Parts of Patriot Act II signed day of Saddam capture
Quote:
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. 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.
http://www.sacurrent.com/site/news.c...d=482778&rfi=6
Quote:
The new law (see Section 374 of the act), however, lets the FBI acquire these records through an administrative procedure whereby an FBI field agent simply drafts a so-called national security letter stating the information is relevant to a national security investigation.
And the law broadens the definition of "financial institution" to include such businesses as insurance companies, travel agencies, real estate agents, stockbrokers, the U.S. Postal Service and even jewelry stores, casinos and car dealerships.
The law also prohibits subpoenaed businesses from revealing to anyone, including customers who may be under investigation, that the government has requested records of their transactions.
Bush signed the bill on Dec. 13, a Saturday, which was the same day the U.S. military captured Saddam Hussein.
The new law (see Section 374 of the act), however, lets the FBI acquire these records through an administrative procedure whereby an FBI field agent simply drafts a so-called national security letter stating the information is relevant to a national security investigation.
And the law broadens the definition of "financial institution" to include such businesses as insurance companies, travel agencies, real estate agents, stockbrokers, the U.S. Postal Service and even jewelry stores, casinos and car dealerships.
The law also prohibits subpoenaed businesses from revealing to anyone, including customers who may be under investigation, that the government has requested records of their transactions.
Bush signed the bill on Dec. 13, a Saturday, which was the same day the U.S. military captured Saddam Hussein.
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,...=wn_polihead_1
Kind of scary stuff.... but it doesn't surprise me. What do you all think about it? How long before these new powers are used towards people other than those suspected of terrorism?
Comments
... as for when Bush signed it, does it surprise you? Doesn't surprise me and it obviously was no coincidence that he or the Administration didn't mention a word of it, despite them being on and off TV all day that day. Had it been something they were "proud" of / something they felt would garnish their reputation with voters, they wouldn't have swept it under the carpet like that.
Yay the FBI can go through our bank records without a court order! Thanks Patriot Act! Reminds me of the Daily Show's "So You're Living in a Security State." It's great! Say for example you lost your car keys. Just say "I'm going to kill the President" and the FBI that was watching you through spy cameras will break through your door. Just ask them where you left your keys, after they're done kicking you, and you're good to go!
anyone remember Nixon? power like this WILL be abused, no question. it's inevitable.
Originally posted by alcimedes
stupid if you ask me. i want warrents for all of this info. if it's personal, it shouldn't be available for the FBI to nose through without a judge signing off on it.
anyone remember Nixon? power like this WILL be abused, no question. it's inevitable.
That's what I was thinking... if you give the government that much freedom, it will eventually happen.
Originally posted by Akumulator
That's what I was thinking... if you give the government that much freedom, it will eventually happen.
this is why the judiciary is the most important and strongest branch of the government.
unfortunately these laws will stand until the courts deal with them.
Originally posted by shetline
You see, there's only a finite total amount of freedom in the world. Bush's strategy for promoting freedom around the world works by taking freedom out of the US and distributing to more needy countries.
I guess that's an optimistic way to look at it.
It's so....quiet.
Originally posted by bunge
I'm a neocon and I hate these laws.
bunge, the con is short for conservative not convict.
and it's a word i am soooo sick of.
Originally posted by Moogs
I don't know how likely it is something like this will get abused at the expense of the general public. Why would the FBI want yours or my financial information if they don't suspect us of some sort of felony?
well, i should hope, and perhaps i should have a little more faith, that my country shouldn't ever have any kind of suspicion against me. But, i much preferred the idea that went into the original constitution. that all powers not explicitly granted to the government were, as they've always been, held the people. all rights are inherently owned by the people, and some, with the populus' consent, are granted to the institution. i don't want the government to have the right to investigate these things, and i'm inclined to believe the populus doesn't either. if need should arise for the government to investigate bank records, i want some kind of check in there, to balance the equation.
[tinfoil hat]maybe the bureau is going to collect a database of all the "bank" records. they'll then use this to discover which geographic groups buy cheap jewelry, or foreign cars. next, they'll increase taxes in these "cheap jewelry" or "foreign car" areas, but mask the tax with some other name, like "the patriotic tax act of '05". we'll never know that this tax really was levied because (president of this theoretic day) has a hatred for (cheap jewelry/foreign cars), especially since they'll call it the "patriotic tax".[/hat off]
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
bunge, the con is short for conservative not convict.
After these changes in law, can I still take the 5th?
That's what I was thinking... if you give the government that much freedom, it will eventually happen.
It already has. Remember what happened to the Texas Democrats earlier this year?
thuhfreak: you make some valid points. I didn't mean to imply I feel good about all this, just that there are other types of private information I would hold more closely than my spending patterns for example (assuming it was only the feds looking at it and not people in the civilian population). But the point still stands that there continues to be an "inch given here" and an "inch there"; we don't want to give them enough rope to hang us with obviously.
The best weapon we have at our disposal at this point in time, is to get Bush and his cronies (especially his cronies) out of office. I still think the guy is a puppet / not bright enough on his own to come up with all these power plays on civil rights and the like. All this shady crap wreaks of Dick and Don and the goons they've placed in the CIA and elsewhere.
Originally posted by Aquatic
This is something I never understood: why do right wing "conservatives" who are so against government so much always drastically increase the size of the Army and the power of the CIA/FBI/spooks. This happened in the 80s with Reagan too. Look what happened. Iran-Contra etc.
"Reducing the size of government" typically only means two things really when spoken by Republicans: Cutting taxes and cutting regulation of businesses. Only Libertarians seem to really mean it when they talk about reducing the size of government (which is not to say that I'm a big fan of all aspects of Libertarianism).
When Republicans talk about "freedom", I often get the impression that the most important freedom is the freedom to prosper financially. Freedoms like freedom of expression and freedom to do what you want with your own body, be it sex or drugs, don't seem to rate as high as freedom to expand your 10-person start-up into a nationwide operation (and not be hampered by pesky "tree huggers" along the way.)
I think Republicans want people to "get with the program". And they've decided what "the program" is. If you don't get with the program, you don't deserve to get much out of life or freedom. Your a whiner at best and a traitor at worst if you complain.
Originally posted by shetline
You see, there's only a finite total amount of freedom in the world. Bush's strategy for promoting freedom around the world works by taking freedom out of the US and distributing to more needy countries.
The more I think about it, the more I realize that Shetline's Quantity Theory of Freedom offers the only reasonable explanation for any of this. The only other possibility is that the current administration is actually Evil in the James Bond movie supervillain sense of the word.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Wow, wow. Some of you guys have changed your tune! Yikes! Only a few months ago it was only conspiracy theorists and pinkos who were railing against the Patriot (sic) Act.
That's not quite true...plenty of centrists and a number of right wingers (incl. the American Conservative Union, the Free Congress Foundation and Gun Owners of America) were worried about it too. Even Newsmax was down on it. In fact, pretty much anyone concerned with civil liberties or individual freedoms was pissed when they found out just what was going on.