With A Whisper, Not a Bang

[RBHam]

By David Martin 12/24/2003
http://www.sacurrent.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10705756&BRD=2318&PAG=461&dept_id=482778&rfi=6

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.

(snip)
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.

unbelievable...

[Mari333]

1. and the US public doesnt know a thing

I had to change banks and switch my savings last month..to do so, me , and all my sons had to give our drivers lisences to the bank to be identified for the Patriot Act legislation..so saieth the banker.
I yelled "what assholes!" aloud at the bank.
God, this administration MUST be stopped...
HEY DEMS WAKE UP

[xchrom]

2. would most americans be upset?

i don't know anymore -- there is a disconnect between the citizenry and what a free society really means.
people don't read anymore -- and if they do they read simplistic tripe written by folks like o'really or oxyrush.
in my own jaded way -- i think many americans are getting what they ask for -- especially since i see bush as a symptom and not the actual disease.

[Killarney]

3. anytime I mention this to a conservative they say...

Good! If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have anything to hide anyway. This will get more terrorists.

They just don't care about their own privacy being stripped away.

[Wapsie B]

4. Yup.

Just like Jeff Christie's medical records.

:evilgrin:

[DrBB]

8. And if it were Clinton or Gore doing the same thing?

They would be screaming to the heavens and joining the militia movement in droves.

[ozymandius]

5. So this is what they call freedom?

Bush just issued his own curse. Blind trust my ass!

[enough]

6. kick

.

[Cheesehead]

7. I questioned Senator Russ Feingold on this topic

at one of his listening sessions last Friday. He too is concerned about laws like this being inserted in other "benign" legislation that can be rushed through the Congress before anybody notices. As you know, he is the only senator to vote against the original Patriot Act legislation. I emailed him the link from this post for more info on what the media is saying.

[jokerman93]

9. The danger that is upon us now

The danger that is upon us now is that the FBI, as an apparatus of the administration/Bush family, has unprecedented powers and mechanisms to investigate and leverage against any of its domestic enemies -- real or imagined.

They now have acces to the financial records of all their enemies in Washington and state governments across the land. Anyone think Karl Rove isn't going to try out these new laws in search of propaganda reserves to be put to work for the 2004 election campaign?

Vast new powers indeed.

Done deal folks. Better wake up America.

[RBHam]

10. kick

:kick:

[Dover]

11. Did you see this?

The Patriot Act and the 2003 Congressional Hearings

Edited on Wed Dec-31-03 03:05 PM by Dover
...."We will launch a rigorous, bipartisan examination of the issues Americans are concerned about when it comes to combating terrorism," said Mr. Hatch, a vocal proponent of the Patriot Act.
"We're going to cut through the confusion and distortion and get the facts necessary to find out if we are we protecting both our citizens' lives and their liberties."
Mr. Leahy, who worked closely with the Bush administration in the negotiations that produced the Patriot Act, has said the legislation "far more than most" required close congressional oversight...cont'd

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031020-103003-1655r.htm

________

Really? Care to share your findings with us citizens? Why was this debate not carried out more publicly, and the Senate voice-vote on this most recent Patriot Act expansion, on the record?

____________


Here is the Oct. 2003 Congressional Hearings on Homeland Security that may fill in a lot of gaps about what the Congress is hearing and thinking on the subject:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/2003_h/

Excerpt from Patrick Leahy's presentation:

I expect the Attorney General to participate in these hearings, and I am disappointed that we will not be hearing from him today. Unlike other senior Administration officials who regularly participate in oversight hearings, Attorney General Ashcroft has appeared before this Committee only once this year, and then only for a short time. This is a curious omission given his recent acknowledgment, in a letter to me, that regular and vigorous oversight by Congress provides an important assurance that investigations are conducted in accordance with the law and the Constitution.

I understand that the Attorney General is a busy man, but he has found time to travel the country to make other appearances, most specifically in leading a nationwide public relations campaign attempting to blunt criticism of the USA PATRIOT Act. Surely he can spare a few hours of his time for the Senate and for this oversight Committee. I know that Members on both sides have questions for him. When I chaired this Committee we made every effort to accommodate his busy schedule, and I am confident that Senator Hatch would do the same.

One of the focal points for this series of hearings will be the PATRIOT Act, which Congress passed two years ago this month, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Since its passage, the PATRIOT Act has raised concerns with citizens around the country and across the political spectrum. To date, anti-PATRIOT resolutions have been passed by more than 190 communities in 34 states.

Recently, the Justice Department dismissed the many local government resolutions condemning the PATRIOT Act by saying: “alf are either in cities in Vermont, very small population, or in college towns in California. It’s in a lot of the usual enclaves where you might see nuclear free zones, or they probably passed resolutions against the war in Iraq.�

It is unfortunate that the Justice Department felt it appropriate to ridicule these grass-roots efforts to participate in an important national dialogue. The opportunity to engage in public discourse is one of the essential rights of Americans, and I am proud that Vermont towns are among those dedicated to thinking about and acting on these important issues. More importantly, the concerns expressed in my home state are being echoed by Americans in all 50 states. These communities represent millions upon millions of Americans, not just a few liberty-and-privacy-conscious Vermonters, as the Justice Department has insinuated. Impugning Vermonters, dedicated librarians and United States Senators for asking questions and raising concerns does not advance the debate or instill public confidence in the Ashcroft Justice Department’s use of the vast powers it wields. In fact, it achieves the opposite.

In a democracy there will always be an inherent tension between government power and privacy rights, and the threat of terrorism has magnified that tension. When you overlay that with excessive government secrecy, and the lack of cooperation and accountability that have characterized the approach taken by this Administration in its dealings with the Congress and the public, you further compound the tension and the risks to our free society. First, undue secrecy undermines the system’s built-in checks and balances. And over time it corrodes the public’s faith that their government is not crossing the line and treading on the rights and freedoms of the American people.

While we have another two years before some of the powers we granted in the PATRIOT Act expire, it is not too soon for this Committee to take a hard look at how those powers are being used: What is working, what is not, and what can we do better?

The PATRIOT Act has become the most visible target of public concerns about governmental overreaching, but those concerns extend even further, as will these hearings. The next hearing in this series will address a broad array of civil liberties issues, including issues relating to the 9/11 detentions that the DOJ Inspector General raised in his excellent report earlier this year. Later hearings will examine other issues raised by the fight against terrorism, which I hope will include the treatment of so-called “unlawful combatants,� information-sharing with our State and local partners, and the pressing needs of our first responders.

Instead of the Attorney General, we will hear today from the recent nominee to head the Criminal Division and two U.S. Attorneys. This hearing has been in the works for some time, and the witnesses were selected by Senator Hatch more than two weeks ago, yet we still did not receive their testimony in a timely fashion. I do not blame the witnesses, who I assume are busy on substantive matters. But I am disappointed in the Administration’s lackadaisical approach to these oversight matters. When the Attorney General did not timely submit his testimony for a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee in May 2002, Chairman Sensenbrenner cancelled that hearing.

I thank our Chairman for allowing all Senators to make a short opening statement, and suggest that he then proceed immediately to questions so that we can use the time we have today most effectively. That will also give us all time to read and consider the late-arriving testimony of the Administration representatives in due course, and to follow up as appropriate....



http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/2003_h/031021-leahy.htm