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?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Never in an Oliver Stone movie.

I was in See How She Runs, True Lies, Something About Mary, and just my house was in Dumb and Dumber, right at the beginning.

[sawyer]

Maybe they will push to rewrite it once more? Frankly can any one here think of one person of either party that you would wish to rewrite it for us?

[Recovering_Democrat]

My mom died forty years ago when I was nine. She never owned a house.

Well, that's what I heard...much like the phantoms of civil liberty abuses you guys are peddling.

[mrsmith]

"...This is not a kingdom, it's a representative republic...

Not any more. "

A country where ignorant or dishonest ranters dominate the public debate would not be a representative republic.
But there are still people in America who inform themselves on the doings of the government and do not just spread disinformation and ignorance about it. So it is too soon for sheep to be celebrating the end of representative republicanism, despite their ignorant hyperbole on this thread LOL!

Previous threads here here here here

The relevant part of the law is explained in the Congressional Report: "The Conferees intend that this authority be used for accessing records and information from financial institutions for counterintelligence, foreign intelligence, and international terrorism investigations. "

It is not available for use in other criminal investigations- not even domestic terrorism cases.

[af_vet_rr]

Unfortunately there are many people in this country who don't care about their rights, and wouldn't know what they were until they were taken away.

[inquest]

It makes no difference what the objects of investigation are. If it authorizes warrantless searches, it's unconstitutional.

[Sabertooth]

BTW, I am curious why Bush is going ahead with these cards under the present circumstances....

Because the fix is "in."

[FreeReign]

The relevant part of the law is explained in the Congressional Report: "The Conferees intend that this authority be used for accessing records and information from financial institutions for counterintelligence, foreign intelligence, and international terrorism investigations. "

Sounds promising.

So then let's forget the Congressional Report and ask; Where is the relevant part of the law -- the intent of the authority -- explained in the HR law?

[FreeReign]

It makes no difference what the objects of investigation are. If it authorizes warrantless searches, it's unconstitutional.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves..."

[FreeReign]

BTW, I am curious why Bush is going ahead with these cards under the present circumstances....

The president, the justice department and the FBI don't support these cards.

They have simply not taken the possibly unconstitutional steps of preventing the states, local municipalities and private companies from accepting these cards as a valid ID.

[eno_]

It is not available for use in other criminal investigations- not even domestic terrorism cases.

Fine sentiments, but utterly toothless. The Patriot Act was already used against a Las Vegas strip club operator. Nobody in the DoJ or any prosecutor's office ever got fired for burning children in Waco, much less for "forgetting" to have a subpeona hearing to access Rush Limbaugh's medical records, or ever will face even the slightest penalty for disobeying that directive.

Our federal LEAs are out of control.

[dread78645]

> 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. Hmmm. I don't see anything in the legislation which does either of these things.

The gag law is old stuff from the 1992 "Bank Secrecy" act.
For more info, google '31 USC 5318'

[mrsmith]

But we always have allowed it.

Presidents did it, and much more dangerous investigatory practises, under their Article II power to "repel sudden attacks" and to deal with foreign agents.

Until Nixon it was done without any judicial or legislative review.

It was allowed under the previous law this one amended.

The "reasonableness" of national security investigations have been held to a different standard than criminal ones for obvious constitutional and objective reasons- whatever one may think of their wisdom.

[WhiteGuy]

Can we all say.....

"Seig Heil!" ?

[Sabertooth]

The president, the justice department and the FBI don't support these cards.

The President might, though I've never heard of it, give lip service to not wanting Mexican matricula consular ID cards in this country. I don't believe he's ever copmmented on the issue, though I may be mistaken.

However, under President Bush, the Treasury Department has established guidelines for the acceptance of the matricula consular cards.

But, if you are correct, and President Bush opposes the use of these cards, let his aides know, would you?

Bush aides anger GOP lawmakers on consular IDs

Bush administration officials yesterday angered lawmakers by refusing to take a position on illegal aliens obtaining U.S. driver's licenses and avoiding questions about its decision to recognize Mexican identification cards.

Officials testifying before the House Select Committee on Homeland Security said they are reviewing what documentation is secure and reliable, but evaded direct questions on the matricula consular cards now accepted by California and New Mexico to obtain driver's licenses.

Critics say the cards issued by the Mexican Embassy are easily falsified and used by illegal aliens to establish residency.

Stewart Verdery, Homeland Security assistant secretary, was asked directly whether states should issue identification cards to people who are in the United States illegally.

"I am not aware that the department or administration has taken a position on that," Mr. Verdery said.

A frustrated Rep. John Shadegg, Arizona Republican, responded: "It seems to me the administration had better get a policy, pretty quick."

Republican lawmakers also questioned officials about a recent Treasury Department decision allowing the matricula cards to be accepted as legal identification by financial institutions.

Officials, including Mr. Verdery, testified on Capitol Hill earlier this year that the FBI and Homeland Security Department believed the cards are not secure and pose a threat to homeland security.

The administration's decision to accept the cards was announced just as lawmakers were leaving town in advance of Hurricane Isabel and caused an "uproar in Congress," said Rep. Christopher Shays, Connecticut Republican.

Mr. Verdery told the panel yesterday the card can be "reliable in some cases," which committee Chairman Christopher Cox, California Republican, called a conflicting statement and a "problem."

"I can't imagine anything more unclear than for Homeland Security to say it may be good sometimes," Mr. Cox said.

Mr. Verdery later clarified that the Homeland Security Department originally "weighed in and expressed concerns about the regulation in general," but that the "administration made a decision the Treasury regulation would go forward."

John Pistole, FBI assistant director for counterterrorism, said parts of the regulation "are not as secure as we might like" and that his agency also "expressed concerns."

The Treasury Department proposed the regulation allowing the matricula card be accepted by financial institutions as part of the implementation of Section 326 of the Patriot Act. The law was intended to make it easier to go after terrorist money operations.

Mr. Cox called it "remarkable" that the administration instead made it easier to open bank accounts under fraudulent means. Mr. Verdery said the administrative regulations are final, but Mr. Cox said "those final regulations certainly aren't final in the Capitol, and we'll be aggressively" working to overturn them through legislation.

Mr. Shays said there is a lot of "junk" coming out of a department that is supposed to be focused on homeland security.

"You are supposed to be the one organization we turn to," he said.
Bush aides anger GOP lawmakers on consular IDs
Washington Times (FR link) | 10-02-03

But you are correct in saying that the DHS and FBI are opposed to the matricula consular ID cards.

So, one has to wonder why the Administration is going out of its way to make Homeland Security less secure. Why is the Bush Administration making this problem worse?

Here's the obvious answer:

To create a perception of crisis that they'll solve with an Illegal Alien Amnesty by another name.

"Legalize them, identify them, and track them... presto changeo! Homeland Security!"

They have simply not taken the possibly unconstitutional steps of preventing the states, local municipalities and private companies from accepting these cards as a valid ID.

Nonsense. Congress has Constitutional authority to regulate immigration and naturalization. There's nothing unconstitutional about not allowing banks to aid and abet the international wire transfers of the Illegally gotten proceeds of Illegal Aliens.

Here's a really simple solution: revoke FDIC coverage for banks engaged in this criminal enterprise.

[tpaine]

sinkspur wrote:
What oppression, specifically and by example, has any of your countrymen experienced under the Patriot Act?

---

The inspector general said that from Dec. 16 through June 15, his office received 1,073 complaints "suggesting a Patriot Act-related" abuse of civil rights or civil liberties. The report suggested that hundreds of the accusations were easily dismissed as not credible or impossible to prove. But of the remainder, 272 were determined to fall within the inspector general's jurisdiction, with 34 raising "credible Patriot Act violations on their face."



Report on USA Patriot Act Alleges Civil Rights Violations
Address:http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0721-01.htm Changed:12:05 PM on Monday, December 29, 2003

[inquest]

Your point? Citizens can still be caught up in investigations of foreign operations if someone decides they're connected in some way.

[EveningStar]

If this article is accurate, we are indeed in trouble. Would someone mind going through the article point by point and show the actual text of the act as it relates to each point? Thank you.

[inquest]

But we always have allowed it.

So?

The "reasonableness" of national security investigations have been held to a different standard than criminal ones for obvious constitutional and objective reasons- whatever one may think of their wisdom.

Whoever's doing this "holding" isn't following the Constitution. The 4th amendment itself describes what it means by reasonable searches and seizures. Why would it place all these conditions on the issuance of a warrant only to go ahead and allow searches without any warrant at all?

[mrsmith]

Well, of course you can't just ignore the intent of congress.

The law authorizing National Security Letters which is affected by this change of definition is here.

I should amend my previous statement that "It is not available for use in ... even domestic terrorism cases.", domestic terrorism acts which included an attack on the president would be within the "protective functions" of the Secret Service.