Memorandum for the Record

Problem Space:

Write a Memorandum for the Record. You are a civilian working in a DoD Public Affairs Office (PAO) in a large Legal Services Command. Your department head has asked you to respond to a query from a U.S. Senator concerning the use of the FISA court in an American being tried for terrorism. Specifically, the Senator wants to know what legal basis did the FISA Court have in surveilling the American suspect. After conducting research, you must write a memorandum for the record that follows the following criteria:
1. Create a professional document in accordance with instructions in the Professional Writing Guide.
2. The length must be between one and a half pages to two pages. You will be penalized for shorter or longer memos.
3. Cite your resources using footnotes.Use any source form module (included in files for the book it’d be ch.1-4; report would be only part A and B only) or any reliable source found on your own.
4. Use proper grammar and punctuation.
5.Only Word or PDF Documents will be accepted. Do not provide links to Google Documents or other third-party. applications.
6. you are free to make up a story line for your memo (e.g., who the American suspect is and what they did), but remember that the focus of your memo should be on explaining what the legal basis the FISA court had in surveilling them.
7. We also recommend using the formatting provided in the writing guide (on pg. 23) as a reference for your assignment.

Assumptions:
Use the readings in the Module’s resources to understand how the FISA Courts operate. Consider the pros and cons of surveillance under the FISA Court.

Congressional inquiries are letters that request information from a government office on behalf of the representative’s constituent. In this scenario, a constituent made a complaint to the Senator. The Senator, in return mails the DoD Public Affairs Office wanting to know what legal basis did the FISA Court have in surveilling the American suspect.

Most Congressional Inquiries must be responded to within thirty days. The DoD PAO is aware of this timeline.

The Senator, like most elected officials, is not looking to place the blame on an organization with an inquiry, or is it taking sides. Instead, elected officials are looking for facts related to the questions in the inquiry.

Elected officials are aware that they only have half the story. They want to hear from the other side of the argument. Your response, as a legal office, would be an opinion on actions taken related to the complaint. You do not want to be defensive or accusatory in your response.

The response should list the legal facts of the case and nothing more. Saying too much could open other doors you do not want to address. Be disciplined in your response. Answer only the question(s) you were asked.

Once you respond to an elected official, the elected official will send the constituent a response saying they investigated the issue and relate the facts as you stated. Their purpose is to show they supported their constituency by sending the inquiry. They normally do not take sides in constituent complaints. If, however, your response causes concern or raises any alarms, this would be the end of the Congressional Inquiry.

You do not need to concern yourself with the actual terrorist acts, unless you want to include that in your problem space. Remember, a FISA Court usually makes decisions based on classified information that is not shared with the general public. In this case, it is unlikely that the PAO knows of the classified information in the case. The PAO would consult with the attorneys in the case and only ask for enough information to respond to the question(s) in the inquiry. Concentrate your response on the legality of the actions being questioned.

Last Completed Projects