The following is mirrored from its source at:
http://www.sacurrent.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10705756&BRD=2318&PAG=461&dept_id=482778&rfi=6

With a Whisper, Not a Bang
Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law -- stealthily
by David Martin
San Antonio Current
24 December 2003

On 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.

The Bush Administration and its Congressional allies tucked away
these new executive powers in the Intelligence Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2004 [H.R. 2417] [1], 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?

1. The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 is also called
House Resolution (H.R.) 2417. There were 6 versions of H.R. 2417 in the
108th Congress. The copy on ratical is the one that was passed by both
House and Senate (start at
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.02417:).
See also Congressional Record: November 22, 2003, containing text of
House Members Criticizing 2004 Intelligence Authorization Act.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/PA2goesLive.html (hypertext)
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/PA2goesLive.txt (text only)
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/PA2goesLive.pdf (print ready)