An Unnecessary Step
Congress returns to work after the July 4th break and has a full agenda to run through before the Labor Day Weekend. When they go home in September, they really want to be able to tell their constituents how hard they've been working and how successful that work turned out. The 2006 election season will be upon them, and they know it.
One of the items of legislation they will be considering is that of The Patriot Act, parts of which sunset this year. Additionally, several agencies have requested a broadening of powers with respect to their work for homeland security.
Now, all along I've despised the Patriot Act as an incredible attack on our civil liberties and as a dangerous admission that democracy can be railroaded by unreasoning panic. I think the whole damned thing should be repealed now that we've calmed down a bit (and I don't think the horrific London bombings have ultimately re-riled us, but that's another post for another day) and a completely new bill, if one is necessary, should be drafted with the first ten amendments in mind.
Amazingly, The New York Times appears to agree (at least in part).
The Patriot Act already gives government too much power to spy on ordinary Americans, but things could get far worse. Congress is considering adding a broad new investigative power, known as the administrative subpoena, that would allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation to gain access to anyone's financial, medical, employment and even library records without approval from a judge and even without the target knowing about it. Members of Congress should block this disturbing provision from becoming law.
The bill would allow the F.B.I. to order that the subpoenas be kept secret. That means record holders, like banks or employers, would not be able to inform the person whose private information was being handed over. It would also make it difficult for Congress, and the public, to know whether the F.B.I. was abusing its enormous new powers.[Emphasis added]
I'm old enough to remember the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover with its presence at anti-war rallies and civil rights demonstrations. The extent to which this agency collected information on decent citizens for purposes of intimidation staggered people once the Freedom of Information Act process came into play. I don't think we need a replay of such behavior.
The Times piece wisely concludes that the current proposal of an "administrative subpoena" is both unnecessary and unwise:
The proposed new administrative subpoena power is a solution in search of a problem. In testimony before Congress, the F.B.I. could not point to examples of national security investigations that were deterred by its lack of administrative subpoena power.
Hopefully Congress will pay attention this time.
One of the items of legislation they will be considering is that of The Patriot Act, parts of which sunset this year. Additionally, several agencies have requested a broadening of powers with respect to their work for homeland security.
Now, all along I've despised the Patriot Act as an incredible attack on our civil liberties and as a dangerous admission that democracy can be railroaded by unreasoning panic. I think the whole damned thing should be repealed now that we've calmed down a bit (and I don't think the horrific London bombings have ultimately re-riled us, but that's another post for another day) and a completely new bill, if one is necessary, should be drafted with the first ten amendments in mind.
Amazingly, The New York Times appears to agree (at least in part).
The Patriot Act already gives government too much power to spy on ordinary Americans, but things could get far worse. Congress is considering adding a broad new investigative power, known as the administrative subpoena, that would allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation to gain access to anyone's financial, medical, employment and even library records without approval from a judge and even without the target knowing about it. Members of Congress should block this disturbing provision from becoming law.
The bill would allow the F.B.I. to order that the subpoenas be kept secret. That means record holders, like banks or employers, would not be able to inform the person whose private information was being handed over. It would also make it difficult for Congress, and the public, to know whether the F.B.I. was abusing its enormous new powers.[Emphasis added]
I'm old enough to remember the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover with its presence at anti-war rallies and civil rights demonstrations. The extent to which this agency collected information on decent citizens for purposes of intimidation staggered people once the Freedom of Information Act process came into play. I don't think we need a replay of such behavior.
The Times piece wisely concludes that the current proposal of an "administrative subpoena" is both unnecessary and unwise:
The proposed new administrative subpoena power is a solution in search of a problem. In testimony before Congress, the F.B.I. could not point to examples of national security investigations that were deterred by its lack of administrative subpoena power.
Hopefully Congress will pay attention this time.
posted by Diane at 6:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home