The latest Newsweek has an interesting article on how the Patriot Act is not working as hard at shutting down terrorists as it is to hunt for other violaters of Federal Law.

The Article



Question for debate: If the Patriot Act can be used to go after anyone that the Feds want to go after (and Ashcroft LOVES to go after the sinners ), without regard for whether it's even remotely terrorism related, should our Congresspeople work to limit the scope of this overly broad Act?

Yes they should. It seems to me, after reading the article, that the various departments of the Executive Branch and federal law enforcement agencys are taking advantage of the "war on terrorism" to in-act their individual wars and campaigns and to by pass citizens rights. In my opinion, they're first attempt to use the Patriot Acts freedom for the Constitution and Bill of Rights and they go after a "morally questionable" business in the public's eye, in which mainstream citizens will most likely overlook. The federal government will then slowly use their "hall passes" to execute this Constitutionally flawed Act to more boldly upon "average" citizens. This is a downward spiral of our rights as citizens and middle America doesn't even see that the wool has been pulled over their eyes. Or perhaps they have and choose to ignore it for the sake of freedom and democracy, ironically slitting our own throats.

It’s the Patriot Act’s money-laundering language.... - I guess Ashcroft might call money-launderers "sinners".

This was a money-laundering case. Seems to me it falls in line with the law. From the article:



The PATRIOT Act allowed the FBI to do their job and catch the bad guys. It doesn't matter to me on iota that they weren't terrorists. They were criminals and as such deserve to be investigated.

If the Patriot Act can be used to go after anyone that the Feds want to go after (and Ashcroft LOVES to go after the sinners ), without regard for whether it's even remotely terrorism related, should our Congresspeople work to limit the scope of this overly broad Act?

amf,

What about this act do you believe is "overly broad"? Maybe if I had those specifics I could comment further.

The problem I see with this application of the USA Patriot Act is that it is the result of legislation by stealth. If our representatives even noticed the references to money-laundering when they rushed to pass this act, I'm certain that they presumed that such activity would be in relation to financing terrorism. It could be argued - maybe - that the rapid acquisition of financial records regarding non-terror-related cases should have been legislated anyway, though on its own such legislation may have raised more serious questions regarding due process or probable cause. Instead it was shoe-horned into an act which apparently had nothing to do with the cases in question. The FBI may well be investigating these cases in accord with this hastily enacted legislation, but the fact is that our legislators clearly did not anticpate this application of the law when they passed it.

Wertz is right, it makes no sense that this was an intended use of the Patriot Act. I doubt the congressman supporting the bill had any notion there was any change to non-terrorists investigation law.

Such invasions of privacy are worrisome. Does the fact that the Patriot Act has caught 'bad guys' prove it to be a good idea? Not when the privacy of all of us is at risk.

I'm just happy that the next time I visit Nevada, there will be no danger of being assaulted by a stripper trying to force me into a free lap dance.

The Patriot Act was passed during a period of national hysteria. Ashcroft knows this, and like a typical psychologically challenged individual, tries to project his own emotions onto critics.

Hysteria or genuine and well-founded concern? Seems the actions of the FBI affirm the latter. Maybe they just don't have enough to do?

Wertz, how do you know this is fact?



Our privacy is only at risk if we are suspected of being involved in criminal activity. Even then, the FBI does not have carte blanche to our personal information. They are required to go through a federal judge or in the case of money-laundering, the Treasury.

Big business knows more about me than the government would ever want to know. They know what size dress I wear, my favorite perfume, what medicines I take, where I buy groceries and what kind of groceries I buy. They know I just purchased something from amazon, they know I’m going to a concert next month, they know where my house is mortgaged, that my dog is sick, that I just redecorated one of my bathrooms, and what I bought my father for Christmas.

Would it bother me if the government knew these things too? Nope, because I can’t commit a terrorist act with a bottle of Beautiful, Synthroid, and a bag of frozen peas.

But, if my neighbor is a suspected terrorist and is buying fertilizer, gasoline, and has rented a Hertz truck, I darn sure want the government to know!

You're right - I don't know this absolutely. But every legislator who spoke about the act at the time it was passed admitted that they did not have time to read the thing in its entirety - never mind in detail. The bill is 342 pages long and makes changes to over fifteen different statutes. It was passed - and signed into law - less than 24 hours after its completion. If the section in question was, indeed, "a little known provision" as reported (and I rather imagine it was), I doubt many members of Congress were aware of it at all.

As reported by the Cato Institute, "proponents of the new bill surely understood that many of its provisions were incompatible with civil liberties. Yet rather than modify the offending provisions, the president and Congress decided to promote the bill as an expression of patriotism". The deliberative process in relation to this bill was reduced to "closed-door negotiations; no conference committee; no committee reports; no final hearing at which opponents could testify" - during a time when, due to the anthrax scare (remember that? ), "congressional staffers weren't even able to access their working papers".

There are grave concerns on Capitol Hill about the Patriot Act in general and this type of provision in particular. (Republican) Sen. Murkowski introduced the Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act shortly before the summer recess and a recently introduced bill, the Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2003 (a.k.a. the SAFE Act), has broad bipartisan sponsorship. Both of these acts include stronger standards for judicial review and congressional oversight in such cases as the one being discussed here. Had our representatives had a chance to peruse the legislation before passing it, do you imagine they would now be trying to retract many of its provisions??

Prior to the USA Patriot Act, the Feds could only have got the records in the Las Vegas case (and over 4000 other cases unrelated to terrorism) through the Treasury Department if they had hard evidence of a crime. They do not require a federal judge as you suggest - and thus probable cause is totally eliminated. You may be happy that one of our basic rights is now gone. I am not.

And our privacy is not at risk only "if we are suspected of being involved in criminal activity" as you also suggest. This legislation allows for "fishing expeditions" and has been described as "an extraordinary power" and "the functional equivalent of a national subpoena". This is, quite simply, the law of an autocracy. You may be happy with this form of government. I am not.

Finally, as you again suggest, this legislation is in no way restricted to those "suspected terrorist" neighbors of yours who might be purchasing fertilizer and gas. That is the whole problem. This act is being applied to over 200 crimes which have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorist activity. You may be happy with this misapplication of the law. I am not.

And neither, apparently, are many of our representatives (on both sides of the aisle) - now that they've had a chance to see the abuses of the USA Patriot Act in action. The "Patriot" in the title stands, by the way, for "Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" - not "Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Lap-dancing Kickbacks".

Where does the article indicate anything about the closing of strip clubs? A powerful strip-club barron has been caught bribing officials. He has been paying them off to legislate policy in his favor.

I believe that the Patriot Act is too intrusive and powerful, and should only be used (if at all, which is debateable) in the interests of countering terrorism. I'm not going to, frankly, shed many tears on behalf of a money launderer and government briber though. I believe the description of this thread is erroneous...though it certainly captures attention.

I never suggested they go to a federal judge for cases of money-laudering.



The Treasury is where the Feds went on the Las Vegas money-laundering case.



You know I am going to ask you to back that up with a link.



The article said “can use it” not “is being applied to”.



Do you have information about 200 crimes to which the law has been applied that had nothing to do with terrorism OR money-laundering?

Edited to add: For some reason quotes aren't working on this post. -Fixed 'em -J

The FBI would have gotten the case together through wire tapping if they didn't have the Patriot Act. The FBI uses wire tappings all the time in criminal investigations. What makes this one different?

Beladonna: First, the problem with your QUOTES: one of them (in the third set) uses a brace { rather than a bracket [ - at least I think that's what they're called. Anyway, the curly thing rather than the square-ish thing. And one bad QUOTE tag throws off the lot of them. It happens to me all the time and it usually takes me ages to find the culprit.


Apologies for misreading your "federal judges" sentence. The problem - same problem with the Patriot Act - is the use of the word "or" rather than "and" as it probably should have been (in the legislation, I mean). My mistake.

The "fishing expeditions", the "extraordinary powers" and the "functional equivalent of a national subpoena" are all from the Michael Isikoff article cited by amf at the start of the thread. They are quotes from unnamed "critics", Peter Djinis (a banking lawyer), and David Aufhauser (former general counsel at Treasury), respectively.

As to the 200 crimes, it depends on what your definition of "is" is. Or, in this case, what your definition of "applied" is. I meant it in the sense that the legislation has been interpreted to include over 200 non-terror-related crimes, whether there have been prosecutions or not. The law is on the books. As there have been 4,261 "hits" on the basis of this legislation (also from the Isikoff article), I imagine that at least a few of them have been used in practice.

To me, if the government has the right to subpoena my financial records or your financial records without probably cause - without any evidence of a crime - it doesn't much matter whether they ever actually do subpoena our records or not. The fact that they now have that power is unconstitutional and just plain wrong. My fear is that, if the courts do find this legislation unconstitutional because it is being applied to extraneous cases which are not a matter of national security, that some suspected terrorists will have to be released along with the corrupt strip club owners - which rather seems to defeat the entire purpose (or, at least, what we were told was the purpose).

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


Not necessarily. The charges were brought on the basis of financial records secured through one of the "fishing expeditions" mentioned above. The FBI now has the power to search every financial institution in the country for the records of anybody that damned well please - and if they happen to get lucky, issue a subpoena. The Feds could decide that you are a shady character, GoAmerica, and search every banking record in the country using your name. Should they find a $5 deposit from an undeclared pizza-delivery tip or a baby-sitting fee on which you paid no tax, that's it: you could be done for laundering. And they wouldn't have come across your crime with a wire-tap - unless you were foolish enough to brag about your windfall to a girlfriend over the phone.


Wire-taps require a court order. As part of the process, court orders require probable cause. The search and subpoenas in this case did not. In fact, they didn't require anything - except the USA Patriot Act. This means that the subpoenas were obtained without probable cause and the arrests made without due process - at least as defined prior to October of 2001. I'm sure there are those who feel that this type of legislature should be on the books anyway. I'm not one of them. Do you feel that probable cause and due process are meaningless institutions which should be dispensed with?

...and to bring up a point on the Patriot Act from Feinstein, paraphrased, " So, really you cannot find ONE example of the Patriot Act being abused?" Once again the conspiracy nuts out in force, reiforced by bogus internet links that have been all but laughed at by both sides of a Congressional panel. If your going to debate, PLEASE bring some facts to the table...thank you and have a good weekend.

cusbilla

Yes, I knew those quotes were from the article. I guess I wanted some specific examples of "fishing expeditions". If I could see those, it might convince me that the PATRIOT act is overly broad. But so far all I ever see are general statements like those made in the article.

Thanks for the tip on the quotes. I deleted one accidently and obviously used the wrong bracket when I edited. My bad!

Thanks for fixing it Jaime!

The case in question would be a case in point. And the Isikoff article mentions another 6,397 "catches" from similar "fishing expeditions" - two-thirds of which were unrelated to terrorist activity of any kind. That would be 4,261 specific examples.

Wertz,

What is your definition of a "fishing expedition"?

In this case:



All of these people were suspects. That's not a fishing expedition, that good detective work and the PATRIOT Act allowed them to conduct a thorough investigation.



Does anyone know the definition of a "hit"? Would one hit be my Visa card, another my Discover card, another my IRS statement, another my savings, another my checking? See what I mean? I am one person who could have multiple hits on my financial records.

The article states that two-thirds of these were money-laundering cases. That leaves one third. Was that one third terrorist cases? If not, what were they? If they weren't related to terrorism or money-laundering, THEN we have an issue that needs to be addressed, in my opinion.

A "fishing expedition" is where you don't know whether the person really committed a crime, but you investigate them anyway, just because they MIGHT have. Or they might NOT have.

As you say, the Feds needed financial statements from the officials. Isn't clear on whether they got statements on officials who had NOT been bribed, which might have happened and if it did, that should have been illegal. Let them get a court order before they go after someone. If they have the evidence, judges are usually good enough to give them the order to open financial records. It's called "checks and balances".

As for wanting the definition of a "hit", it appears that would mean different financial institutions found a record for one of the "suspects". It also reads like 2/3 were for terrorist stuff (the intent of the Patriot Act) and one-third under the broad definition of "money laundering".

The worry here is that the Feds are able to search your records without a court order just because you are a "suspect", although they may not have enough evidence to get a court order for a real search.

And, as you say, if you're not guilty, you don't have anything to worry about. Yeah, that's our definition of liberty in the USA now. The government can do what they want to you... and if you're not guilty nothing bad will happen to you... or will it anyway?