Posted on 12/28/2003 9:02:32 PM PST by 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. |
|
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 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?
Ah yes.
Refutation by anecdote.
Hey, HitTech Redneck, did you know murder does not exist? After all, name one time you were murdered. G'wan, I double-dutch dare ya.
No, I'm serious. I want to know where your limits are.
I suspect you have none. You'll live in Nazi Germany itself, so long as you get them nasty AyRabs.
Riddle me this, brainiac: Are the provisions in the 2004 Intelligence Reauthotization Act -- such provisions including Patriot II -- PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE or SECRET KNOWLEDGE?
Feh. Don't bother. ALl you've got is insults -- the last refuge of the clueless.
See this Chinese kid? He has never been thrown in jail for saying the wrong thing or belonging to the wrong political party or praying to the wrong god.
You see, even though he lives under a tyrannical government that doesn't recognize the least of his rights, he is a cheerleader of the state, and he needn't fear a thing.
And according to sinkspur, he is just as free as any American, or anyone who has ever lived for that matter. Because none of the oppression suffered by his countrymen has happened to him.
When you can, get my attention. Otherwise, all this bitching is just noise.
Yes, I agree with you. It's a pity Kevin didn't figure out that the Drug War was merely the trial run for the evisceration of the BoR presently going forward.
But that's okay, I'll take 'im.
What oppression, specifically and by example, has any of your countrymen experienced under the Patriot Act?
You have ZERO training in formal logic, don't you?
The fact it hasn't happened to me in no way proves it hasn't happened to another.
And, in point of fact, I *have* been directly affected. There are now laws on the books that are secret. That directly and immediately impacts my ability to obey all laws.
The right I have, to know what is acceptable behavior, has been violated.
Are you sangiune with Secret Laws? Do you like the concept? Cuz, it just happened.
It would be a waste of time.
We cannot know, can we? The laws are SECRET.
I know you don't have a problem with Secret Laws, but I do.
I imagine you'll be peachy with Secret Trials, too.
You were born 12 time zones off, and 50 years late.
Not a single one of us any longer holds the rights guaranteed by the 4th Amendment.
In the same way that a man who lives in DC and doesn't own a gun, in the same way that a Chinaman or a Cuban who never speaks his mind has his rights to do so violated all the same, no investigations without warrants need take place against any one person inparticular for their 4th Amendment rights to be negated.
The fact that probable cause and a warrant are no longer required is all that is needed.
Free people hold rights even when they choose not to exercise them.
I see. This is one of those "You suck." No, "You suck." conversations.
This photo brought to you by the "A U.S. citizen one day replete with all the rights and protections to a 'Unlawful Combatent,' who is given neither, the day after and just you wait till Hitlerly or Dean comes into power!" committee.
That's all you're worth.
Here, read lower for my post to someone who DOES have something of substance to say.
A court of law is our "last refuge" of protection of our unalienable rights.
Describe for me a scenario in a court of law where a person would be denied their unalienable rights based on secret law.
You can't.
Probable cause is still required.
Thanks for the distinction. I am a little less concerned, but not a LOT less concerned.
Let me tell you why:
Attaching criminal and procedure law to bills that are secret is a VERY bad idea. There is not much to prevent someone from nudging the criminal and procedural law into the 'secret' section.
I am relieved to think -- and I still have to check it out before I am satisfied -- to think that Patriot II is not in the secret area. But I think it is absolutely imperitive that this sort of activity not be allowed at all, because I can see the Clintons trying to pull it off.
The cost of freedom is eternal vigilence.
| *I'm sure some intrepid Freeper will explain it all to me soon, and in short order. **It would be a waste of time.
|
Patiently waiting for one of your posts to make any sense whatswoever.
You need to read that act again...about the secret part.
I'm not as convinced of the wisdom of relying on the protective role of the courts, since they upheld clearly-unconstitutional limits on political free speech 30 days prior to an election.
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.