness Programs and Related Information Access, Collection, and Protection Laws
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3918/
Privacy: Total Information Awareness Programs and Related Information Access, Collection, and Protection Laws
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3920/
Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1456/
Freedom of Information Act Amendments: 109th Congress
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6139/
Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2246/
Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2247/
Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2248/
Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3921/
Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3922/
Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3923/
Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3924/
Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3925/
Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3926/
China and "Falun Gong"
The “Falun Gong” movement has led to the largest and most protracted public demonstrations in China since the democracy movement of 1989. On April 25, 1999, an estimated 10,000 to 30,000 adherents assembled in front of Zhongnanhai, the Chinese Communist Party leadership compound, and participated in a silent protest against state repression of their activities. On July 21, 1999, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government, fearful of the spread of social unrest, outlawed the movement and began to arrest Falun Gong protesters. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1457/
China and "Falun Gong"
“Falun Gong,” also known as “Falun Dafa,”1 combines an exercise regimen with meditation and moral tenets. The “Falun Gong” movement has led to the largest and most protracted public demonstrations in China since the democracy movement of 1989. On April 25, 1999, an estimated 10,000 to 30,000 adherents assembled in front of Zhongnanhai, the Chinese Communist Party leadership compound, and participated in a silent protest against state repression of their activities. On July 21, 1999, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government, fearful of the spread of social unrest, outlawed the movement and began to arrest Falun Gong protesters. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2249/
China and "Falun Gong"
“Falun Gong,” also known as “Falun Dafa,”1 combines an exercise regimen with meditation and moral tenets. The “Falun Gong” movement has led to the largest and most protracted public demonstrations in China since the democracy movement of 1989. On April 25, 1999, an estimated 10,000 to 30,000 adherents assembled in front of Zhongnanhai, the Chinese Communist Party leadership compound, and participated in a silent protest against state repression of their activities. On July 21, 1999, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government, fearful of the spread of social unrest, outlawed the movement and began to arrest Falun Gong protesters. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2250/
China and "Falun Gong"
“Falun Gong,” also known as “Falun Dafa,”1 combines an exercise regimen with meditation and moral tenets. The “Falun Gong” movement has led to the largest and most protracted public demonstrations in China since the democracy movement of 1989. On April 25, 1999, an estimated 10,000 to 30,000 adherents assembled in front of Zhongnanhai, the Chinese Communist Party leadership compound, and participated in a silent protest against state repression of their activities. On July 21, 1999, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government, fearful of the spread of social unrest, outlawed the movement and began to arrest Falun Gong protesters. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3927/
Property Rights: House Judiciary Committee Reports H.R. 2372
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1109/
Medical Records Privacy: Questions and Answers on the HIPAA Final Rule
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1458/
Medical Records Privacy: Questions and Answers on the HIPAA Final Rule
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2251/
Medical Records Privacy: Questions and Answers on the HIPAA Final Rule
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3928/
Medical Records Privacy: Questions and Answers on the HIPAA Final Rule
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3929/
Medical Records Privacy: Questions and Answers on the HIPAA Final Rule
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5751/
Privacy Protection: Mandating New Arrangements to Implement and Assess Federal Privacy Policy and Practice
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5754/
9/11 Commission Recommendations: A Civil Liberties Oversight Board
Among the recommendations made by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) in its final report is the creation of a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to guidelines on, and the commitment to defend, civil liberties by the federal government. This report examines this recommendation and its implications, and will be updated as events warrant. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5755/
Detention of U.S. Citizens
In 1971, Congress passed legislation to repeal the Emergency Detention Act of 1950 and to enact the following language: “No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.” The new language, codified at 18 U.S.C. §4001(a), is called the Non-Detention Act. This statutory provision received attention after the 9/11 terrorist attacks when the Administration designated certain U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants” and claimed the right to detain them indefinitely without charging them, bringing them to trial, or giving them access to counsel. In litigation over Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla, both designated enemy combatants, the Administration has argued that the Non-Detention Act restricts only imprisonments and detentions by the Attorney General, not by the President or military authorities. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6144/
Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2343/
Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2344/
Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4082/
Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4083/
Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4084/
Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5778/
Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5780/
Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5781/
Campaign Finance Regulation Under the First Amendment:
This Report first discusses the critical holdings enunciated by the Supreme Court in Buckley, including those: upholding reasonable contribution limits, striking down expenditure limits, upholding disclosure reporting requirements, and upholding the system of voluntary presidential election expenditure limitations linked with public financing. It then examines the Court’s extension of Buckley in fourteen subsequent cases, evaluating them in three regulatory contexts: contribution limits (California Medical Association v. FEC; Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley; Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC), expenditure limits (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life; Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce; FEC v. National Right to Work; Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC; FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee), and disclosure requirements (Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation; Brown v. Socialist Workers ‘74 Campaign Committee; FEC v. Akins; McIntrye v. Ohio Elections Commission). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1158/
Campaign Finance Regulation Under the First Amendment: Buckley v. Valeo and its Supreme Court Progeny
This report first discusses the critical holdings enunciated bythe SupremeCourt in Buckley, including those: upholding reasonable contribution limits, striking down expenditure limits, upholding disclosure reporting requirements, and upholding the system of voluntary presidential election expenditure limitations linked with public financing. It then examines the Court’s extension of Buckley in fifteen subsequent cases, evaluating them in three regulatory contexts: contribution limits (California Medical Association v. FEC; Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley; Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC; FEC v. Beaumont), expenditure limits (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life; Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce; FEC v. National Right to Work; Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado I) v. FEC; FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II); FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee), and disclosure requirements (Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation; Brown v. Socialist Workers ‘74 Campaign Committee; FEC v. Akins; McIntrye v. Ohio Elections Commission). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4391/
Campaign Finance Regulation Under the First Amendment: Buckley v. Valeo and its Supreme Court Progeny
This report first discusses the critical holdings enunciated bythe SupremeCourt in Buckley, including those: upholding reasonable contribution limits, striking down expenditure limits, upholding disclosure reporting requirements, and upholding the system of voluntary presidential election expenditure limitations linked with public financing. It then examines the Court’s extension of Buckley in fifteen subsequent cases, evaluating them in three regulatory contexts: contribution limits (California Medical Association v. FEC; Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley; Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC; FEC v. Beaumont), expenditure limits (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life; Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce; FEC v. National Right to Work; Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado I) v. FEC; FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II); FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee), and disclosure requirements (Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation; Brown v. Socialist Workers ‘74 Campaign Committee; FEC v. Akins; McIntrye v. Ohio Elections Commission). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4392/
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board: 109th Congress Proposed Refinements
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6230/
Toxics Release Inventory: Do Communities Have a Right to Know More?
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs454/
Health Information Standards, Privacy, and Security: HIPAA's Administrative Simplification Regulations
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1812/
Immigration-Related Detention: Current Legislative Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5951/
Encryption Technology: Congressional Issues
This report discusses primarily, the controversy over encryption concerns what access the government should have to encrypted stored computer data or electronic communications (voice and data, wired and wireless) for law enforcement purposes. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs728/
The U.N. Convention Against Torture: Overview of U.S. Implementation Policy Concerning the Removal of Aliens
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5990/
A Brief Summary of the HIPAA Medical Privacy Rule
This report provides a brief overview of the modified HIPAA Privacy rule, “Standards for the Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (“privacy rule”) published on August 14, 2002 by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5165/
A Brief Summary of the Medical Privacy Rule
On March 27, 2002 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published its proposed changes to the medical privacy regulations issued by the Clinton Administration under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”). HHS is accepting comments on the proposed changes until April 26, 2002. This report provides an overview of the final rule for “Standards for the Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” ( “privacy rule”) that went into effect on April 14, 2001, and an overview of the Bush Administration’s proposed changes to the privacy regulation. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3266/
A Brief Summary of the Medical Privacy Rule
This report provides a brief overview of the recently modified medical privacy rule, “Standards for the Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information”(“privacy rule”) published on August 14, 2002 by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The privacy rule went into effect April 14, 2001, with compliance required by April 2003 for most entities. The regulation creates a new federal floor of privacy protections while leaving in place more protective state rules or practices. The rule establishes a set of basic consumer protections and a series of regulatory permissions for uses and disclosures of protected health information. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3267/
A Brief Summary of the Medical Privacy Rule
This report provides a brief overview of the modified medical privacy rule, “Standards for the Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information”(“privacy rule”) published on August 14, 2002 by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The privacy regulation creates a new federal floor of privacy protections while leaving in place more protective state rules or practices. The rule establishes a set of basic consumer protections and a series of regulatory permissions for uses and disclosures of protected health information. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5166/