Posted on 09/03/2003 6:34:56 PM PDT by Invasionofthebodysnatchers
On Aug. 6, reporter James Gordon Meek of the New York Daily News scooped a story revealing that Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, plans to introduce legislation in September to further expand federal police powers. The Hatch bill, entitled the VICTORY Act (Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act), is seen by some to be a substitute for the earlier proposed so-called Patriot Act II -- the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 -- which was leaked and caused a furor in Congress as well as among liberal and conservative civil liberties groups. A draft copy of the Victory Act, dated June 27, has been posted on the Web (www.libertythink.com). Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft is stumping around the country to generate support for the draconian USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 -- at the public's expense. Taxpayers are paying for Ashcroft to tell them you're not really losing your liberties and besides we need these powers to catch terrorists. Ashcroft will be trying to sell audiences on granting the federal government even greater law enforcement authority.
Once the cover was blown on Patriot Act II, Ashcroft and members of the Department of Justice backed away from it. For months before the text of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 was made public, Justice Department officials were telling Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the department was not drafting another anti-terrorism bill. The draconian Patriot Act II would have empowered the federal government to conduct secret arrests, collect DNA samples from anyone "suspected" of terrorism and allow the government to take away an American's citizenship. Despite its comforting title, the June 27, 89-page draft of the Victory Act does contain provisions similar to some found in the Domestic Security Enhancement Act. Section 101 of the Victory Act creates a new category of crime called "narco-terrorism." A narco-terrorist would be anyone who possesses even the smallest amount of an illegal drug with the intent to distribute that drug to someone who is -- with or without the drug dealer's knowledge -- planning to carry out a terrorist attack. Section 103 of the act increases the criminal penalties for those convicted of narco-terrorism and other drug-related crimes. Section 201 prohibits money exchanges through a money-transfer system based on trust called a "hawala." The bill calls hawalas the crime of money-laundering. Hawalas have been used throughout the world for centuries in small, rural communities where banks do not exist. For instance, hawalas are used by immigrants in Canada to transfer money to relatives in their home countries. An immigrant goes to a "thakedar" who initiates the transfer of funds for a 5 percent fee. He contacts (by telephone or email) a thakedar in or near the immigrant's hometown and confirms that funds are available for the transfer. The immigrant's relative then receives the full amount of the transfer at no charge. The two thakedars then settle the cash debt between them. The system is based upon trust and leaves no paper trail. In many communities, it is the only way for a son or daughter to send money to the family. The U.S. government claims that hawalas are used to funnel millions of dollars to terrorist organizations. The unregulated nature of these transfers leaves them open to such charges. U.S. officials say sealed court documents prove money is skimmed from thakedar exchange fees to finance weapons for terrorists. Section 202 makes it a crime to conceal more than $10,000 on one's person or in any private or commercial vehicle with the intent to transport that money across state lines or out of the United States -- if that money was gained in an illegal activity or is "intended to be used to promote some form of unlawful activity." This newly created crime is called "reverse money-laundering." A person arrested for transporting funds (reverse money-laundering) will forfeit the money upon arrest, even if no charges are filed. The Hatch bill not only expands the asset forfeiture powers of the federal government, it expands the definition of money-laundering to include offshore banking as a means of tax evasion. The money-laundering sections of the Victory Act also extend the authority of federal law enforcement officials to issue non-judicial or administrative subpoenas -- not needing the signature of a judge -- which require the suspect to turn over financial records and appear in a prosecutor's office to answer questions. The final sections of the Hatch bill limit when unlawfully obtained evidence from wire or oral communications can be thrown out of court. Such evidence can only be suppressed, according to the bill, if it "involved bad faith by law enforcement," meaning a defendant has to prove the federal police intentionally broke the law. Sections 503 and 504 increase the power of the federal government by expanding its authority to use administrative subpoenas in all terrorism investigations and to force witnesses to testify in order to apprehend fugitives. Other sections of the bill authorize the government to obtain the consumer records from telecommunication companies, Internet service providers and financial institutions such as banks. It allows the government to get these business records without a court order. An administrative subpoena for financial records includes a 30-day delay in notifying the person whose records are being investigated. Finally, Section 505 of the Victory Act expands the government's authority to intercept communications. Under this bill, a federal district judge could authorize a roving wiretap warrant to track all a person's wireless communications, including cell phones and laptop communications. The ironically named Victory Act would not be a victory for freedom loving people. It's really a wish list for those who want more federal police power.
Two thoughts... is Hatch doing this because of the likes of Marc Rich?
Or, is he doing this to inhibit corporations from hiding their funds over-seas? In the end, will more corporations then move their entire operations to India, where labor is cheaper?
Is it time to start a "Hatch alert"?
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.