Patriot Act to be Expanded

[Mike Douglas]

June 7, 2005 7:22 PM PDT

Senate panel votes to expand Patriot Act

Forget scaling back the Patriot Act.

Instead, the controversial post-9/11 law would be expanded to give the FBI new powers to demand documents from companies without a judge's approval, according to a vote late Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence committee.

The final text of the Senate Intelligence committee's amendments was not immediately available (here's a draft dated last month), and reporters were barred from the secret session during which the vote was held.

But the proposal appears to grant the FBI more power to seek information from banks, hospitals, libraries, and so on through "administrative subpoenas" without prior judicial oversight. The subpoenas are only supposed to be used for terrorism or clandestine intelligence cases.

One other detail: the FBI may designate that the subpoenas are secret and punish disclosure of their existence with up to one year in prison (and five years if the disclosure is deemed to "obstruct an investigation.")

In testimony in April, FBI director Robert Mueller said: "The administrative subpoena power would be a valuable complement to (existing) tools and provide added efficiency to the FBI's ability to investigate and disrupt terrorism operations and our intelligence gathering efforts."

The ACLU denounced the Senate Intelligence committee's vote. "In a move antithetical to our Constitution, the new 'administrative subpoena' authority would let the FBI write and approve its own search orders for intelligence investigations, without prior judicial approval," the group said in a statement. "Americans have a reasonable expectation that their federal government will not gather records about their health, their wealth and the transactions of their daily life without probable cause of a crime and without a court order."

In theory, the expand-the-Patriot-Act bill now goes to the Senate floor for a vote. But some negotiations are likely to take place between the Intelligence and Judiciary committee, and that could affect the final form of the legislation.

Posted by Declan McCullagh

from http://news.com.com/2061-10789_3-5736302.html

More commentary later...

[Fred Derf Veteran]

The scary bit is that Bush wants in permanent (i.e. no sunset clause).

[Hurmoth]

The scary bit is that Bush wants in permanent (i.e. no sunset clause).

586041025[/snapback]

Great idea (Y)

[EDIT] There are some things in the Patriot Act that I don't agree with.

[rumbleph1$h]

The scary bit is that Bush wants in permanent (i.e. no sunset clause).

586041025[/snapback]

Nothing is ever permanent. It could always be repealed or amended at a later time, just like any other act. A sunset does nothing but guarantee more work and time spent (necessary or not) by Congress in the future.

On a side note, I think the PATRIOT Act has to be one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented (whether intentional or unintentional) pieces of legislature in the past few decades. People wrongfully blame any and all sorts of ills or invasions of privacy they hear about on the PATRIOT Act.

[LispyGlitter2]

we are all doomed if this passes :s *gives the finger to bush and his acolytes*

[PseudoRandomDragon]

I don't think they understand the importance of having the courts approve actions that allow the FBI to take documents and deploy surveillance.

[Mike Douglas]

Nothing is ever permanent. It could always be repealed or amended at a later time, just like any other act. A sunset does nothing but guarantee more work and time spent (necessary or not) by Congress in the future.

On a side note, I think the PATRIOT Act has to be one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented (whether intentional or unintentional) pieces of legislature in the past few decades. People wrongfully blame any and all sorts of ills or invasions of privacy they hear about on the PATRIOT Act.

586042113[/snapback]

What is there to misunderstand about 'administrative subpoenas'? What I see is probable cause being thrown out the window... I always thought that was kind of important. How much more freedom will Americans give away before it becomes "too much"? Should we allow the government to record every phone conversation in case something might be useful to them? Next public trails and juries will be deemed a 'hassle'.

What use is national security if there are no freedoms left to protect.

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

perhaps its blammed for intrusions on freedoms, because it allows it. like code_monkey said, administrative subpoenas are administrative subpoenas, there is nothing there for one to confuse or minsconstrude, it is what it is. the patriot act is basically what i like to call alien and sedition acts part 2. history really does repeat itself...

[Axon]

Why is this sort of thing allowed? If someone tried to pull this in Canada there would be large protests. An example is when Alberta Premier Ralph Klien said he'd use the Not With Standing Clause on Bill C38 ('Gay Marriage Bill). Not only were some of the citizens of his own province protesting, people all over the nation were, and he hasn't even done anything yet!

-Ax

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

because people in the US fall for the nice owellian names like "patriot act" or "operation iraqi freedom." so basically it is subliminally placed in the minds of the average US citizen that if u are against such things, then u arent patriotic or you dont want people to have freedom. therefore, there are no protests anymore (atleast massive public ones, online underground type stuff goes on all the time against this stuff) for fear of the national media questioning such values. its a shame really :no:

[rumbleph1$h]

perhaps its blammed for intrusions on freedoms, because it allows it.  like code_monkey said, administrative subpoenas are administrative subpoenas, there is nothing there for one to confuse or minsconstrude, it is what it is.  the patriot act is basically what i like to call alien and sedition acts part 2.  history really does repeat itself...

586042760[/snapback]

Really? What exactly is so radical here? Administrative subpoenas are often used in both civil and criminal investigation arena. Should we deny this same ability to investigations of national security? It's illogical. It's not hard to see why time is a major element in terrorism investigations. "If we can use these subpoenas to catch crooked doctors, the Congress should allow law enforcement officials to use them in catching terrorists." ~ George W. Bush

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

the thing is, there arent any safeguards. these powers can be abused and will be because humans are in charge of government. if these subpoenas could be guarenteed to be used strictly for terrorism investigations, then im all for it. but the current patriot act has nothing that would accomplish such safeguards. for instance, with this, i could say on here (this is all hypothetical of course, i do not hate bush, i just dont think he shouldl be president because he is doing an awful job)

"I hate President Bush. He is no better than the terrorists."

if an FBI agent was on here reading that and didnt like that, he could get my ip address, track my post, and in the morning i could have a swat team at my front door waiting for me. With the power of this Admin Subpoena as it stands, the could lock me, my parents, my brother, hell even my friends if they looked at emails and didnt like what was in them. after that we could be locked up, no lawyer, and not needing any proof that we were enemies.

Quite frankly i dont care how great the threat is, i dont like the idea of that. if im a terrorist, then they can get evidence and go to a judge to get a subpoena. this is just another power that lets the government get rid of people they dont like regardless of the reason, and anyone in their right mind would be against this. if you are going to protect freedom, then taking them away isnt the way (although it is more efficent when there is no more freedom to protect...)

[rumbleph1$h]

the thing is, there arent any safeguards.  these powers can be abused and will be because humans are in charge of government.  if these subpoenas could be guarenteed to be used strictly for terrorism investigations, then im all for it.  but the current patriot act has nothing that would accomplish such safeguards.  for instance, with this, i could say on here (this is all hypothetical of course, i do not hate bush, i just dont think he shouldl be president because he is doing an awful job)

"I hate President Bush.  He is no better than the terrorists."

if an FBI agent was on here reading that and didnt like that, he could get my ip address, track my post, and in the morning i could have a swat team at my front door waiting for me.  With the power of this Admin Subpoena as it stands, the could lock me, my parents, my brother, hell even my friends if they looked at emails and didnt like what was in them.  after that we could be locked up, no lawyer, and not needing any proof that we were enemies. 

Quite frankly i dont care how great the threat is, i dont like the idea of that.  if im a terrorist, then they can get evidence and go to a judge to get a subpoena.  this is just another power that lets the government get rid of people they dont like regardless of the reason, and anyone in their right mind would be against this.  if you are going to protect freedom, then taking them away isnt the way (although it is more efficent when there is no more freedom to protect...)

586043084[/snapback]

First off, they will still be subject to Congressional oversight (i.e. reporting to committees quarterly), and later Judicial oversight. Also, as far as I've heard, these Administrative Subpoenas are only applicable to investigations concerning 'foreign agents'. They also cannot be used on a random person excercising first amendment rights as per your example. They can only be used to request information relevant to an ongoing investigation of a foreign agent in the U.S.

And one more thing - I know people are always shocked and hate to hear this, but in nearly every criminal and civil investigation - innocent people are investigated! There's only one way to distinguish the guilty from the innocent. If FBI agents find a cell phone in an Al Qaeda op's pocket, they should be expected to follow up on every number in there. It's not about infringing on the rights of the American public. It's about protecting the safety of the American public - and that is the Fed. Gov and FBI's number one responsibility.

[Mike Douglas]

innocent people are investigated!

586043225[/snapback]

All the more reason to ensure safeguards are in place.

[rumbleph1$h]

All the more reason to ensure safeguards are in place.

586043303[/snapback]

'safeguards' from what?

[Mike Douglas]

'safeguards' from what?

586043318[/snapback]

You can't see how the FBI might abuse being able to write and enforce there own subpoenas?

[Mike Douglas]

Administrative subpoenas are often used in both civil and criminal investigation arena.

586043014[/snapback]

Almost all administrative subpoenas are for regulatory issues, SEC, mine safety, etc. And none of them have the power to hide the subpoena from the individual under investigation.

[rumbleph1$h]

You can't see how the FBI might abuse being able to write and enforce there own subpoenas?

586043332[/snapback]

I can't see why they would want to abuse it.

[Mike Douglas]

I can't see why they would want to abuse it.

586043358[/snapback]

This is what leads to the loss of more and more freedoms, believing that we can give the government ultimate power and that why will use it responsibility (its not like a government has ever had a scandal or mismanaged something right?).

Why would an FBI officer go to all the work of proving probable cause when they can just walk right into house?

[rumbleph1$h]

Almost all administrative subpoenas are for regulatory issues, SEC, mine safety, etc. And none of them have the power to hide the subpoena from the individual under investigation.

586043353[/snapback]

Apples and oranges. You're talking about all sorts of branches of the federal government's 'administrative subpoena' powers. I'm talking about the topic at hand - FBI's current 'administrative subpoena' powers. The FBI can use administrative subpoenas in investigations of everything from organized crime to drug trafficking to child pornography - but not terrorism investigations.

Also, need I remind you that these changes only affect the FISA part of the PATRIOT Act which deals with 'FOREIGN AGENTS' only? To clarify - directly from FISA provisions: "foreign agent: an individual who is an agent of foreign power based upon his status as a non-United States person (a U.S. citizen, resident alien or U.S. corporation) who acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of an international terrorist group".

[Mike Douglas]

Apples and oranges. You're talking about all sorts of branches of the federal government's 'administrative subpoena' powers. I'm talking about the topic at hand - FBI's current 'administrative subpoena' powers. The FBI can use administrative subpoenas in investigations of everything from organized crime to drug trafficking to child pornography - but not terrorism investigations.

I was unaware of this, I'll have to do some more research.

Also, need I remind you that these changes only affect the FISA part of the PATRIOT Act which deals with 'FOREIGN AGENTS' only? To clarify - directly from FISA provisions: "foreign agent: an individual who is an agent of foreign power based upon his status as a non-United States person (a U.S. citizen, resident alien or U.S. corporation) who acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of an international terrorist group".

586043418[/snapback]

Even suspected terrorists deserve rights.

[Axon]

I was unaware of this, I'll have to do some more research.

Even suspected terrorists deserve rights.

586043601[/snapback]

Exactly. Suspected. This goes way back to burning 'witches'. Just calling someone a witch could have them burned at the stake. Now calling someone a terrorist can mean a full scale invasion of their privacy.

-Ax

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

I can't see why they would want to abuse it.

586043358[/snapback]

you dont have to see why the would want to, the matter is that they would because they are human. if you give a group as powerful as the fbi ultimate power to do what they want, then they will abuse it, its human nature. and unfortunatly human nature is more powerful than ones moral or ethical obligations.

i could care less what kind of threat is out there, if our freedoms are taken away in exchange for getting rid of a POSSIBLE terrorist threat, then im not for it, and believe it or not around 49% of americans are against it too, if not more now. orginization is what we need to catch terrorists, not the suspention of privacy and judicial rights.

[Palin]

Because of what I'm sure are my own faults, I really have a hard time empathizing with any American would actually support the Patriot Act. Just reading through them (either Patriot I or II, which was killed but then resurrected and passed as a series of riders) make me flinch.

This goes double for the people who fashion themselves "conservatives" who support it. Fueling a state of fear with propoganda to take away individual rights to privacy for the convenience of a government seems deeply antithetical to the very definition of conservatism.

What was it Aldous Huxley said in the preface to "Brave New World?" Something to the effect of, "People won't go down fighting in the face of a successful totalitarism. They'll embrace it with open arms."

Here's a better quote of his:

A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.

[PseudoRandomDragon]

I can't see why they would want to abuse it.

586043358[/snapback]

You have to understand that the FBI isn't this suprime entity. It is made up of people, all of which are subject to evil intentions. With the safeguard in place, a malicious FBI agent would be much less likely to commit an illegal act of searching because of the higher possibility of being caught and punished. After all, it would require him avoiding a judge's decision which would make it much more obvious. Without the safeguard, the chance of getting caught decreases, which makes the incentive to commit the crime more worth it.

The safeguard helps protect against people in the FBI performing acts of malice or stupidity against people like us (or people with darker skin, or certain names).