'PATRIOT ACT' KNOWS NO LIMITS
by Vin Suprynowicz
Nov. 6, 2003
Do FBI agents believe the surviving leaders of the elusive Osama
bin Laden terror network have been conducting strategy sessions over
take-out tabouli and hummus, while holed up in the basement of the
Cheetah's topless bar, near Sahara Avenue and Interstate 15 in
downtown Las Vegas?
Are there reliable reports of al-Qaida weapons stashes there and at
the Jaguars gentlemen's club, just across the highway and also owned
by Mike Galardi, in partnership with his father Jack?
Of course not. The Galardis and their bag man, former Clark County
Commissioner Lance Malone, are under investigation by federal law
enforcement agents who assert the bar owners paid off municipal
officials both in San Diego and Las Vegas to create a more favorable
regulatory environment for their establishments. There have been no
convictions yet, but if there's been wrongdoing here it's of a purely
home-grown and non-military nature: We're talking about spreading
around the loot generated by the naked-lady business, not homicidal
goatherds plotting to blow stuff up.
So what on earth were FBI agents thinking when they cited Section
314 of the so-called USA PATRIOT Act as their grounds for faxing
subpoenas to two Las Vegas stockbrokers on Oct. 28, seeking financial
information on many of the Las Vegas elected officials who have been
targeted in the ongoing Galardi probe?
"It's just as the ACLU said from the start," explains Gary Peck,
executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada.
"The PATRIOT Act, which was originally passed off as dealing solely
with terrorism, in fact expands government power in areas that have
nothing to do with terrorism. It contains provisions which allow the
government to cut constitutional corners in ways they have long
desired to do, but which they could not get away with until they got
all this stuff swept in under this claim of 'fighting terrorism.' It
has nothing to do with terrorism."
Federal law enforcement types could always go to a federal
prosecutor or a grand jury and subpoena private financial records, at
one named bank at a time, based on a "certified assertion that
someone was up to no good," Mr. Peck explains. From a Fourth
Amendment perspective "That was a problem to begin with, and it still
is."
But Section 314 of the PATRIOT Act goes much further. FBI and other
federal agents are now allowed to bypass even the minimal safeguard
of grand jury oversight. Now they can instead go directly to the
Justice Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
and get a blanket subpoena "that covers all financial institutions,"
Mr. Peck says.
Not only that, circumstances where that banker or stockbroker was
forbidden to tell you the government had looked at your records used
to be rare, Mr. Peck says. Now, under Section 314 of the PATRIOT Act,
"That's a blanket prohibition. So there's no opportunity for you to
challenge or quash that subpoena, because you're not even told it
exists. In all circumstances in connection with Section 314, it's a
blanket Prohibition."
Critics have warned from the start these provisions would gut what
remains of our financial privacy under the Bill of Rights.
The Bush administration responded the new powers were needed to
fight Arab terrorists, and would be used sparingly.
The critics responded that once federal agents had these powers,
there would be no limiting their application to only those cases
where the suspects wear headcloths.
Sure enough, a mere two years after its enactment, the use of the
PATRIOT Act in a case as far from "9-11" terrorism as the Galardi
topless bar probe proves the skeptics were right. (And given the
gag-order provision, we can't even know how widespread such
constitutional violations may already be.)
The PATRIOT Act provision "was used appropriately by the FBI and
was clearly within the legal parameters of the statute," argues
Special Agent Jim Stern, a spokesman for the Las Vegas field office
of the FBI.
If that's true, then major portions of this law needs to be
promptly repealed, unless the high court can get at them and
overrule them, first.
Yes, it's understandable the FBI will use all the tools legally
available to it and try and locate hidden proceeds that could be used
as evidence of bribery.
And that's precisely why some of these tools must now be surgically
removed.
Because as much as we may want to see such blatant political
corruption exposed and punished, if the price is that an entire
nation of individuals have to finish giving up what little remains of
their right to financial privacy as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights
... that price is too high.
-----------------------------------------------------
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the daily
Las Vegas Review-Journal.
"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority."
--Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) US Founding Father
***COPYRIGHT NOTICE***
In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted
work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit
or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for nonprofit research and educational
purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
by Vin Suprynowicz
Nov. 6, 2003
Do FBI agents believe the surviving leaders of the elusive Osama
bin Laden terror network have been conducting strategy sessions over
take-out tabouli and hummus, while holed up in the basement of the
Cheetah's topless bar, near Sahara Avenue and Interstate 15 in
downtown Las Vegas?
Are there reliable reports of al-Qaida weapons stashes there and at
the Jaguars gentlemen's club, just across the highway and also owned
by Mike Galardi, in partnership with his father Jack?
Of course not. The Galardis and their bag man, former Clark County
Commissioner Lance Malone, are under investigation by federal law
enforcement agents who assert the bar owners paid off municipal
officials both in San Diego and Las Vegas to create a more favorable
regulatory environment for their establishments. There have been no
convictions yet, but if there's been wrongdoing here it's of a purely
home-grown and non-military nature: We're talking about spreading
around the loot generated by the naked-lady business, not homicidal
goatherds plotting to blow stuff up.
So what on earth were FBI agents thinking when they cited Section
314 of the so-called USA PATRIOT Act as their grounds for faxing
subpoenas to two Las Vegas stockbrokers on Oct. 28, seeking financial
information on many of the Las Vegas elected officials who have been
targeted in the ongoing Galardi probe?
"It's just as the ACLU said from the start," explains Gary Peck,
executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada.
"The PATRIOT Act, which was originally passed off as dealing solely
with terrorism, in fact expands government power in areas that have
nothing to do with terrorism. It contains provisions which allow the
government to cut constitutional corners in ways they have long
desired to do, but which they could not get away with until they got
all this stuff swept in under this claim of 'fighting terrorism.' It
has nothing to do with terrorism."
Federal law enforcement types could always go to a federal
prosecutor or a grand jury and subpoena private financial records, at
one named bank at a time, based on a "certified assertion that
someone was up to no good," Mr. Peck explains. From a Fourth
Amendment perspective "That was a problem to begin with, and it still
is."
But Section 314 of the PATRIOT Act goes much further. FBI and other
federal agents are now allowed to bypass even the minimal safeguard
of grand jury oversight. Now they can instead go directly to the
Justice Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
and get a blanket subpoena "that covers all financial institutions,"
Mr. Peck says.
Not only that, circumstances where that banker or stockbroker was
forbidden to tell you the government had looked at your records used
to be rare, Mr. Peck says. Now, under Section 314 of the PATRIOT Act,
"That's a blanket prohibition. So there's no opportunity for you to
challenge or quash that subpoena, because you're not even told it
exists. In all circumstances in connection with Section 314, it's a
blanket Prohibition."
Critics have warned from the start these provisions would gut what
remains of our financial privacy under the Bill of Rights.
The Bush administration responded the new powers were needed to
fight Arab terrorists, and would be used sparingly.
The critics responded that once federal agents had these powers,
there would be no limiting their application to only those cases
where the suspects wear headcloths.
Sure enough, a mere two years after its enactment, the use of the
PATRIOT Act in a case as far from "9-11" terrorism as the Galardi
topless bar probe proves the skeptics were right. (And given the
gag-order provision, we can't even know how widespread such
constitutional violations may already be.)
The PATRIOT Act provision "was used appropriately by the FBI and
was clearly within the legal parameters of the statute," argues
Special Agent Jim Stern, a spokesman for the Las Vegas field office
of the FBI.
If that's true, then major portions of this law needs to be
promptly repealed, unless the high court can get at them and
overrule them, first.
Yes, it's understandable the FBI will use all the tools legally
available to it and try and locate hidden proceeds that could be used
as evidence of bribery.
And that's precisely why some of these tools must now be surgically
removed.
Because as much as we may want to see such blatant political
corruption exposed and punished, if the price is that an entire
nation of individuals have to finish giving up what little remains of
their right to financial privacy as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights
... that price is too high.
-----------------------------------------------------
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the daily
Las Vegas Review-Journal.
"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority."
--Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) US Founding Father
***COPYRIGHT NOTICE***
In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted
work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit
or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for nonprofit research and educational
purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
