Article 2419

Title of the article



Romanovskaya Ol'ga Valentinovna, Doctor of juridical sciences, professor, head of the sub-department of state legal disciplines, Penza State University (40, Krasnaya street, Penza, Russia), E-mail: 

Index UDK





Background. The American model of countering terrorism is notable for its effectiveness. In the United States, since September 11, 2001, there have been virtually no large-scale terrorist attacks that claimed a large number of lives. In addition, it is in the United States that the testing of new forms and means of combating terrorist threats often takes place. The American experience can be taken into account when improving Russian legislation in the field of countering terrorism. The object of article is to conduct a comparative legal study of the Freedom Act, adopted in 2015, to identify its contents, as well as distinguishing features from the Patriotic Act, adopted in 2001 in response to the attack on the World Trade Center buildings. Identify the parameters of permissible restrictions on human rights in the fight against terrorist threats.
Materials and methods. Scientific tasks were solved by analyzing a wide range of sources covering the political situation during the consideration of the Freedom Act in 2015 in the United States. Various documents were examined reflecting the political debate of the time. The comparative method was used as the main research method, which allowed the study of foreign regulatory and doctrinal sources.
Results. A general conclusion is presented on clarifying the powers of the American special services in the field of countering terrorism. Particular importance is given to giving openness to the actions of law enforcement agencies during events affecting the rights and freedoms of American citizens.
Conclusions. The article indicates that the United States is undergoing a continuous process of improving legislation in the field of counter-terrorism. The Freedom Act was aimed at giving greater openness to the activities of law enforcement agencies, which should strengthen confidence in the activities of special services. The Freedom Act rebooted within the United States itself - criticism of previously used practices has significantly decreased, although the basic powers to conduct covert surveillance of citizens' communications using telecommunication technologies have not been questioned. 

Key words

human rights, terrorism, countermeasures, restrictions, United States of America, Freedom Act 

 Download PDF

1. Clayton M. The Christian Science Monitor. 2003, Oct. 30. Available at:
2. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Available at:
gov/ Comps/Foreign%20Intelligence%20Surveillance%20Act%20Of%201978.pdf
3. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. Available at:
4. Romanovskaya O. V. Nauka. Obshchestvo. Gosudarstvo [Science. Siciety. State]. 2017, vol. 5, no. 2 (18), pp. 10–16. [In Russian]
5. Act on the «To reform the authorities of the Federal Government to require the production of certain business records, conduct electronic surveillance, use pen registers and trap and trace devices, and use other forms of information gathering for foreign intelligence, counterterrorism, and criminal purposes, and for other purposes». Available at:
6. Dolgov: «Akt o svobode SShA» lish' kosmeticheski korrektiruet deyatel'nost' ANB. [“The United States freedom act” only cosmeticly adjusts the activities of the NSA] Available at: [In Russian]
7. Cahall B., Bergen P., Sterman D., Schneider E. New America. 2014, Jan. 13. Available at:
8. Sarre R. Asian Journal of Criminology. 2017, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 167–179.
9. Bezrukova O. V., Kapitonova E. A., Kuleshova G. P. et al. Terrorizm i sovremennoe pravo: aktual'nye voprosy protivodeystviya: monogr. [Terrorism and modern law: current issues of counteraction: monograph]. Moscow: Prospekt, 2018, 176 p. [In Russian]
10. Congressional Record. 2015, vol. 161, no. 80. pp. S3253–S3255. Available at:
11. Freedom Watch. Available at:
12. Federal Judge’s Ruling on N. S. A. Lawsuit. Available at: https://assets. documents/901810/klaymanvobama215.pdf
13. Memorandum Opinion. Available at:
4267780/ 42df8218-70d7-4c17-9b6e-2704fdb37315.pdf
14. Mayfield v. United States. Available at:
15. Doe v. Mukasey, 2d Cir., Dec. 15, 2008. Available at:
16. National Security Letter in Doe v. Ashcroft case. Available at: https://upload.
17. Congressional Record. Volume 161, Number 80. Available at: 


Дата создания: 10.04.2020 13:23
Дата обновления: 23.04.2020 10:39