With a Whisper, not a Bang | Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law — stealthily


PDA






w4rma
December 29, 2003, 01:08 PM
By David Martin
12/24/2003

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.

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."

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? •

©San Antonio Current 2003
http://www.sacurrent.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10705756&BRD=2318&PAG=461&dept_id=482778&rfi=6

If you enjoyed reading about "With a Whisper, not a Bang | Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law — stealthily" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MicroBalrog
December 29, 2003, 01:21 PM
But Bush is better than Dean....:barf:

hillbilly
December 29, 2003, 01:27 PM
Bush's secret signing of Patriot II is awful.

But is Bush better than Dean in the long run????

Well......read this.......

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\\Politics\\archive\\200312\\POL20031219b.html

The New York City district council president of a union that recently backed Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean has publicly endorsed socialism at a national conference of the Workers World Party.

"The first thing we have to do is remind ourselves that we are fighting for socialism," said District Council 1707 President Brenda Stokeley of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

MicroBalrog
December 29, 2003, 01:29 PM
A drop (not more) of socialism is actually a good idea. Overdose is fatal.:)

JohnBT
December 29, 2003, 01:36 PM
Guess you missed this. :) JT

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56025

El Tejon
December 29, 2003, 01:37 PM
Micro, from your keyboard to His ears!:D

If we ONLY had a drop of socialism!!!:)

longeyes
December 29, 2003, 01:51 PM
Some of us thought socialism, by other names, had already arrived.

w4rma
December 29, 2003, 01:54 PM
Just a note:
Majorities in the U.S. House, U.S. Senate, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Executive branch are all controlled by the Republican leadership.

Think about that.

Triad
December 29, 2003, 05:39 PM
I have thought about that. I have also thought about what would have happened had the other party been the majority and voted on the issue.

My thinking about such things has led me to the conclusion that unless some major changes take place in our political system, we're screwed. :(

greyhound
December 29, 2003, 06:02 PM
I have always thought that the problem is that the White House, Senate, and House are in the hands of career politicians , be they Democrat or Republican.

Not what the founding fathers intended. Heck, IIRC, didn't George Washington turn down the chance to be King or President-for-life or something like that?

alan
December 29, 2003, 06:23 PM
Just quit bitching, and remember to bow deeply to Saint George of Bush. That will likely do for now, though prostrating oneself before his picture might come sooner than some realize.

Of course, there is always the following possibility, that being that the next godhead will be some sort of graven image in the likeness of the FBI, which us mere mortals will be required to make sacrifices to, or otherwise to worship.

4v50 Gary
December 29, 2003, 08:04 PM
Reminds me of the sinister undercurrent in the Star Wars II flick. The closer we move towards facism, the further we grow from our Constitution.

seeker_two
December 29, 2003, 08:40 PM
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."

So, in order to defeat terrorists supported by governments who ignore human rights and use gestapo tactics, our government has to ignore human rights & use gestapo tactics? :scrutiny:

A drop (not more) of socialism is actually a good idea. Overdose is fatal.

We're FAR beyond a drop, sir...:uhoh:

But is Bush better than Dean in the long run????

And the end result IS????? :banghead:

ninenot
December 29, 2003, 10:21 PM
If you guys think that the PatAct additions are chilling, wait until you read about GWB's treatment of protesters at his appearances:

[URL=http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html [/URL]

Jim Brovard is a credible source who's not friendly to Big Gummint; you've heard of his work before.

This is just sickening.

alan
December 29, 2003, 11:07 PM
ninenot:

During a visit to the Pittsburgh arrea a while back, protesters were shunted off to what were described as "free speech areas", fairly far removed from the "parade route", Bush Boosters and the television cameras and media types.

"Free Speech Areas", isn't that a laugh??

ARperson
December 29, 2003, 11:16 PM
Bush is a fascist, plain and simple.

For the first time in my voting life (not long, but not wet behind the ears either), I'm going to vote for the third party because Bush most certainly is NOT the best candidate for president.

The sad fact is that Bush is giving Republicans a bad name. The local Republicans around here are usually pretty good. But like was said above, it's the career politicians, not Republicans (or Democrats) per se, that are the problem. Well, part of the problem. There are so many pieces to this puzzle....

alan
December 30, 2003, 01:17 AM
Re legislation to which SHRUB, as Molly Ivins describes the president, recently added his signature, is a ten year renewal of the 1988 ban on things that do not exist, GUNS THAT WILL PASS UNDETECTED THROUGH AIRPORT METAL DETECTORS/X-RAY MACHJINES.

They didn't exist at the time they were first banned, 1988, nor do they exist now, however the United States Senate, in a fit of manaminity, by Unanimus Consent, accepted House legislation, that had been passed based on the voice vote of 30 members of a committee. That is the legislation that James Sensenbrenner, supposedly a great pro-gun representative, pushed through. As that old saying goes, You have a Roumanian for a friend, you needn't worry about enemies.

If you enjoyed reading about "With a Whisper, not a Bang | Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law — stealthily" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!