Posted on 11/21/2003 10:34:10 AM PST by gawd
WASHINGTON, D.C., Nov 21 (OneWorld) -- Congress is poised to approve new legislation that amounts to the first substantive expansion of the controversial USA Patriot Act since it was approved just after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon (news - web sites).
Acting at the Bush administration's behest, a joint House-Senate conference committee has approved a provision in the 2004 Intelligence Authorization bill that will permit the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI (news - web sites)) to demand records from a number of businesses--without the approval of a judge or grand jury--if it deems them relevant to a counter-terrorism investigation.
The measure would extend the FBI's power to seize records from banks and credit unions to securities dealers, currency exchanges, travel agencies, car dealers, post offices, casinos, pawnbrokers and any other business that, according to the government, has a "high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax or regulatory matters." Such seizures could be carried out with the approval of the judicial branch of government.
Until now only banks, credit unions, and similar financial institutions were obliged to turn over such records on the FBI's demand.
Shortly after the conference agreement was reached, the House of Representatives approved the underlying authorization bill by a margin of 263 to 163. The measure is expected to pass the Senate shortly.
The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) (ACLU) said it was "disappointed" with the House's approval, but also expressed satisfaction that a number of lawmakers on both left and right decided to oppose the bill because they oppose the records provision, whose inclusion in the bill was discovered by staff aides only last week.
Particularly notable in Thursday's House vote was the defection by several conservative Republicans from the administration's fold.
"This PATRIOT Act expansion was the only controversial part of this legislation, and it prompted more than a third of the House, including 15 conservative Republicans, to change what is normally a cakewalk vote into something truly contested," said Timothy Edgar, ACLU Legislative Counsel.
"One need look no further than this vote to get an effective gauge of the PATRIOT Act's lack of popularity on Capitol Hill and among the American people," he said.
The USA PATRIOT Act--which gives unprecedented powers to the FBI and the federal government as a whole and was rammed through Congress at the administration's behest just six weeks after the 9/11 attacks--has evoked great controversy.
An unusual coalition of liberal, left, and right-wing groups is convinced that the law's expansion of the government's surveillance and investigatory powers threatens individual freedoms and privacy rights.
More than 200 local governments, including some of the country's largest cities, have approved resolutions upholding the full enjoyment of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution and urging a narrowing of the USA PATRIOT Act, while the Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) has been holding a series of critical hearings over the past month about the Act's impact.
Members of the Judiciary Committee, including Republican Larry Craig of Idaho and five Democratic senators, sent a letter to the conference committee earlier this week urging it strip the new provision from the intelligence bill so that it could be taken up by their Committee in public hearings. The provision has never been publicly debated.
"I'm concerned about this," Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin, who tried unsuccessfully to limit the life of the new provision, told the New York Times. "The idea of expanding the powers of government gives everyone pause except the Republican leadership."
The government wants these powers in order to more effectively prosecute the "war on terrorism," although critics warn that, once given these powers, the FBI may use them in cases that are not relevant to terrorism in order to gather evidence against other targets of investigation.
Indeed, recent Senate hearings have covered incidents in which information about individuals was obtained by the FBI through the use of its counter-terrorism powers even though the such investigations were directed against what the ACLU called "garden-variety criminals."
The provision not only permits the FBI to seize records from more kinds of businesses; it also forbids businesses from informing their clients about the seizures.
In that respect, it is comparable to a particularly controversial section of the PATRIOT Act permitting the FBI to seek an order for library records for an "investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities" and imposing a gag order on librarians, who are prohibited from telling anyone that the FBI demanded the records. Librarians and civil-liberties groups have sued the government to have that section declared unconstitutional.
"The more checks and balances against government abuse are eroded, the greater that abuse," said the ACLU's Edgar. "We're going to regret these initiatives down the road."
;)
They said it could be used against terrorism OR money laundering. How convenient, and deceptive.
The ugly truth is these politicians are exploiting a tragedy to enact the unconstitutional wishlists that have sat on their shelves for years.
They say politics is the art of compromise, we'll here's my compromise:
They can have their stinking Patriot Act, under the condition that anyone who uses it for anything aside from terrorism rots in a stinking cell and eats rat droppings for breakfast lunch and dinner for the next 50 years.
See, I can be reasonable.
War powers can be likened to a shotgun kept in a farmhouse within a glass display case with a warning "Use only in case of emergency".
One day the aged farmer's son comes into the house warning of a bear in the yard. He wants to use the shotgun. Wary of his son who has never been responsible with firearms, the farmer is reluctant. But after seeing what the bear did to his horses he gives his son the gun, but only after making him promise this time he will be careful and not abuse his trust.
So out of the glass case comes the shotgun. And the son chases off the bear. But later that evening, the son has drank a fifth of whiskey and is busy shooting at anything that moves. He even invites his neer-do-well friends over and they stagger about with a bottle of hooch in one hand and the shotgun in the other, randomly blasting shots into the air.
The next day, the son tells his dad the bear isn't dead and now he needs a rifle.
If the father gave him one, you'd think him a fool. Remember THAT when as the feds try to get this bill passed!!!!!
I guess if they change the name and now hold office, it's all somehow different.
These so called 'conservatives' behind this law have refined hypocrisy to a high art form. I'd crawl over a mile of broken glass to vote against these liars.
Who needs separation of powers anyway? And what terrorist loving leftist came up with the idea of separate branches of government? /sarcasm
The Police Staters cross party lines
And they've realized that they only have to slap an "anti-terrorism" label on any new repressive measure and it will probably pass.
They've waited decades for this opportunity, and they're taking full advantage of it to destroy our last vestiges of privacy
Wasn't it just a few months ago that Ashcroft was telling us that the Patriot Act was just a "slight expansion of powers" regarding search warrants, and not to worry, as all such actions still required the approval of a judge or grand jury?
Oh.. that was wiretaps and such...
I guess that's not the same as seizing private records or property.
Sort of like using RICO to seize a person's farm because a few wild hemp plants were found on the back 40...
The more things change, the more they stay the same..
Add to this declining education and moral standards, unchecked illegal immigration, expansion of the welfare state.
Congratulations, they've turned the noble experiment into another turd-world hell-hole.
Section 316 authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the DCI and the Attorney General, to implement a program to improve the sharing of intelligence collected by the Federal government with State and local officials. This program is intended to complement implementation of the ``Homeland Security Information Sharing Act'' (P.L. 107-296, Title VIII, Subtitle I).
The program should be designed to encourage State and local officials, and certain private sector representatives, to share with each other and with appropriate Federal officials lawfully collected information vital to the prevention of terrorist attacks against the United States. The training provided to officials and representatives should help these individuals to identify sources of potential threats, to report information related to potential threats to the appropriate agencies in the appropriate form and manner, and to assure that reported information is systematically submitted to the Department of Homeland Security and disseminated to all appropriate Federal departments and agencies. A report on the status of implementation of Section 892 of the ``Homeland Security Act of 2002'' (Public Law 107-296) is also required under this section. The project grants no new authorities to any department or agency for the collection of information
--------------
Sec. 374. Modification to definition of financial institution in Right to Financial Privacy Act
Section 374 is similar to both Section 354 of the Senate amendment and to Section 334 of the House bill. Section 374 of the Conference Report expands the definition of ``financial institution'' for purposes of section-1 114 of the Right to Financial Privacy Act (12 U.S.C. 3414 (RFPA). It provides enhanced authority for authorized Intelligence Community collection activities designed to prevent, deter, and disrupt terrorism and espionage directed against the U.S. and to enhance foreign intelligence efforts.
The Conferees believe this new definition is necessary for effective counterintelligence, foreign intelligence, and international terrorism operations of the United States. Section 1114 currently permits U.S. Government authorities engaged in counterintelligence or foreign intelligence activities to use ``National Security Letters,'' approved by a senior government official, to obtain certain financial records from defined ``financial institutions.'' The definition of ``financial institution'' in the RFPA has been essentially unmodified since the RFPA became law in 1978. This amendment updates the definition to include those entities that today provide financial services to individuals, but would not be covered by the current definition. Financial records maintained by these entities are not currently covered by the RFPA and, thus, are not accessible by intelligence elements of the United States Government using this authority. In order to expand the definition of ``financial institution'' for purposes only of section 1114, this subsection adopts, in part, the definition of ``financial institution'' found in section 5312 (a) (2) of Title 31, United States Code. It is important to highlight that this definition also is consistent with the definition used in section 804(5) of the Counterintelligence and Security Enhancements Act of 1994 (50 U.S.C. 438).
The Conferees intend that this authority be used for accessing records and information from financial institutions for counterintelligence, foreign intelligence, and international terrorism investigations. The Conferees note, with approval, the significant actions of the U.S. Government in tracking terrorist finances. The Conferees believe that the authority granted by this section will enhance the Government's efforts in this regard. This provision allows the U.S. Government to have, through use of ``National Security Letters,'' greater access to a larger universe of information that goes beyond traditional financial records, but is nonetheless crucial in tracking terrorist finances or espionage activities. The Conferees understand that this authority should be used for accessing records and information for the purposes of identifying an individual's financial relationship with the specified financial institutions.
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.