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.")

http://news.com.com/2061-10789_3-5736302.html?part=rss&tag=5736302&subj=news

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Anon

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal -- well-meaning but without understanding." - Louis D. Brandeis

This is a continuation of our journey down a very slippery slope. Except in cases where a terrorist attack seems imminent, I can see little reason why a judge should not be required to approve such activity, and approve whether that activity should be kept secret from the persons under scrutiny.

"So much for the 'Land Of The Free'." - Phoenixguy

Going after "terrorists" is all well and good, but why has no one has suggested any sweeping measures to deal with an even greater danger ... corporate thieves? If the FBI and their ilk been given sweeping powers to investigate corporate giants, all those folks who invested in the various Enrons would still have their pension money. Would anyone shed a tear if General Motors' or IBM's book keeping department was raided? Baring individuals from flying just because their name is similar to another person's name is suppose to make us safe? Gimme a break.

Don't get me started.

Damn Senators have been really pissing me off these days!

You know, the Bush Administration is going on about the 400 people apprehended under this Act, but virtually all of them are minor criminals caught doing non-terrorist activities. So, they take away our freedom for this small crap. In the final analysis, they could take away any of our rights, catch some pickpockets, and claim victory.

Well here is another example of the misuse of the Patriot Act.

As most of you know an airline is required to provide a passenger manifest to the U.S. government within 15 min. of that flight taking off on an international flight to the U.S.

Last month a man by the name of David Curruthers, who is a British citizen was on his way to Costa Rica from the U.K. His flight made a stop in Dallas and he was arrested.

Was he charged with any terror related crime? No this guy was the CEO of Betonsports.com, an online gambling site, who operates out of Costa Rica and Antigua.

The U.S. Attorney's office in Missouri claims to have jurisdiction because the company allegedly broke the law by giving instructions on how to open wagering accounts among other offenses.

Regarldless of your opinion about on-line gambling and gambling in general, I see a real danger in the manner in which the government has abused the Patriot Act.

What's your opinion?

RG.

I think I will be very glad to see the congress change to something other than a rubber stamp for the current Executive come November. The man has no clue why there need to be limits on government power. He seems to have no inkling of that which our founding fathers knew - that unbridled government power inevitably leads to tyrrany.