[iwar] Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law stealthily

WITH A WHISPER, NOT A BANG

By David Martin 12/24/2003

Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law b9 stealthily

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

O n 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.

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.
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?

-- This communication is confidential to the parties it is intended to serve --
Fred Cohen - http://all.net/ - fc@all.net - fc@unhca.com - tel/fax: 925-454-0171
Fred Cohen & Associates - University of New Haven - Security Posture

------------------
http://all.net/

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iwar/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Received on Sun Dec 28 15:19:13 2003