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?

[HiTech RedNeck]

What, you've encountered a set of jackboots you don't want to lick???

[oceanview]

yeah, lets get Dean in there and another set of judicial tyrants with lifetime appointments. they will surely protect the constitution.

[KantianBurke]

Even if this article is hyperbole, the timing of Bush's signings are akin to what Clintigula used to do. While I could accept the aggrendisment of the FBI's powers, the "thief in the night" style is too much.

[HiTech RedNeck]

GOP can filibuster too.

[secretagent]

bttt

[Pikamax]

The only place I am seeing this "news" is a couple of sites linking to the SA current.

[Lower55]

Where did it say they would probe your financial records. Please read it again. And, yes it is out of context.

I know you think you know what it says, it just doesn't say what you think.

[Marianne]

LINK
I heard that this bill, now Public Law 108-177, was signed into law by the President on December 13, 2003 while listening to a Canadian radio staton last night.(MOJO radio, Toronto, Canada)
As far as I know, with the exception of the San Antonio newspaper, this information has not been reported by our media.

[MissAmericanPie]

Certainly not, you merely stare vacantly in front of you chanting. My reading comprehension skills earned me a nice gpa in college btw.=o)

[HiTech RedNeck]

How did Congress ever agree to being even its own SELF kept in the dark about the aggregate statistics of what the FBI is doing with these spying letters? I thought this is what a China would do, not a United States of America.

If Patriot II can be pieced out like this, why can't amendments to it, rolling back the most ridiculous segments like this, be pieced out as well?

[Lower55]

the timing of Bush's signings

He's probably not aware that signing times were your call. What signing time would meet your approval?

[woofie]

I did a cursory look at Google ..nothing comes up .Which leads me to suspect it is a bogus story(coming from a San Antonio paper)

[FreeReign]

LOL, you guys always say something like that when you can't face the truth about some other outrage Bush has committed. Let me give you a little helpful hint. Google is your friend, read them all and weep.

It's all over google?

Do you have a link to this Patriot Act II? All I've seen are supposed, leaked classified drafts from last January, if they are to be believed.

[flashbunny]

Yeah, it's called investigative journalism, not many places are keen on that any more. Most just repeat what other places are reporting on.

However, even the average citizen can do some digging. And I came up with this, signed on December 13th.:

H.R.2417
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)


SEC. 374. MODIFICATION TO DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IN RIGHT TO FINANCIAL PRIVACY ACT.

(a) MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION- Section 1114 of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3414) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(d) For purposes of this section, and sections 1115 and 1117 insofar as they relate to the operation of this section, the term `financial institution' has the same meaning as in subsections (a)(2) and (c)(1) of section 5312 of title 31, United States Code, except that, for purposes of this section, such term shall include only such a financial institution any part of which is located inside any State or territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the United States Virgin Islands.'.

(b) CROSS REFERENCE MODIFICATION- Section 1101(1) of such Act (12 U.S.C. 3401(1)) is amended by inserting `, except as provided in section 1114,' before `means any office'.

You can see title 31 section 5312 here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/5312.html -

As for the other links, you'll need to do the research yourself if you're so inclined, since I haven't been able to find them online, and don't really have time to do a reporter's job.

[LPM1888]

yeah, lets get Dean in there and another set of judicial tyrants with lifetime appointments. they will surely protect the constitution.

If Bush is going to sell us out what difference does it make?

[deport]

http://thomas.loc.gov/

Then insert in the word or phrase section: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004

Then choose #3 on the list and select text if necessary

I'd give you a link but Thomas times out quickly....

[Lower55]

My reading comprehension skills earned me a nice gpa in college

I think the key word here is "reading".

[HiTech RedNeck]

One of the few boons that would come from a Dean presidency is that the ACLU would be on this like white on rice, and he'd fold. Just about everything else, a nightmare.

[LibertyAndJusticeForAll]

"...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. "

Okay, I'll ask you again, is this statement from the article true or false? I'm assuming it is true.
Please don't answer again that it is out of context, unless you care to detail exactly what you mean by out of context.

[deport]

The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 was signed into law on Dec. 13 and placed in the Congressional Record as such....

12/13/2003 Became Public Law No: 108-177.