With A Whisper, Not A Bang

[R. A. Hettinga]

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

 San Antonio Current

WITH A WHISPER, NOT A BANG


By David Martin
12/24/2003


Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law - stealthily

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 shutting 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."

"It's a problem that some of these riders that are added on may not receive
the scrutiny that we would like to see."
- Robert Summers

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? *




-- 
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
-- 
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'