It seems to me hard to say the bill is being snuck through if it's been printed up for over a year! That's a good thing, unlike the rush in which the Patriot Act was passed.
A firm definition of "international terrorism" is needed for the "lone wolf" provision.
I don't see how you can have a law against revealing NSLs without having a penalty for doing so.
I don't see how you can have a law against revealing NSLs without having a penalty for doing so.That's how you sneak it in. You pass a law with no penalty, then tell people it's the law. You don't tell them there's no penalties, after all "it's not up to law enforcement agents to give civics lessons".
Later you add the penalties, saying "it's already the law, we're just enforcing it".
-Eric
The way I read it, the "sneaking" comes in because they're taking provisions that were deemed unacceptable under the proposed Patriot Act II and dumping them into various other bills, some of which are passed in secrecy. I could be wrong ... that's just what I got from this and similar articles.
Totally agree that the way the original Patriot Act was passed was unwise in retrospect (even though some of its provisions make sense). A firm definition of terrorism is lacking there, as well.
I agree that there needs to be an enforcement mechanism for any law -- but I can't reconcile a law against disclosing a search with the 1st amendment. I have trouble reconciling so-called "administrative" subpeonas (i.e., warrantless searches w/o court approval) with the fourth amendment, as well.
I also have a problem with the conflicting DOJ statements about the Patriot Act. First, they said that the Act merely gave them powers to fight terrorism that they already had to fight other crimes such as racketeering and money laundering. Then, they used the Patriot Act to fight racketeering and money laundering, and asked why they shouldn't be allowed to use the Patriot Act for crimes other than terror. Which one is it (she asked, rhetorically)?