You are viewing [info]editrx's journal

 
 
28 December 2003 @ 07:30 pm
Patriot Act II Signed Into Legislation -- By Stealth  
READ THIS: With a Whisper, Not a Bang.

Did you know that parts of the much-ballyhooed (and boo'ed) Patriot Act II has been signed into legistlation by George W. Bush? That it was slipped into the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal 2004, and therefore was not subject to public debate, floor debate, or committee? That it allows the FBI to not only search and seize financial records of U.S. citizens, but they can now do it without any reference or suspicion of said citizens' connection to "terrorism" -- and puts a gag order on the financial institution to prevent them from even saying the records were ever turned over? Oh, and did I mention that the term "financial institution" now includes any organization that uses cash transactions? Yes, boys and girls, that means car dealerships, jewelers, stockbrokers, casinos -- the works. But you don't have to use a cash transaction to have your records seized by the FBI -- they can do it to anyone, for any reason whatsoever, for any transaction whatsoever. Oops -- so much for using that supermarket card that tracks everything you buy. Not a good idea, kids, unless you really want the FBI to know how much pasta you bought last month.

Best part of it all? Congress will no longer have the right to see what and when the FBI has used its powers to exercise this sort of search and seizure. Up until now, when the FBI wrote a letter demanding records from, say, a library, under the Patriot Act, it had to report to Congress that it was doing so and who was searched. But in these pieces of Patriot II, those records no longer are reported to Congress. NO ONE IS WATCHING THE WATCHMEN.

You didn't read about this? Not suprising. The Act was signed by Bush, on a rare Saturday, the day that Saddam Hussein was captured. Kind of overshadowed this legislative elephant, didn't it? No, no, you didn't see this in the news, boys and girls; look over here! Yes, here! Look, we got Saddam! Aren't we a good executive branch of government? No, no, don't look at these pieces of legislation that take away your right to have courts and judges oversee any search and seizure, watched by all sorts of safeguards. That's not what we want you to notice. That's why we sat on it, since around Thanksgiving, and waited to sign it until the United States citizenry was looking the other way.

What the hell kind of a country does this and still says it's a democracy? Okay, any of us with any wits about us know it's a republic, not a democracy, but, dammit to hell, we are not supposed to be living in a police state run by the government.

Am I the only person scared shitless by all of this?

ADDENDUM: To be fair, I direct you to follow the thread of discussion about this issue at Dav Farber's Interesting People mailing list. There are some cool, and informed, heads talking about the legislation and its possible repercussions.
 
 
Current Mood: outraged & frightened
Current Music: the sound of black helicopters
 
 
( 32 comments — Leave a comment )
Lisa[info]anoisblue on December 28th, 2003 05:08 pm (UTC)
Oh, no, you're not the only one.
serendipity: worried[info]serendipity on December 28th, 2003 05:22 pm (UTC)
Exactly what I was going to say.
Editrx[info]editrx on December 28th, 2003 05:26 pm (UTC)
Not to sound whining -- but WHAT DO WE DO? Protest does no good: it's either suppressed in the name of "public safety" or suppressed in the name of "national safety." No one in Congress seems to be worried enough to actually do anything. We didn't elect this bozo in the first place: can one impeach an un-elected president? (okay, stupid question, but it's got a point)

Worst of all: Even if we do the "right thing" and depend on ousting the current Resident by voting against him in the 2004 general election, what's to say he's going to allow that to happen? He didn't allow it to happen in 2000.

I don't want to think about leaving my home out of fear that what happened to my mother's family in France in the '40s could happen to me in this bright new century.

What to do???
serendipity: wmd[info]serendipity on December 28th, 2003 06:34 pm (UTC)
First of all we express our outrage! We need to act more out of anger than out of fear. And protest *does* do good, it's just that the wheels of justice grind slowly. Had it not been for anti-war protests in the 60's, the Vietnam War would've raged on and taking far more lives than it already did. If it weren't for protests and acts of civil disobedience fighting for civil rights in the past, our country would be in far worse shape than it is today. We must not, shall not be complacent - that would be far more dangerous than to be outraged.

And I need to ask you, a bit belatedly, if I can quote this post in its entirety in my journal (which I just did). It's so well-written that others reading it are sharing it, too, while crediting you. Is that OK with you? If it's not, I can make it Friends Only or use my own words to point people to the article.
Editrx[info]editrx on December 28th, 2003 06:42 pm (UTC)
Yes, belatedly (smile), please do use it. And use it!
serendipity[info]serendipity on December 28th, 2003 06:43 pm (UTC)
Oh, whew, thanks!
[info]ilenebook on December 29th, 2003 07:42 am (UTC)
My gripe...is ...
Democrats who complain..liberals who see the problems and do nothing...and don't vote. The republicans follow like sheep and they have the rule..
There isn't a good candidate they are fighting amoung themselves, and so we will lose to the rich and evil again. And we call Iraq evil..phufff! How long before we become just like them...uhhh...we already have a dictator.
serendipity[info]serendipity on December 29th, 2003 09:12 am (UTC)
Re: My gripe...is ...
Yep, I agree. But my point is that we can't give up, we have to keep up the fight. Historically sometimes we don't succeed for generations but we must continue to struggle, even when it looks hopeless.
[info]ilenebook on December 29th, 2003 06:55 pm (UTC)
Re: My gripe...is ...
Absolutely, just need for more demos to think they are not defeated.
Mary Kay[info]marykaykare on December 28th, 2003 06:41 pm (UTC)
Well, the whole thing is obviously unconstitutional and the ACLU lives for just this sort of fight. Join if you're not already a member (we have been since December of 2000 -- funny thing). Donate money to them. Check their website for suggested courses of action. Which I need to do real soon now myself. And, of course, work to get the bums thrown out.

MKK
[info]marieofroumania on December 28th, 2003 07:12 pm (UTC)
I'm very interested in finding out where you came up with this information. I don't see it on the White House website and none of my colleagues have heard anything about it.
Servalan[info]servalan on December 29th, 2003 02:30 am (UTC)
I'd be skeptical too, if it were only in one place. I saw a similarly themed article linked from NewsMax.com. If both the liberals and the conservatives are worried about this . . .

Regardless of the finger-pointing and attempted calming in this article, I'm still upset. I'd like my civil liberties back, please.

Mission Creep
i[info]i on December 29th, 2003 04:26 am (UTC)
H.R. 2417, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION AGREEMENT OF 2004

Whitehouse Statement on HR 2417 (December 13, 2003)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031213-3.html

HR 2417 was cleared by the Congress on November 21, 2003
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4862&sequence=0

Comments of Ron Paul, Congressman for Texas on HR 2417 :
It appears we are witnessing a stealth enactment of the enormously unpopular "Patriot II" legislation that was first leaked several months ago. Perhaps the national outcry when a draft of the Patriot II act was leaked has led its supporters to enact it one piece at a time in secret. Whatever the case, this is outrageous and unacceptable. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in rejecting this bill and its incredibly dangerous expansion of Federal police powers.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/h112203.html

[info]marieofroumania on December 29th, 2003 04:29 am (UTC)
Ah. I see it as a cause for concern, but not alarm, and the articles that I have seen on it have been TREMENDOUSLY slanted.
i[info]i on December 29th, 2003 04:32 am (UTC)
the complete text of the bill is here if you want to bypass the "slant"
[info]marieofroumania on December 29th, 2003 04:38 am (UTC)
I already read that; as I said, concern but not panic. Our energy is best spent voting Bush out of office, or trying to find WMDs, or something. It's scary but by far not the worst thing the Bush admin has done -- in full public view. 36,000 dead Iraqis come to mind.
i[info]i on December 29th, 2003 04:45 am (UTC)
what worries me is the potential, if they can get away with small steps like this right now, of a full assault on the constitution following the next 9-11. i wouldn't put it past them to suspend the presidential election process if another big one hits next fall or summer.
[info]marieofroumania on December 29th, 2003 04:47 am (UTC)
That worries me a lot too. What I'm most worried about is us, the American public, worrying so much about littler things that in the grand scheme of things don't matter that much that we expend our collective energy crying wolf, as it were...

Does that make sense?
i[info]i on December 29th, 2003 04:51 am (UTC)
yes. the politics of distraction are hard at work these days.
Editrx[info]editrx on December 29th, 2003 08:16 am (UTC)
please read
Please read the newspaper article cited, plus the thread of discussion in the archives (which are done daily) of the Interesting People mailing list, also listed as a link above in the post.

The IP list discussion includes comments by congressmen who voted the bill.
Editrx[info]editrx on December 30th, 2003 05:53 pm (UTC)
For future reference, I'm also an experienced journalist. Just because you haven't been able to find a reference doesn't mean someone else doesn't have the correct information. That's not meant to sound nasty in any way at all -- wanted you to know that I'm not necessarily just some Net idiot spouting information that's facecious. You made an assumption without really checking background on either myself (easily enough done, deliberately so on my part) or on the news in question (which is at the whitehouse.gov site as well as elsewhere). I even break news, at times, in my field. I'm sure you do, too. :)
[info]marieofroumania on December 30th, 2003 05:57 pm (UTC)
I did check the background information. Not yours, because why would I? but of the story because if Patriot 2 had been signed, as all the spun stories I found suggested, I would absolutely have heard about it.

I did not consider your background in any way relevant to the information. And yes, I occasionally break stories as well.
[info]marieofroumania on December 30th, 2003 06:51 pm (UTC)
Anyway, checking your background info it shows you're a book editor in New Hampshire? I mean, that's cool but... I don't see where you work for a news outlet. And I wouldn't have looked if you hadn't brought it up and I tried not to sound like I was being a know-it-all either. However, it did concern me, and I did ask our D.C., Pentagon and White House correspondents.
Editrx[info]editrx on December 30th, 2003 07:35 pm (UTC)
Forgive the observation, then, that you're not very good at research. I write for WIRED News, among others, which is quite noticeable if you (1) Googled my name, (2) read my website (noted on my LJ listing), (3) checked my name via archived news outlets.

There are many things I do professionally that aren't listed in my simplified LJ bio, including writing books, the latest of which I'm still touring for. (And how's that for a dangling participle late at night? Churchill would be proud.)

Secondly, I never wrote that the Patriot II Act was signed into legislation. Parts of the proposed Patriot II were introduced into the Act that was passed. Others in LJ and even news outlets, I've noticed, have gotten it into their heads to exaggerate this into a "Patriot II has passed" item -- which is blatantly not the full truth. What I columnized here, however, was simply that parts of the originally proposed Patriot II were slipped into a budget act. Please do not confuse me with people who have gotten this news item wrong.

What news outlets, and others, do you write for?
[info]marieofroumania on December 30th, 2003 07:48 pm (UTC)
It just didn't have a bearing on the pieces of the story I was interested in, so I didn't bother to Google your name. I'm pretty tunnel-visioned when I am onto the story.

Others in LJ and even news outlets, I've noticed, have gotten it into their heads to exaggerate this into a "Patriot II has passed" item -- which is blatantly not the full truth. What I columnized here, however, was simply that parts of the originally proposed Patriot II were slipped into a budget act. Please do not confuse me with people who have gotten this news item wrong.

That I apologize for, I had thought that you were referring to the San Antonio alternative whatever the hell and just bounced over to your site to ask for more information. Let me say right now that I in no way meant to imply you didn't know what you were talking about, but I come across as more brusque than I intend, sometimes.

I write and report for CNN. My name is Brooke Binkowski. Hi.
Editrx[info]editrx on December 30th, 2003 08:01 pm (UTC)
Hi Brooke. I get brusque too -- I think it's part of being a journalist and getting short on words, because God knows, the editor [usually someone like me, wearing my other hat] will cut everything after your 50th word.

BTW, the reason I'm still book editing for the NYC houses, but living in NH, is a long story, but the short of it is (1) because I can, given the length of time I've been in the industry at the large houses, and (2) because I needed to cut back on stress (which is another reason why I don't write full-time for BYTE anymore, either). And why I wrote a book on lupus. :)

I see you're at CNNRadio now and have lived in Alaska. One of the few states I've never been to -- and still want to see. I'm told spring there is incredibly beautiful. And you're like me -- look young. It's something I've come to treasure, even when I'm asked for ID from kids whose mothers are my age!
[info]marieofroumania on December 30th, 2003 08:14 pm (UTC)
That's awesome. What a life... I would love to be able to edit but I don't know whether I would have the patience not to through everything across the room. Don't tell anybody though, I like to pick on editors around here, because they pick on me.

Speaking of editors, I'm lucky in that we are kind of given free rein on our newscasts. Like, the attitude is the assn. editor/producer gives you the raw materials but you are pretty much expected to edit yourself. It's not like that so much at the international or domestic desks, or wires, but in this department we are kind of understaffed. Oh boy here I go! Sorry, I must cut myself short because I'll go on about the job ALL. DAY. LONG.

Also, I write for-broadcast and a lot of times on here I slip into that mode and it just sounds rude and I don't mean it at all.

Yes, I lived in Alaska, dont you love my bare bones bio? Everyone else writes their own but I thought it was stupid so I told my boss to write it. I don't have any awards to list, I didn't graduate from anywhere, I just kept pestering them to hire me and they eventually did. And I HATE that picture of me, I look like I am sitting on my own thumb.

I'm writing a novel myself now, and I have to work on my scripts so I'd better wrap this up. But let me just say, YAY! A KINDRED SPIRIT! I'm so glad you understand! Thank you for understanding what I meant and accepting my apology and all that kind of stuff. :)

OH! And Alaska is gorgeous in the spring and the summer, flowers everywhere, the air smells delicious, and it never gets over 80 degrees. But once that 8 weeks is over, then the winter... comes... and having grown up in San Diego, I'm a warm weather girl.

I'll show you pictures sometime, they are up online, somewhere.
Editrx[info]editrx on December 30th, 2003 08:37 pm (UTC)
I hear you about editors! My previous editor at BYTE, Daniel Dern, was one of the best, hands-off editors I've ever had -- knew just the right amount of prodding to use, asked just the right things to push me to make my news story or column just that much better, and knew when to leave well enough alone and let me edit/supervise myself. It was wonderful, and spoiled me no end! There have been other news editors at other outlets (unnamed here in public, for obvious reasons) that have made me practically homocidal and caused me to write exactly one story for them before I wanted to simultaneously throw up, kill something with my bare hands, break vases, and run away to live with the circus.

Sister! ;)

I have a slew of embarassing jacket photos taken of me for The Book. All taken while I was in a terrible flare of lupus and was all puffed up from taking cortecostoroids (can we say, looks like Nancy was holding nuts in her cheeks?). The least nasty of them was chosen.

So when will you be here for the Primary? I'm spitting distance from Manchester, NH, where all the good stuff is going down. The ground is thick with reporters at this stage -- and is getting thicker by the day. We're hosting an intern for the Dean campaign at our house right now -- nice, fresh-faced kid from Missouri who's studying poli sci and is out here for a few weeks to gain experience in presidential campaigns. They've got him canvassing, poor thing.
i: drunk while president[info]i on December 29th, 2003 04:11 am (UTC)
does PA II have an expiration date like PA I did?
Editrx[info]editrx on December 29th, 2003 03:42 pm (UTC)
Does it have an expiration date? Good question -- and the answer is, I'm not sure. I would be surprised if it has any expiration, given it is not actually an Act in itself (Patriot II Act was ridiculed so much that it was broken up into pieces, some of which show up in this Act). The Act in which the "Patriot II" pieces are embedded should shed some light. The links to it are up above, in the discussion here.

I'm glad people are talking! What scares me, more than the erosion of personal rights, is the slow erosion that's going on -- that's how governments can decay until one day we wake up and discover we're living under an entirely different government than we thought. It's the small, sneaky stuff that gets you in the end.

Both sides of the fence (Democrats and Republicans, in this case) "hide" things in Acts/Bills all the time -- it's how a lot of things get passed that would otherwise get shot down if they were all alone in a bill. It's how business is done in DC, and how it's always been done. I know it; many know it; and we all live with it. SOP in politics.

But to slip in things that were brought to light and unilaterally ridiculed as an erosion of personal rights -- things that not only the ACLU but some Republican senators said should never be put to action in the U.S. -- that's when I have to wonder what we're coming to. When did we allow the U.S. to slowly take on the face of a dictatorship? We may not be there yet, but the signs are there.
Dottore Graziano[info]antoniseb on December 30th, 2003 11:14 am (UTC)
Unavoidable
I am bothered by change. In this case what is changing is that it used to be that not every little thing I did was chronicled, and I don't like the idea that it is changing so that it is. However, the fact is that it is unavoidable that institutions will be able to access a lot of information about me in the years ahead. I think that what is needed most in this case is a demand that people in government be watched MORE closely than non-governing citizens. True, in thirty years there will be a semi-public record of how many squares of bathroom tissue I use on each instance of a bathroom trip, but I want a 24/7 camera on everyone who has access to that data. More importantly, there needs to be the kind of accountability that prevents the creation of the police state.
Editrx[info]editrx on December 30th, 2003 04:16 pm (UTC)
Re: Unavoidable
Exactly. What I find the most disturbing piece of this legislation is the dissolution of the accountability Congress had to oversee the use of Patriot Act searches. It used to be that any time a Security letter was presented to a financial institute, library, what-have-you, it went on a list that Congress oversaw. Even if the institute that had to cough up records was gag-ordered to prevent them even saying that a letter had been presented, more or less who was being investigated, at least someone was overseeing who was being watched. Per this new legislation, that is eliminated. Now that's scary. The possibilities for misuse should have us all shouting.
( 32 comments — Leave a comment )