Posted on 11/22/2003 9:18:57 AM PST by Amerigomag
WASHINGTON — Critics of the Patriot Act (search) say the 2001 law, which was intended to enhance police powers to track terrorists, has recently been misused to investigate a political scandal in Las Vegas.
The same folks who warned that provisions in the Patriot Act are too far-reaching and could infringe on the civil liberties of regular Americans say the Las Vegas case is the first — but certainly not the last — example of federal law enforcement using its broadened surveillance powers to prosecute domestic criminals who do not threaten national security.
"It would seem to me the fact that the FBI is wasting any time at all prosecuting strip club owners is good news for terrorists," said George Getz, national spokesman for the Libertarian Party (search), which is calling for the repeal of the Patriot Act, passed shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.
Former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., who voted for the bill, but has since voiced his concerns of the law, said he wasn't surprised, but disappointed to hear reports earlier this month that FBI agents investigating two strip club owners in Las Vegas on bribery charges bypassed a grand jury and instead used the Patriot Act to subpoena the financial records of the bar owners as well as several prominent city and county officials.
"The administration presented the Patriot Act to the Congress two years ago as a carefully tailored and limited piece of legislation specific to targeting terrorism. And now they're using it for purposes that are obviously and completely unrelated to terrorism," Barr told Foxnews.com.
According to an FBI official in Las Vegas, investigators used a provision in the Patriot Act that allows investigators easy access to the financial records of persons suspected of terrorism or money laundering.
Some experts say that technically speaking, the FBI had the authority to use the Patriot Act to expedite their case against the club owners. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't immediately raise red flags about the design of the Patriot Act, which Attorney General John Ashcroft has firmly insisted is for the sake of national security only.
"We should be cautious," said Paul Rosenzweig, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation (search). Rosenzweig added this was neither the "sky falling down" nor something easily ignored.
"We have said many times we should be guarding against mission creep," he said. "If this is to become a more commonplace or routine thing, we will need to adjust."
Officials in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Nevada said they could not comment on a pending investigation, while the Department of Justice did not return calls for comment.
Some lawmakers have begun to speak out about the Las Vegas incident, complaining that they were assured that the powers they granted to the administration under the Patriot Act were to fight terrorists, not "garden variety criminals."
"It seems to me that the Patriot Act was used to circumvent existing laws in a case that had nothing to do with terrorism," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who said he supported the passage of the act in 2001, but now has growing concerns that the FBI is overreaching.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Unintended consequences. Aschroft has yet to learn how federal bureaucracies work. You got to keep the dogs on a short leash or stuff happens.
The the feds would much rather do undercover work in titty bars investigating large breasts in lieu of investigating smelly old terrorists.
I totally agree.. with the moniker 'patriot' who could be against it?? A rose isn't always a rose..
Does this mean that they don't want to catch criminals; make it harder to catch them; give criminals a more even playing field? I don't get the problem. If they are criminals why can't we use whatever means to catch them?
No argument from me on this issue. The dilema this article exposes is the apparent "misuse" of public auhority. A law presented and authorized for a specific purpose being diverted for domestic prosecution of common criminals.
If I understand this case in particular, the issue is not money laundering, but rather a simple public corruption case where money, substantially legally obtained, was used to bribe public officials.
Specifically the FBI used their authority under the Patriot Act to check if stock tranactions were being utilized as part of a pattern of public corruption and had little or nothing to do with laundring the proceeds of a substantially illegal activity, unless you are hostile to strip club operations and the minor criminal activities that are usually associated with them.
Nor would the bribery scheme have a substantial impact on the national security of the US. Just a well organized and financed hustler pursuing financial gain through favorable zoning and oversight activity.
This thing needs to DIE ASAP.
Which means guilty till proven innocent. 'affirmative defense' is what the CCW law is in OHIO. It's illegal, but if you have a good reason you could be found not guilty by affirmative defense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.