Full Version: Patriot II Provisions Passed
A provision of the now defunct Patriot II act was recently added as a rider to the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, a legislative bill that funds all the intelligence activities of the federal government. The Act included a redefinition of "financial institution," which previously referred only to banks and like financial institutions.
Story on the passage of the bill can be found in The Free Republic
From a story in the San Antonio Current, reporter David Martin says that this legislation was signed on Saturday, December 13th, with none of the ususal bill-signing fanfare of this administration, while the rest of America was focused on the capture of Saddam Hussein.
The new definition of "financial institution"? Why just about anything and everything you do that concerns money, and every company you may have dealings with. Sound farfetched? Here's the list of what the government now considers a "financial institution":
An insured bank; a commercial bank or trust company; a private banker; an agency or branch of a foreign bank in the United States; any credit union; any thrift institution. A broker or dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission; a broker or dealer in securities or commodities; an investment banker or investment company; an insurance company.
A currency exchange; an issuer, redeemer, or cashier of travelers' checks, checks, money orders, or similar instruments. an operator of a credit card system; A dealer in precious metals, stones, or jewels; a pawnbroker; a loan or finance company; a mortgage broker; Persons involved in real estate closings and settlements; a travel agency;
A licensed sender of money or any other person who engages as a business in the transmission of funds, including any person who engages as a business in an informal money transfer system or any network of people who engage as a business in facilitating the transfer of money domestically or internationally outside of the conventional financial institutions system; (Think "PayPal", and similar companies) A telegraph company; (Western Union)
A business engaged in vehicle sales, including automobile, airplane, and boat sales. (Bought a car or boat lately?)
The United States Postal Service;
An agency of the United States Government or of a State or local government carrying out a duty or power of a business described in this paragraph; (Any place you may make payments for licenses or Permits)
A casino, gambling casino, or gaming establishment including Indian gaming operations.
Any business or agency which engages in any activity which the Secretary of the Treasury determines, by regulation, to be an activity which is similar to, related to, or a substitute for any activity in which any business described in this paragraph is authorized to engage. Any other business designated by the Secretary whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters.
In other words, almost any business you can name has now been designated a financial institution. And these records and documants can now be accessed by the FBI through the use of a "National Security Letter." Again, from the San Antonio Current article:
The questions to debate:
1. Do you think our own government is violating or subverting our 4th Amendment Constitutional rights with these kinds of laws?
2. Why is this administration intent on passing secretive legislation it knows it's citizens do not want? After all, these provisions did not even make it to a vote when we found out what was in the original Patriot II bill. So why enact them in secret now?
3. What can be done to force these kinds of laws to be debated and discussed publicly before passage of a bill that will limit out rights?
Story on the passage of the bill can be found in The Free Republic
From a story in the San Antonio Current, reporter David Martin says that this legislation was signed on Saturday, December 13th, with none of the ususal bill-signing fanfare of this administration, while the rest of America was focused on the capture of Saddam Hussein.
QUOTE
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.
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.
The new definition of "financial institution"? Why just about anything and everything you do that concerns money, and every company you may have dealings with. Sound farfetched? Here's the list of what the government now considers a "financial institution":
An insured bank; a commercial bank or trust company; a private banker; an agency or branch of a foreign bank in the United States; any credit union; any thrift institution. A broker or dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission; a broker or dealer in securities or commodities; an investment banker or investment company; an insurance company.
A currency exchange; an issuer, redeemer, or cashier of travelers' checks, checks, money orders, or similar instruments. an operator of a credit card system; A dealer in precious metals, stones, or jewels; a pawnbroker; a loan or finance company; a mortgage broker; Persons involved in real estate closings and settlements; a travel agency;
A licensed sender of money or any other person who engages as a business in the transmission of funds, including any person who engages as a business in an informal money transfer system or any network of people who engage as a business in facilitating the transfer of money domestically or internationally outside of the conventional financial institutions system; (Think "PayPal", and similar companies) A telegraph company; (Western Union)
A business engaged in vehicle sales, including automobile, airplane, and boat sales. (Bought a car or boat lately?)
The United States Postal Service;
An agency of the United States Government or of a State or local government carrying out a duty or power of a business described in this paragraph; (Any place you may make payments for licenses or Permits)
A casino, gambling casino, or gaming establishment including Indian gaming operations.
Any business or agency which engages in any activity which the Secretary of the Treasury determines, by regulation, to be an activity which is similar to, related to, or a substitute for any activity in which any business described in this paragraph is authorized to engage. Any other business designated by the Secretary whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters.
In other words, almost any business you can name has now been designated a financial institution. And these records and documants can now be accessed by the FBI through the use of a "National Security Letter." Again, from the San Antonio Current article:
QUOTE
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.
The questions to debate:
1. Do you think our own government is violating or subverting our 4th Amendment Constitutional rights with these kinds of laws?
2. Why is this administration intent on passing secretive legislation it knows it's citizens do not want? After all, these provisions did not even make it to a vote when we found out what was in the original Patriot II bill. So why enact them in secret now?
3. What can be done to force these kinds of laws to be debated and discussed publicly before passage of a bill that will limit out rights?
1.Do you think our own government is violating or subverting our 4th Amendment Constitutional rights with these kinds of laws?
2. Why is this administration intent on passing secretive legislation it knows it's citizens do not want? After all, these provisions did not even make it to a vote when we found out what was in the original Patriot II bill. So why enact them in secret now?
"secretive" might be hyperbole, as i believe we all had access to the administrations comings & goings, albeit through great pains. Of course, "discretely" might not paint the spirit of the passage of the Act.
3. What can be done to force these kinds of laws to be debated and discussed publicly before passage of a bill that will limit out rights?
mehopes it starts here
QUOTE(Amendment IV)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
sure seems that way to me, and i'm all for taking away the upperhand of the terrorists2. Why is this administration intent on passing secretive legislation it knows it's citizens do not want? After all, these provisions did not even make it to a vote when we found out what was in the original Patriot II bill. So why enact them in secret now?
"secretive" might be hyperbole, as i believe we all had access to the administrations comings & goings, albeit through great pains. Of course, "discretely" might not paint the spirit of the passage of the Act.
3. What can be done to force these kinds of laws to be debated and discussed publicly before passage of a bill that will limit out rights?
mehopes it starts here
We might well be in Germany -- 1930, right on the brink. But without the great beer!
1. Do you think our own government is violating or subverting our 4th Amendment Constitutional rights with these kinds of laws?
Does George Bush smirk?
2. Why is this administration intent on passing secretive legislation it knows it's citizens do not want?
Because they do not believe in the system of government to which they were "elected". They are corporatist autocrats who want to establish as authoritarian a form of government as possible in this country - and who want to remain in power forever.
After all, these provisions did not even make it to a vote when we found out what was in the original Patriot II bill. So why enact them in secret now?
Because they don't give a damn about "the will of the people". This administration - and its cowed, compliant legislature - is undemocratic, anti-American, and dangerous.
3. What can be done to force these kinds of laws to be debated and discussed publicly before passage of a bill that will limit out rights?
Not much. They own the media and control the debate. Vote. Organize. Pray. Get every rational patriot you know involved. Get every rational patriot you know to vote. Get these people as far from the reigns of power as possible. If not, the right to vote may be gone by 2008 - in the interests of "national security", of course.
Does George Bush smirk?
2. Why is this administration intent on passing secretive legislation it knows it's citizens do not want?
Because they do not believe in the system of government to which they were "elected". They are corporatist autocrats who want to establish as authoritarian a form of government as possible in this country - and who want to remain in power forever.
After all, these provisions did not even make it to a vote when we found out what was in the original Patriot II bill. So why enact them in secret now?
Because they don't give a damn about "the will of the people". This administration - and its cowed, compliant legislature - is undemocratic, anti-American, and dangerous.
3. What can be done to force these kinds of laws to be debated and discussed publicly before passage of a bill that will limit out rights?
Not much. They own the media and control the debate. Vote. Organize. Pray. Get every rational patriot you know involved. Get every rational patriot you know to vote. Get these people as far from the reigns of power as possible. If not, the right to vote may be gone by 2008 - in the interests of "national security", of course.
Gravity - Please avoid posting one-liners. They do nothing to futher this debate along, nor do they address the questions posed to us.
Debates are required to be constructive.
DEBATE QUESTIONS:
1. Do you think our own government is violating or subverting our 4th Amendment Constitutional rights with these kinds of laws?
2. Why is this administration intent on passing secretive legislation it knows it's citizens do not want? After all, these provisions did not even make it to a vote when we found out what was in the original Patriot II bill. So why enact them in secret now?
3. What can be done to force these kinds of laws to be debated and discussed publicly before passage of a bill that will limit out rights?
Debates are required to be constructive.
DEBATE QUESTIONS:
1. Do you think our own government is violating or subverting our 4th Amendment Constitutional rights with these kinds of laws?
2. Why is this administration intent on passing secretive legislation it knows it's citizens do not want? After all, these provisions did not even make it to a vote when we found out what was in the original Patriot II bill. So why enact them in secret now?
3. What can be done to force these kinds of laws to be debated and discussed publicly before passage of a bill that will limit out rights?
No question this is the end to life as we know it. I read the minutes to the last VRWC Oppression sub-committee meeting and it was determined that the next step required to remove the right of people to vote was to look into the financial transactions of American Indian Casinos. Now that that's been accomplished, we're DOOMED!!! 
Ok, now that I have that out of my system....... Seems to me that this rider, by itself merely seeks to close some loopholes in the current law that could be used to thwart criminal investigations, specifically those of terrorist organizations. "Following the money" is a key tool towards monitoring organizations like Al Qaeda because while they operate in unconventional ways, the one conventional thing we do know about them is they have to be able to transfer money to fund their operations. Of course they know that we know that, so conventional methods like ATM transfers through conventional banks aren't something they are likely to do. So does expanding the list of financial institutions to include non-conventional means of cash transfers further erode our 4th amendment rights? I don't think so, the vast majority of people use normal banks and banking methods anyway and those avenues are already covered.
I don't know that anything was done "in secret" particularly, obviously some people found out about it and I'd bet it's on THOMAS, no secret to that. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to have caused a floor debate in the Senate if this rider really caused alot of grief for someone. Obviously it didn't.
Ok, now that I have that out of my system....... Seems to me that this rider, by itself merely seeks to close some loopholes in the current law that could be used to thwart criminal investigations, specifically those of terrorist organizations. "Following the money" is a key tool towards monitoring organizations like Al Qaeda because while they operate in unconventional ways, the one conventional thing we do know about them is they have to be able to transfer money to fund their operations. Of course they know that we know that, so conventional methods like ATM transfers through conventional banks aren't something they are likely to do. So does expanding the list of financial institutions to include non-conventional means of cash transfers further erode our 4th amendment rights? I don't think so, the vast majority of people use normal banks and banking methods anyway and those avenues are already covered.
I don't know that anything was done "in secret" particularly, obviously some people found out about it and I'd bet it's on THOMAS, no secret to that. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to have caused a floor debate in the Senate if this rider really caused alot of grief for someone. Obviously it didn't.
QUOTE
Do you think our own government is violating or subverting our 4th Amendment Constitutional rights with these kinds of laws?
Well, let's see: QUOTE
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Yes, the gov't is violating the 4th amendment, quite obviously.QUOTE
Why is this administration intent on passing secretive legislation it knows it's citizens do not want? After all, these provisions did not even make it to a vote when we found out what was in the original Patriot II bill. So why enact them in secret now?
Good question.QUOTE
What can be done to force these kinds of laws to be debated and discussed publicly before passage of a bill that will limit out rights?
Protests need to be established, where's the ACLU on this one? They need to come out and make some noise [and themselves useful].CP
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Jan 5 2004, 12:46 PM)
Protests need to be established, where's the ACLU on this one? They need to come out and make some noise [and themselves useful].
Don't hold your breath on the ACLU with this one. Ever since the fallout from Skokie, the ACLU has really only taken on fringe issues that don't really matter much when it comes to true civil liberties. Not that there's much they could do with this one even if they wanted to.
The normal way the courts remedy a 4th amendment violation is to disallow the evidence obtained from that violation in a trial. A trial isn't the focus here, rather the Justice Department is looking at this as an investigatory tool for preventing a crime, not for prosecuting one already committed. All this rider appears to do, and I haven't read the specific language itself, is to expand the scope of FBI investigations into the "money trail".
Now, if you really want to worry about 4th amendment problems, don't look at the FBI, look at the IRS instead and good luck taking them on. They can not only search your bank records without a warrant, they can take your money out of the bank without one, and that has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. It's then up to you to prove they were mistaken in order to get your money back.
almost a year ago, the ACLU gave a section-by-section analysis of the draft of DSEA; their position is unpredictably strong, peppered with a little alarmist rhetoric, just so you know it's really them.
(link)
(link)
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.