********************READ AND RE_READ Patriot II Passed in Stealth During Saddam Capture

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:04:38 -0800
From: Severo Ornstein <severo () poonhill com>

I try not to forward too many depressing articles. But this rates up there
with the biggest outrages. Not only is the deed itself an abomination, but the
way it was passed, signed, and ignored by the media is equally obscene. Bush
signed this the day of Saddam's capture while no one paid attention. And 
the new
provisions were insidiously tucked away in a bill passed by voice vote with
no debate on Thanksgiving. And no one cares ... this is America ... this can't
be happening .... so it's not happening ... but it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WITH A WHISPER, NOT A BANG
By David Martin     12/24/2003

Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law - stealthily

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?

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


--
Severo M. Ornstein
Poon Hill
2200 Bear Gulch Road
Woodside, CA 94062
Tel: 650-851-4258
Fax: 650-851-9549

If you wish to be removed from my list of recipients for "political" messages,
please send me a message requesting removal and I'll be glad to oblige.

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/