WITH A WHISPER, NOT A BANG (Patriot Act II signed by President on December 13, 2003)

San Antonio Current ^ | 12/24/03 | David Martin

[Marianne]

On December 13, when U.S. forces captured Saddam Hussein, President George W. Bush not only celebrated with his national security team, but also pulled out his pen and signed into law a bill that grants the FBI sweeping new powers. A White House spokesperson explained the curious timing of the signing - on a Saturday - as "the President signs bills seven days a week." But the last time Bush signed a bill into law on a Saturday happened more than a year ago - on a spending bill that the President needed to sign, to prevent shuttng down the federal government the following Monday.

By signing the bill on the day of Hussein's capture, Bush effectively consigned a dramatic expansion of the USA Patriot Act to a mere footnote. Consequently, while most Americans watched as Hussein was probed for head lice, few were aware that the FBI had just obtained the power to probe their financial records, even if the feds don't suspect their involvement in crime or terrorism.

By signing the bill on the day of Hussein's capture, Bush effectively consigned a dramatic expansion of the USA Patriot Act to a mere footnote.

The Bush Administration and its Congressional allies tucked away these new executive powers in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, a legislative behemoth that funds all the intelligence activities of the federal government. The Act included a simple, yet insidious, redefinition of "financial institution," which previously referred to banks, but now includes stockbrokers, car dealerships, casinos, credit card companies, insurance agencies, jewelers, airlines, the U.S. Post Office, and any other business "whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters."

Congress passed the legislation around Thanksgiving. Except for U.S. Representative Charlie Gonzalez, all San Antonio's House members voted for the act. The Senate passed it with a voice vote to avoid individual accountability. While broadening the definition of "financial institution," the Bush administration is ramping up provisions within the 2001 USA Patriot Act, which granted the FBI the authority to obtain client records from banks by merely requesting the records in a "National Security Letter." To get the records, the FBI doesn't have to appear before a judge, nor demonstrate "probable cause" - reason to believe that the targeted client is involved in criminal or terrorist activity. Moreover, the National Security Letters are attached with a gag order, preventing any financial institution from informing its clients that their records have been surrendered to the FBI. If a financial institution breaches the gag order, it faces criminal penalties. And finally, the FBI will no longer be required to report to Congress how often they have used the National Security Letters.

Supporters of expanding the Patriot Act claim that the new law is necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks on the U.S. The FBI needs these new powers to be "expeditious and efficient" in its response to these new threats. Robert Summers, professor of international law and director of the new Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University, explains, "We don't go to war with the terrorists as we went to war with the Germans or the North Vietnamese. If we apply old methods of following the money, we will not be successful. We need to meet them on an even playing field to avoid another disaster."

"It's a problem that some of these riders that are added on may not receive the scrutiny that we would like to see." -- Robert Summers

Opponents of the PATRIOT Act and its expansion claim that safeguards like judicial oversight and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, are essential to prevent abuses of power. "There's a reason these protections were put into place," says Chip Berlet, senior analyst at Political Research Associates, and a historian of U.S. political repression. "It has been shown that if you give [these agencies] this power they will abuse it. For any investigative agency, once you tell them that they must make sure that they protect the country from subversives, it inevitably gets translated into a program to silence dissent."

Opponents claim the FBI already has all the tools to stop crime and terrorism. Moreover, explains Patrick Filyk, an attorney and vice president of the local chapter of the ACLU, "The only thing the act accomplishes is the removal of judicial oversight and the transfer of more power to law enforcements agents."

This broadening of the Patriot Act represents a political victory for the Bush Administration's stealth legislative strategy to increase executive power. Last February, shortly before Bush launched the war on Iraq, the Center for Public Integrity obtained a draft of a comprehensive expansion of the Patriot Act, nicknamed Patriot Act II, written by Attorney General John Ashcroft's staff. Again, the timing was suspicious; it appeared that the Bush Administration was waiting for the start of the Iraq war to introduce Patriot Act II, and then exploit the crisis to ram it through Congress with little public debate.

The leak and ensuing public backlash frustrated the Bush administration's strategy, so Ashcroft and Co. disassembled Patriot Act II, then reassembled its parts into other legislation. By attaching the redefinition of "financial institution" to an Intelligence Authorization Act, the Bush Administration and its Congressional allies avoided public hearings and floor debates for the expansion of the Patriot Act.

Even proponents of this expansion have expressed concern about these legislative tactics. "It's a problem that some of these riders that are added on may not receive the scrutiny that we would like to see," says St. Mary's Professor Robert Summers.

The Bush Administration has yet to answer pivotal questions about its latest constitutional coup: If these new executive powers are necessary to protect United States citizens, then why would the legislation not withstand the test of public debate? If the new act's provisions are in the public interest, why use stealth in ramming them through the legislative process?

[Marianne]

FYI

[Bella]

Everyone happy?

[WackyKat]

To get the records, the FBI doesn't have to appear before a judge, nor demonstrate "probable cause" - reason to believe that the targeted client is involved in criminal or terrorist activity. Moreover, the National Security Letters are attached with a gag order, preventing any financial institution from informing its clients that their records have been surrendered to the FBI. If a financial institution breaches the gag order, it faces criminal penalties. And finally, the FBI will no longer be required to report to Congress how often they have used the National Security Letters.

Bye-Bye 4th Amendment

[HiTech RedNeck]

Merry fishbowl, everybody. 1984 was only 20 years late in coming.

[LibertyAndJusticeForAll]

And to add salt to our wound, they refer to these losses of an American citizen's privacy as the 'Patriot' Act - I and II (one can assume there will be more).

[FreeReign]

Anybody have a link to the actual legislation?

[Lower55]

Try actually reading the act.

[Pikamax]

what the san antonio current and how come I haven't heard of this signing by any other news source?

[LibertyAndJusticeForAll]

"...the FBI had just obtained the power to probe their financial records, even if the feds don't suspect their involvement in crime or terrorism. "

Are you claiming that this sentence in the article posted above is false?

[MissAmericanPie]

So far under the Bush administration we have lost the first, fouth, and tenth amendments. This voice vote is how the Senate will pass the FTA treaty that does away with the Constitution all together in favor of international law.

[Az Joe]

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031204-111437-5659r.htm

"National Security Letters..."

"The measure redefines "financial institutions" that was previously limited to banks, credit unions, and savings and loan organizations.

Now the definition also includes brokers and dealers registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, investment bankers, operators of credit-card systems, insurance companies, dealers in precious metals, stones, or jewels, licensed senders of money, telegraph companies, airplane and boat dealers, Realtors and estate closings, and the U.S. Post Office.

Financial institution also means "any other business designated by the secretary [of the Treasury] whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters.

Administration officials support the bill because it allows law enforcement to pursue investigations with greater speed and flexibility.

Senate committee staffers said the investigative tool is not new and was used in the past for money-laundering investigations.

Those same tools should be available to investigate terrorism, they said, and were requested by the administration."

[sinkspur]

Why do you believe a rag from San Antonio? I haven't seen nor heard of this from any other source.

[Lower55]

Not necessarily, just out of context.

[sinkspur]

IOW, no big deal.

[oceanview]

who do you want to trust, the courts? are you kidding me, do you realize who sits on the bench in this country? the ultra left dominates the bench, many with lifetime appointments. the judiciary cannot be trusted to protect us from terrorism, to the contrary, if given the chance, the judiciary would extend full access to the US court system to terrorists and block any effective domestic enforcement in the name of "civil rights".

its the whole "enemy within" thing to steal a live from Michael Savage.

At least I can vote out the executive branch if it runs amuck with these laws. We can't do anything to combat the corruption of the judiciary, we are powerless against judges with lifetime appointment, and the bench is packed with the left.

[MissAmericanPie]

LOL, you guys always say something like that when you can't face the truth about some other outrage Bush has committed. Let me give you a little helpful hint. Google is your friend, read them all and weep.

[Lower55]

Us guys don't make insane comments on things we don't read and don't understand. You should try it sometime.

[LPM1888]

If this is true Bush just lost my vote. This is sleazy behavior.

[LPM1888]

Everyone happy?

No! I'm mad as hell!!

[LibertyAndJusticeForAll]

Too bad "The Patriot Act" doesn't include protecting our borders and escorting all illegals back across the border.
Now THAT would do a lot toward greater homeland security. Probing my financial records when I am not a suspect really doesn't sound worthwhile or the way to treat a patriot.
Instead, it seems, we are to make all illegals suddenly legal and hand them border crossing passes (or something) and with the other hand, snoop into our citizens records even when they have done nothing to deserve such an invasion of privacy.
Or, is this "just out of context" too.