Policy Forum: Chasing Criminals vs. Chasing Terrorists: Comparing Investigation Standards and Criminal Procedures in the Post-9/11 World - Reflections on the Patriot Act

20 October, 2011

One of the most important outcomes of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, has been the ways and means available for stopping terrorist acts. Prior to the 9/11 attacks investigating suspected terrorists and interdicting potential acts was largely akin to other investigations of suspected criminals, especially when those investigations occurred on US soil or involved US citizens. Subsequent to the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act. It was intended to greatly aid the nation's "war on terror." The Act, among other measures, reduced certain restrictions dealing with electronic surveillance and intelligence gathering, financial transaction records, and the detention and deportation of immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. It also expanded the definition of terrorism.

This policy forum will provide an opportunity for participants to consider these and other related issues as they pertain to counter-terrorism efforts in the U.S., through facilitated discussions among the panelists and the audience as they relate to the forum's topic.

The forum will be moderated by Jim Clark, Counsel to the New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services.

Among the four panelists are Rick Hartunian, the U.S Attorney for the Northern District of New York, with over 20 years of prosecutorial experience; and Boris Lederer, senior subject matter expert with the National Center for Security & Preparedness who brings many years of operational experience in counter-terrorism, terrorism interdiction, and related areas on a global platform to the discussions.

For more information
Mary Hunt, Director of Communications
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy
(518) 442-5264 |