Bush seeks to expand access to records

New York Times ^ | 9/13/03 | New York Times

[Mark Felton]

WASHINGTON -- For months, President Bush's advisers have assured a skittish public that law-abiding Americans have no reason to fear the long reach of the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act because its most intrusive measures would require a judge's sign-off.

But in a plan announced last week to expand counterterrorism powers, Bush adopted a very different tack. In a three-point presidential plan that some critics are already dubbing Patriot Act II, Bush is seeking broad new authority to allow federal agents -- without the approval of a judge or a federal prosecutor -- to demand private records and compel testimony.

Bush also wants to expand the use of the death penalty in crimes such as terrorist financing, and he wants to make it tougher for defendants in such cases to be freed on bail.

Opponents say that the proposal to allow federal agents to issue subpoenas without the approval of a judge or grand jury would significantly expand the law enforcement powers granted by Congress after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And they say it also would allow the Justice Department -- after months of growing friction with some judges -- to limit the role of the judiciary still further in terrorism cases.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who is sponsoring the measure to broaden the death penalty, said in an interview that he was troubled by the other elements of Bush's plan. He said he wanted to hold hearings on the president's call for strengthening the Justice Department's subpoena power "because I'm concerned that it may be too sweeping." The no-bail proposal concerns him too, Specter said, because "the Justice Department has gone too far. You have to have a reason to detain."

Administration officials defended Bush's plan.

"We don't want to tie the hands of prosecutors behind their backs," said Mark Corallo, a Justice Department spokesman, "and it's our responsibility when we find weaknesses in the law to make suggestions to Congress on how to fix them."

Civil rights attorneys, defense advocates and some former prosecutors say they perceived no need to broaden the Justice Department's powers so markedly.

"The fundamental issue here," Nicholas Gess, a former federal prosecutor and a senior aide to the former attorney general Janet Reno, said, "is that at a time of such concern over civil liberties, there's good reason to have a judge looking over the government's shoulder."

Bush's proposal, he said, "means that there are no effective checks and balances. It's very worrisome.

[Mark Felton]

"All liberty flows from the barrel of a gun"

[afz400]

"It's very worrisome."
If this is our response to terrorism, then the terrorists won.

[Possenti]

President Bush's advisers have assured a skittish public that law-abiding Americans have no reason to fear the long reach of the antiterrorism law...

Assuming Bush and his people are sincere and benevolent (which I don't), we need to ask ourselves what future administrations will do with these broad new powers. Let's not kid ourselves that this, or any law will "sunset" after the "threat" is over. Wait and see if Bush will allow the AW ban to "sunset" next year.

To paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke:
Giving more money and/or power to the federal government is like giving whiskey and car keys to a teenager. No matter how much they beg and plead, and assure you they'll be responsible, it's a recipe for destruction.

[GatekeeperBookman]

Said the King of Siam, "Is a puzzlement"-how to save ourselves from maniacs who are all 'round & want to kill us all-but endure what the NEXT administration will then do to US, with the tools we leave lying around?? Is a puzzlement.

I saw the King say this, to Anna, at the old Alley Theatre, circa 1967.

[ARCADIA]

All we have to do to "win" the war on terror is scrap our Bill of Rights and kowtow to the Bush dynasty. The thought of actually going after terrorist sponsoring states like Saudi Arabia is off the table, along with any possibility of actually mustering enough force to get it done. I wouldn't be surprised to discover thet the Patriot Act was written by Prince Abdulla and handed to his lap dog in the White House.

[Pylot]

"Trust me" - Joseph Stalin

[Possenti]

Bush also wants to expand the use of the death penalty in crimes such as terrorist financing

Great. Who defines "terrorist financing"? Most of us know who the "terrorists" were during the Clinton administration, don't we?

[John Beresford Tipton]

"Bush also wants to expand the use of the death penalty in crimes such as terrorist financing"

We've all seen the ads, put out by our government who wouldn't lie to us, that teach us that buying ganja finances terrorism.

Does this mean that Cheech (or was it Chong) could have gotten the death penalty for selling bongs?

[Brian S]

bttt...

[itzmygun]

“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” —United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925)

[poet]

"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."-- H.L. Mencken

Isn't it curious that they pass all these restrictive laws and still refuse to lock-down our borders? The "war" on terrorism is BS.

Does anyone really believe Bush is a conservative? Can you hear me now?

[Possenti]

Does this mean that Cheech (or was it Chong) could have gotten the death penalty for selling bongs?

I don't know. Ask John Reno...er...I mean....Ashcroft.

[John Beresford Tipton]

This isn't about "terrorism", it's about more power for the government, and the concommitant ability to abuse that power.

Think about it.
Saddam might be the vilest person on earth, but go into your room, pull down the shades, take out a pad.

Make two columns.
In one column list everything that Saddam did to *you*,
add everything the nutty Talebin did to *you*,
add in everything that the fruitcake Kim Il did to *You*
Then sum up that column.

Go to the other column.
List there every way that some *other* government has screwed you around.
It might take you some time, hopefully you'll finish by next April 15th.
Then sum up that column.

Which column is bigger?
Sssh. Don't tell me, don't even say it out loud.
Just tell these "Conservative" Republicans" who come up with these scams, "Please, sir, can I have some more"?

[poet]

"Think about it."

I already have and came up with the same conclusions you have.

[drypowder]

Bush is seeking broad new authority to allow federal agents -- without the approval of a judge or a federal prosecutor -- to demand private records and compel testimony

Sounds like tyranny to me! If it passes and one protests it, one will be scrutinized and possibly jailed. The Bush Admin may not abuse it but God forbid if there is ever another Clinton like Admin. They wouldn't need arkincides any longer.

[nightowl]

NYT is lying once again. The measure would extend the federal death penalty to TERRORISTS who sabotage a military or nuclear facility that causes the DEATH OF AMERICANS & hold them without bail!!! DUH! Also, the administrative subpoena power is not new, it already is used for bank fraud, child abuse, etc. Surely it can also be used to catch terrorists who want to kill us. This is a typical Bush-Ashcroft hit piece by the corrupt NYT.

[OXENinFLA]

http://www.senate.gov/

http://www.house.gov/


CALL/WRITE/E-MAIL YOUR CONGRESSMAN.

[Mark Felton]

e-mail is a waste of time.

Writing is good. Calling is good.

The most effective thing is to attend local events, townhall meetings where the Congressman is attending.

Also go to the monthly Republican meetings, be a regular, and let them know how you feel. The word gets around...

[FreeReign]

But in a plan announced last week to expand counterterrorism powers, Bush adopted a very different tack. In a three-point presidential plan that some critics are already dubbing Patriot Act II, Bush is seeking broad new authority to allow federal agents -- without the approval of a judge or a federal prosecutor -- to demand private records and compel testimony.

This NY Times article doesn't document the claimed problem in the plan. Only the words of others are quoted but no quotes from the plan.

Do you have more info on this Mark, or is this it?

[A. Pole]

In a three-point presidential plan that some critics are already dubbing Patriot Act II, Bush is seeking broad new authority to allow federal agents -- without the approval of a judge or a federal prosecutor -- to demand private records[...]

Those records are being outsourced to India. I am sure it is much easier to browse them over there.