Date:   8/23/2003 2:37:56 AM ( 21 y ago)
Hits:   1,473
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=619933

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

Patriot Act II Resurrected?


By Ryan Singel | Also by this reporter Page 1 of 2 next »

02:00 AM Aug. 21, 2003 PT

Congress may consider a bill that not only expands the government's wiretapping and investigative powers but also would link low-level drug dealing to Terrorism and ban a traditional form of Middle Eastern banking.

The draft legislation -- titled the Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act of 2003, or Victory Act -- includes significant portions of the so-called Patriot Act II, which faced broad opposition from conservatives and liberals alike and embarrassed the Justice Department when it was leaked to the press in February.


The Victory Act also seems to be an attempt to merge the war on Terrorism and the war on drugs into a single campaign. It includes a raft of provisions increasing the government's ability to investigate, wiretap, prosecute and incarcerate money launderers, fugitives, "narco-terrorists" and nonviolent drug dealers. The bill also outlaws hawalas, the informal and documentless money transferring systems widely used in the Middle East, India and parts of Asia.

A June 27 draft of the bill, authored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and co-sponsored by four fellow Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, has been circulating in Washington, D.C.

Critics say the bill is an opportunistic attempt to link the fight against drugs to the fight against Terrorism by creating a new crime called "narco-terrorism." According to the draft, narco-terrorism is the crime of selling, distributing or manufacturing a controlled substance with the intent of helping a terrorist group.

While this draft legislation's focus differs significantly from the much-criticized Patriot II draft leaked to the press in February, Hatch's bill contains several passages from that draft.

Among other things, the bill would:

Allow the FBI to get a wiretap order on a wireless device, such as a Cell Phone , from any district court in the country
Force defendants who are trying to exclude illegal wiretap evidence to prove police intentionally broke the rules
Further restrict judges' sentencing discretion in drug cases
Ease restrictions on government access to sensitive financial records
Increase penalties for selling drugs to people under the age of 21
Make it easier for the government to seize or freeze assets of people accused of money laundering
Remove gradations of sentencing for those convicted of selling amphetamines so that anyone convicted of possessing more than 250 meth pills would automatically go to jail for 200 years
Increase the ability of the FBI to self-issue subpoenas for terrorism investigations without having to consult a judge
Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said he suspects that the Justice Department was heavily involved in the drafting of the bill.

"It reads like what you would come up with if you got a whole bunch of prosecutors in a room and asked them, 'If you could rewrite the law, what would it look like?'" Edgar said. "It's cleverly packaged as an antiterrorism package, when really it's just a grab bag of changes the Justice Department wants."

"The amendments look small, but in aggregate represent a large shift in power to the government away from the judiciary, defense lawyers and other components of the justice system," he said.

The Justice Department did not return repeated calls for comment on its involvement with the draft.

Margarita Tapia, Hatch's spokeswoman at the Judiciary Committee, declined to speak about the legislation's provisions, the Justice Department's involvement or the time frame for the bill's introduction.

"Narco-terrorism is an issue that is of continuing interest to this committee," said Tapia, noting that the committee held a hearing in 2001 on the subject. "So of course, the chairman would look at all legislative options to eliminate financing mechanisms for terrorist organizations."

In a May Judiciary Committee hearing, Hatch said he had long been concerned about the "nexus forming between international organized crime, political movements and terrorism.

"Terrorists around the world, and in every region, appear to be increasing their involvement in the trafficking of illegal drugs, primarily as a source of financing for their terrorist operations," said Hatch. "The connection between Middle Eastern terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and Latin American drug trafficking, has been reported in the tri-border area of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay, which has long been characterized as a regional hub for radical Islamic groups, which engage in arms and drug trafficking, contraband smuggling, money laundering and movement of pirated goods."

Critics said the attempt to connect drugs to terrorism may be an effort to raise support for the so-called war on drugs.

"This bill struck me as a way to link a dying concept of how to fight the drug war to other issues that still have public support, like the war on terrorism," said Ryan King, a research associate at the Sentencing Project. "It's counter to what we have seen in the last few years, at least state-wise, where states are turning to drug treatment and alternative sentencing options.

"If the Justice Department is trying to link terrorism to high-level drug dealing, why turn around then and try to punish street-level dealers?" asked King.

Lee Tien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation worries most about the wiretap provision that would make it harder for a defendant to exclude evidence if the wiretap was not legal.

"This creates a question of fact as to what is 'bad faith,'" Tien said. "That can be really hard to show."

"Every time, the (FBI) has a violation of wiretap procedures, they can just say, 'We made a mistake.'" Tien said. "That encourages sloppiness."

The bill's critics all emphasize, however, that the bill is likely to be quite different when it is introduced, which many expect will happen in September when Congress returns from its summer break.

"Part of the reason bills change when drafts become known is because people take shots at it," said the ACLU's Edgar.

The future of the Victory Act may hinge on Ashcroft's success in defending the Patriot Act, according to King. Ashcroft will be traveling the country in the next few days defending the Patriot Act, which is losing support from Congressional members and local government officials.

"How Ashcroft's tour is received will decide what will go forward in the fall and what cannot," said King.

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60129-2,00.html
 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.03 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=619933