Congress Targets the Patriot Act

NewsMax ^ | 11/18/03 | Wes Vernon

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

The use of the Patriot Act to pursue a case unrelated to terrorism has provided ammunition to those who want to limit the scope of the law. A bipartisan bill introduced by conservative Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idado, and leftist Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., is intended to “help bring clarity” to provisions of the Patriot Act denounced by critics as invasive and a threat to civil liberties.

The Craig-Durbin act, dubbed Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE), focuses on four issues: wiretaps, access to library records, surveillance of citizens and multi-jurisdictional warrants.

The measure, set for a battle royal next year, was given a boost this month when the Patriot Act was used in a corruption probe in Las Vegas that was unrelated in any way to terrorism, the supposed focus of the law, which was passed shortly after 9/11.

Federal officials in Vegas used the law to obtain financial records of politicians on the Clark County Commission and the Las Vegas City Council. The case involves a strip club owner’s alleged attempts to improperly influence officials to loosen laws that restrict whether patrons may touch nude dancers.

The FBI argues it was within its rights to use the law in this manner.

The way the law reads, the feds can gain access to information on persons “reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in terrorist acts or money laundering activities.”

Presumably, the key word in that sentence is “or.” It appears to contain no clarifier that the law must be confined to terrorist acts only.

That kind of supposed “loophole” concerns Sen. Craig. In an interview with NewsMax.com, the Idaho Republican, who, along with the overwhelming majority of his colleagues, voted for the Patriot Act, called for more specificity in the law.

For example, the senator understands concerns that, as defenders of the act have put it, someone connected to terrorist groups could be studying library literature on how to make a pipe bomb. But he believes the genius of the Constitution is that it was crafted in such a way as to guard freedoms without sacrificing liberty.

Rocky Road

“Once we go down that road" of giving up a little freedom here and little bit there, he said, who knows where it will stop? What will happen when someone perceives other dangers in library literature that have nothing to do with terrorism?

“I believe the SAFE Act is a measured, reasonable, and appropriate response to concerns we have with the USA Patriot Act,” the senator said. “This legislation intends to ensure the liberties of law-abiding individuals are protected in our nation’s fight against terrorism, without in any way impeding that fight.”

Supporters of keeping the Patriot Act intact say that the law does provide adequate safeguards to civil liberties, but that in the dangerous world in which we now live, terrorists have figured out ways to use those protections to pursue their goal of killing Americans.

The Patriot Act, they argue, seeks to bring our laws up to speed with modern technology without sacrificing citizens' liberties.

Durbin did not respond to requests for an interview. Co-sponsors of the SAFE Act include Sens. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., John Sununu, R-N.H., Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.

[Enterprise]

"The measure, set for a battle royal next year, was given a boost this month when the Patriot Act was used in a corruption probe in Las Vegas that was unrelated in any way to terrorism, the supposed focus of the law, which was passed shortly after 9/11."

I hardly support money laundering but this was stupid beyond belief! The judge should throw the case out and sanction the officers and agency which brought the case before him.

[mrsmith]

Why?

The congress said when they passed it that the law was intended to apply to all money laundering in general- not just terrorism related.

In fact a whole other bill on money-laundering was added onto the Patriot Act. Congress well knew that they were not passing law just for terrorism.

[Enterprise]

Thank you for that clarification. It has until now been my belief that the intent was solely for terrorism! I stand corrected!

[Enterprise]

It becomes clearer now though. It is much more fun to investigate strip clubs than to investigate terrorism.

[poet]

"Why?"

Why? Because it is a naked grab for power by the gov't to stifle future dissent and criticism of gov't policy(s).

It has nothing whatsoever to do with patriotism. The acronym is a not so clever use of semantics to fool people (you know the ones, those who want cradle to the grave security from Big Brother). It means Providing Appropiate Tools Required to Intercept & Obstruct Terrorism! In fact, the original acronym was USAPA which added Uniting & Strengthening etc.,.

Instead of restricting the liberties & freedoms of Americans, the gov't should CLOSE our borders. Short of doing that, thers is no real "war" on terrorism, rather, it is a selective "war".

If you want to read the pros & cons of this monstrous law, do a Google search.

End of rant.

[mrsmith]

They shouldn't have added the money-laundering bill to the Patriot Act IMO.

But they did and they knew they were doing it.

[Enterprise]

I agree. I don't want to see terrorism related laws blurred with investigations not involving terrorism. For some reason, this has angered both Republicans and Democrats and they just might amend TPA.

[gdani]

There are several provisions of the most-discussed parts of the PATRIOT Act that, as written, do not apply to terrorism only -- including "sneak & peak" warrants, wiretapping & the seizure of various business & personal records/info.

[RobertM]

I guess we must protect criminals that are not related to terrorism, if you have nothing to hide I would not worry about this. As far as i'm concerned they can look into my background, I have nothing to hide. A crook is a crook, they should not be protected by our laws. As it is if you are an enemy of this country, you will be protected by the ACLU.

[poet]

I have nothing to hide.

You are missing the point of the "act" and that is you are agreeing to place unlimited power in the hands of strangers whom you think will do what's right and that is abject foolishness.

Perhaps, just perhaps, this administration won't invoke section 802 Clause A, B & C against Americans, but, the fact remains they signed this into law without one moment of Congressional discussion, therefore, they are suspect as to their true intentions as far as I'm conscerned. How would you like to be held incommunicado indefinitely if someone were to bring false charges against you?

The New World Order is not that far away from coming to fruition. Just look at all the international groups we are members in:

1: The International Atomic Energy Agency;
2: The Internation Labor Organization,
3: The Food & Agricultural Organization,
4: The International Development Association;
5: World Health Organization;
6: The International Finance Corporation
7: The International Monetary Fund;
8: The International Civil Aviation Organization;
9: The International Postal Union;
10: The International Telecommunications Union;
11: The World Meteorological Association;
12: The Intergovernmental Maritime Consultive Organization
13: The General Agreement On Tariffs & Trades a/k/a GATT
14: The International Bank For Reconstruction &
Development a/k/a The World Bank
15: The United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural
Organization a/k/a/ UNESCO
16: The World Trade Organization a/k/a/ WTO


Do you see the pattern? How far away is the New World Order? The only thing that remains to bring it forth is politicians whom you trust to willingly give up our sovreignty. Far Fetched? I think not.

I am not a fan of the aclu, however, if I happen to agree with their position relative to the obscene "act", then, so be it.