Bush Grabs New Power for FBI

This stuff is simply frightening.

"Dempsey said the Intelligence Authorization Act is a favorite vehicle of politicians for expanding government powers without careful scrutiny. The bill, because of its sensitive nature, is generally drafted in relative secrecy and approved without extensive debate because it is viewed as a "must-pass" piece of legislation. The act provides funding for intelligence agencies."

"It's hard for the average member to vote against it," said Dempsey, "so it makes the perfect vehicle for getting what you want without too much fuss."

"We were the first to notice it outside of Congress," he said, "but we only noticed it in September after it had already passed in the House."

Rep. Porter Goss (R-Florida), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee that reviewed the bill, introduced the legislation into the House last year on June 11, where it passed two weeks later by a vote of 264-163. The Senate passed the legislation with a voice vote in November, which means there is no record of how individual senators voted or the number who opposed or supported it.

Charlie Mitchell, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said many legislators failed to recognize the significance of the legislation until it was too late. But the fact that 15 Republicans and over 100 Democrats voted against the bill in the House signifies that, had there been more time, there probably would have been sufficient opposition to remove the provision.

What is so sneaky about this is that these were the same provisions that Ashcroft wanted to put in Patriot Act II, but received so much opposition from both Republicans and Democrats that it was pulled.

Instead they put it into a MUST PASS intelligence bill that is NOT debated, in fact most of the politicians are not even invited to review it before it comes to vote.

Many of the provisions of the bill are classified SECRET, and are not allowed to be divulged. This was the bill they used to sneak these abhorent acts into.

The fact is now the FBI and with their cooperation any LE agency can review your bank accounts, real estate transaction, bills, in fact anything they want to WITHOUT a judges approval or any judicial review. all they need is a affidavit from a FBI agent certifying it is under the provenance national security.

These are the exact same laws passed by Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet State. In the guise of national security, they were then able to use these laws to quash political opposition, or more importantly cow people into doing their bidding.

You don't think theses laws won't be used except for national security??? Just pick up the San DIego paper. The Local authorities in concert with the FBI used powers provided in the Patriot Act to go after the owners of Strip Clubs (Cheetahs).

Now where is the national security risk in receiving a lap dance.


Lick Bush in 2004--It's now a moral imperative.


OG

I don't want to get into a Dem vs. Rep debate with anyone, but this is my single biggest issue right now and the main reason why Bush has to go, IMHO. I find my views leaning more conservative as time goes on, but this is something I am 100% with the Democrats on. I am watching a slow erosion and usurping of Americans' freedoms under the Bush Administration everyday and it concerns me greatly.

My example is just a small one and I am sure there are tons of examples that counter this.

I recognize two congressmen from Arizona by name. They are Jim Kolbe (R) my congressman, and Raul Grijalva (D), a former Pima County supervisor who had a congressional district handed to him on a silver platter from the 2000 census because it is mostly latino.

Kolbe voted yes, Grijalva voted no.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll649.xml

It's funny. I worry less about misuses of this kind of stuff from the current administration than I do about future ones. Considering how private companies have throughly abused the "information highway" to intrude into people's private lives I don't expect the government to be any different. Except perhaps the fact that when the government steals your possessions you have zero recourse. The RICO ACT started out with good intentions and then became used by any zealous agency who wanted to destroy someone. Ken Starr had no qualms about ruining people financially who were not even involved in Clinton's actions but whom he felt could provide some sort of information. And we all know of the numerous cases where the IRS has totally screwed someone over when they were the ones in the wrong. No one ever pays these people back for what is taken from then. Eminent domain expanded exponentially in the name of good.

>>>I am watching a slow erosion and usurping of Americans' freedoms under the Bush Administration everyday

No Xen, those freedoms are disappearing at anything but a "slow" rate. I think the presidency has to be given back to a Democrat for the next term for one reason - some of those supreme court justices just aren't going to last another term. And the way the supreme court interprets the constitution is the *only* thing that can stand in the way of them seriously abusing the power they're being handed willy-nilly by congress. Only a freedom-minded supreme court can/will rule that such powers violate the "unreasonable search" provision of the constitution.

If the supposed reason for all this draconian legislation is to help catch terrorists, why not just take those rights away from non-citizens? How many citizens are out there trying to help blow up their own countrymen? I doubt it's that many. And no doubt you could get search warrants for them the moment you discover evidence that they're in league with the enemy.

Power corrupts. That's as true of law enforcement personnel as it is anyone else. That's why our founding fathers limited the government's power, and put in checks and balances.

"If the supposed reason for all this draconian legislation is to help catch terrorists, why not just take those rights away from non-citizens?"

Well and it is not even that, IMO. The FBI has ALWAYS HAD THIS POWER, they just needed judicial oversight before. They needed to convince a judge they had a good reason for invading someone's privacy. Now they don't, they can now get this information about whomever they want and no one can say a damn thing about it.

A really good discussion about this is available from Slashdot.org:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/07/1742238&mode=thread&tid=123&tid=158&tid=99&threshold=-1

The ONLY thing this kind of legislation is good for is sliencing those people that disagree with whoever is in power. It is not going to catch any terrorists and it is not limited to such.

Here's something else to add to the pile.
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

I saw a slightly abridged version of this article in the San Francisco Chronicle, but they stated that the original appeared in the American Conservative magazine a few weeks ago. So I went and read the original at AmCon’s site. This type of stuff just chills me to no end. People with pro-Bush signs were allowed, but those with anti-Bush signs were removed or arrested? Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

And according to this quote, I am considered a potential terrorist: “In a May 2003 terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who “expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government.”

Really, when the same article can appear in both the American Conservative magazine AND the San Francisco Chronicle, one should stop and think about what’s going on!

Libertarians are pissed off more than any liberal Democrat ever could be with bullshit like this. It's just amazing to me - I can't wait for the pendulum to swing back. I don't know when it will happen, but as a former liberal Northeast Republican (we all got gulag from the party after Clinton was elected - I love Clinton, by the way) it makes me sick to see this. It is funny though, some Libertarians are moving over to the Demo side.

When would you have ever thought that Democrats would have both better economic policies than Republicans and libertarian/hands off policies?

Oh yeah, and I love the last sentence. Republicans are scared shitless of Hillary Clinton, and that is a fact. As an article in the Post a few weeks ago mentioned, whenever Republicans need to whip the Jesus freaks and neo-cons and all the other fuckheads into agreement on something, they start talking about Hillary "to scare the children".

It's kind of funny, I personally would not like to see Hillary ever get elected to anything higher than the Senate, but I have to admit, it would be funny as shit to see Rush, the transvestite Ann Coulter and the others just fucking drop a shit brick and turn purple with the idea of Hillary taking the oath of office.

>In a May 2003 terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law
>enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who “expressed dislike of attitudes and
>decisions of the U.S. government.”

Now everyone in congress is a terrorist - at some point. But seriously, that's one of the most asinine things I've ever read. This country was founded by people who disagreed with the government (the king of England). The day you can no longer speak out against government policies without getting locked up is the day you should get the hell out of any such country - before it's too late to leave.

Found this to be an interesting read:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05146/510879.stm

There are a few things in here that really blur the line between the government and private companies.

What do you guys think?

RG.