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?
The world according to Laz.
[Federal Government]:We the people do hereby accuse Lazamatz of breaking a secret law.
[Jury]:What law is Laz accused of breaking?
[Federal Government]:WE can't say because it's secret.
[Jury]WTF!!!!!
At least you are doggedly consistent.
This scenario has existed in many countries for decades. Russia. China. The Asian Rim countries.
It is one of my many goals to make sure this cannot and does not occur here.
Really? So if Bush starts abusing these powers, who you gonna vote for? Dean?
[sinkspur]:Probable cause is still required.
Probable cause is still required in a National security letter. The question is, what are the judicial checks and balances of a NLS?
Also a question is the number of e's in freeee?
I assume from that that you have. Please provide the link for the rest of us. Thank you.
If Bush starts abusing executive powers, I will vote for neither.
After all, by your stipulation, I would need to vote for Dictator One or Dictator Two.
And I don't vote for dictators.
Ok. Here goes....slowly sou you can understand.
T H E R E
A R E
P E O P L E
T H A T
W A N T
T O
K I L L
U S...
You may not understand this simple fact, but thank God some in this administration do.
A foreign concept to you, I'm sure.
Oh, well, why didn't you say so! Let's do away with the Bill of Rights right away then!
They did that long ago....when they decided they could confiscate my money to pay for your welfare and entitlements. This act is less abusive "IMHO" to that.
None that I am aware of. Lacking an enforcement mechanism (traditionally called checks and balances) probable cause becomes irrelevent.
5 e's.
Dogged (and dogmatic) consistency is indeed a foreign concept to me.
Sorry, pal. :o) Sometimes I call napalm in on the wrong coords. :o)
Your MO, not mine.
Ok. Here goes....slowly sou you can understand. T H E R E A R E P E O P L E T H A T W A N T T O K I L L U S... You may not understand this simple fact, but thank God some in this administration do.
|
'Sokay. I was having a hard time warming up my pizza anyway.
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.