Posted on 11/19/2003 9:39:24 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 — Congressional negotiators approved a measure on Wednesday to expand the F.B.I.'s counterterrorism powers, despite concerns from some lawmakers who said that the measure gave the government too much authority and that the public had been shut out of the debate.
The measure gives the Federal Bureau of Investigation greater authority to demand records from businesses in terrorism cases without the approval of a judge or a grand jury. While banks, credit unions and other financial institutions are currently subject to such demands, the measure expands the list to include car dealers, pawnbrokers, travel agents, casinos and other businesses.
The expansion, included in the 2004 authorization bill for intelligence agencies, has already been approved by both the House and the Senate, and lawmakers from both chambers approved the provision as part of the larger bill in a private session late Wednesday, officials said. Law enforcement officials said the F.B.I. would gain greater speed and flexibility in tracing suspected terrorist money.
Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, introduced a motion to limit the life of the new law, but it was defeated on a party-line vote.
"I'm concerned about this," Mr. Durbin said in an interview. "The idea of expanding the powers of government gives everyone pause except the Republican leadership."
The approval came despite 11th-hour concerns raised by five Democrats and a Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who questioned why their panel — which has responsibility for overseeing the F.B.I. — was shut out of any discussion on the little-noticed proposal.
In a letter this week to the Senate intelligence committee, the senators urged the panel, which does much of its work in secret, not to move ahead with such a significant expansion of the F.B.I.'s powers without further review. They said public hearings, public debate and legislative protocol were essential in legislation involving the privacy rights of Americans.
The letter was signed by Senator Larry E. Craig, Republican of Idaho, and five Democrats: Mr. Durbin, and Senators Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina.
Too bad, he was ineffective. This is going to be just swell with libertarians.
The sheeple had better wake the hell up!
However....
As best I can find this is NOT limited to terrorism cases, but applies in ALL criminal investigations.
This is the only relevant clause I found in the Intelligence Authorization:
"SEC. 334. MODIFICATION TO DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IN THE RIGHT TO FINANCIAL PRIVACY ACT. (a) IN GENERAL- Section 1101(1) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3401(1)) is amended by inserting `, except as provided in section 1114,' before `means any office'. (b) DEFINITION- Section 1114 of such Act (12 U.S.C. 3414) is amended by adding at the end the following: `(c) For purposes of this section, the term `financial institution' has the same meaning as in section 5312(a)(2) 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, or the United States Virgin Islands.'. "
Maybe the language has changed or possibly they are referring to another clause.
Unfortunately, the Law Enforcement world is already using the powers of the Patriot Act to go after totally non-terror related crime. Expanding their power further is a really bad idea.
The law is an expansion of the term "financial institution" for use of National Security Letters for counterintelligence, foreign intelligence and Secret Service protective purposes only.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.