"Doug Anderson" <dandy15@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Zd49b.15419$KW1.13873@twister.austin.rr.com.. .
> Bush Seeks to Expand Access to Private Data
> By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Thanks
"Doug Anderson" <dandy15@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Zd49b.15419$KW1.13873@twister.austin.rr.com.. .
> Bush Seeks to Expand Access to Private Data
> By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Thanks
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 21:35:55 +0100, "Use.Netuser.de"
<NoPapersImOnHoliday@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Doug Anderson" <dandy15@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Zd49b.15419$KW1.13873@twister.austin.rr.com. ..
>> Bush Seeks to Expand Access to Private Data
>> By ERIC LICHTBLAU
>
>Thanks
>
Isn't posting the article to usenet an violation of the copyright??
>
>CUSTOMER SERVICE
>
>Copyright Notice
>
>Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
>
>All rights reserved.
>
>All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of The New York Times Company. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
>
>However, you may download material from The New York Times on the Web (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal, noncommercial use only.
>
>For further information, see Section Two of the Subscriber Agreement.
>
>To contact other Times departments, see the Site Help area of our Member Center.
>
Grassy ass, Amigo!
"Doug Anderson" <dandy15@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Zd49b.15419$KW1.13873@twister.austin.rr.com.. .
> Bush Seeks to Expand Access to Private Data
> By ERIC LICHTBLAU
>
>
> ASHINGTON, Sept. 13 - For months, President Bush's advisers have assured a
> skittish public that law-abiding Americans have no reason to fear the long
> reach of the antiterrorism law
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/na...14PATR.html?hp
Quoted Text Per request...(it is a bit long...but you asked..LOL)
[Begin Quote]
Bush Seeks to Expand Access to Private Data
By Eric Lichtblau(NY Times 9/14/03)
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 - For months, President Bush's advisers have assured a skittish
public that law-abiding Americans have no reason to fear the long reach of the
antiterrorism law known as the Patriot Act because its most intrusive measures would
require a judge's sign-off.
But in a plan announced this week to expand counterterrorism powers, President Bush
adopted a very different tack. In a three-point presidential plan that critics are already
dubbing Patriot Act II, Mr. Bush is seeking broad new authority to allow federal agents -
without the approval of a judge or even a federal prosecutor - to demand private records
and compel testimony.
Mr. Bush also wants to expand the use of the death penalty in crimes like terrorist
financing, and he wants to make it tougher for defendants in such cases to be freed on
bail before trial. These proposals are also sure to prompt sharp debate, even among
Republicans.
Opponents say that the proposal to allow federal agents to issue subpoenas without the
approval of a judge or grand jury will significantly expand the law enforcement powers
granted by Congress after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And they say it will also allow
the Justice Department - after months of growing friction with some judges - to limit the
role of the judiciary still further in terrorism cases.
Indeed, Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, who is sponsoring the measure
to broaden the death penalty, said in an interview that he was troubled by the other
elements of Mr. Bush's plan. He said he wanted to hold hearings on the president's call
for strengthening the Justice Department's subpoena power "because I'm concerned that it
may be too sweeping." The no-bail proposal concerns him too, the senator said, because
"the Justice Department has gone too far. You have to have a reason to detain."
But administration officials defended Mr. Bush's plan. Even though the administration is
confident that the United States is winning the war on terrorism, they said, they have run
into legal obstacles that need to be addressed.
"We don't want to tie the hands of prosecutors behind their backs," said Mark Corallo, a
Justice Department spokesman, "and it's our responsibility when we find weaknesses in the
law to make suggestions to Congress on how to fix them."
In announcing his plan on Wednesday, Mr. Bush said one way to give authorities stronger
tools to fight terrorists was to let agents demand records through what are known as
administrative subpoenas, in order to move more quickly without waiting for a judge.
The president noted that the government already had the power to use such subpoenas
without a judge's consent to catch "crooked doctors" in health care fraud cases and other
investigations.
The analogy was accurate as far as it went, but what Mr. Bush did not mention, legal
experts said, was that administrative subpoenas are authorized in health care
investigations because they often begin as civil cases, where grand jury subpoenas cannot
be issued.
The Justice Department used administrative subpoenas more than 3,900 times in a variety of
cases in 2001, the last year for which data was available. The subpoenas are already
authorized in more than 300 kinds of investigations, Mr. Corallo said.
"It's just common sense that we should be able to use this tool against terrorists too,"
he said. "It's not a matter of more power. It's the fact that time is of the essence and
we may need to act quickly when a judge or a grand jury may not be available."
Officials could not cite specific examples in which difficulties in obtaining a subpoena
had slowed a terrorism investigation.
But Mr. Corallo gave a hypothetical example in which the F.B.I. received a tip in the
middle of the night that an unidentified terrorist had traveled to Boston. Under Mr.
Bush's plan, the F.B.I., rather than waiting for a judicial order, could subpoena all the
Boston hotels to get registries for each of their guests, then run those names against a
terrorist database for a match, he said.
Attorney General John Ashcroft and other senior officials, defending the Patriot Act in
recent speeches and interviews, have emphasized that judges must sign off on the
investigative tools that have caused the most public protest, like searching library
records or executing warrants without immediately notifying the target.
One section of the Justice Department's new Patriot Act Web site, lifeandliberty.gov, for
instance, says the law "allows federal agents to ask a court for an order to obtain
business records in national security terrorism cases."
The administration sought to expand the use of administrative subpoenas in the original
Patriot Act in 2001, but Democrats protested and succeeded in killing it.
Civil rights lawyers, defense advocates and some former prosecutors say they see no need
to broaden the Justice Department's powers so markedly. Under current law, they say,
terrorism investigators can typically get a subpoena in a matter of hours or minutes by
going through a judge or a grand jury.
"The fundamental issue here," Nicholas M. Gess, a former federal prosecutor and a senior
aide to the former attorney general Janet Reno, said, "is that at a time of such concern
over civil liberties, there's good reason to have a judge looking over the government's
shoulder."
Mr. Bush's proposal, he said, "means that there are no effective checks and balances. It's
very worrisome."
A second proposal by Mr. Bush would strengthen the government's hand in keeping defendants
charged with terrorism-related crimes in jail pending trial.
But critics like Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said they believed
the idea also posed risks of limiting the discretion of federal judges and giving the
Justice Department too much power.
Mr. Bush's proposal would require judges to presume that defendants in terrorism-related
offenses should not be allowed out on bail, unless the defense can persuade the judge
otherwise. The proposal defines terrorism to mean acts like murder, kidnapping or computer
attacks intended to "influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or
coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct."
Such no-bail restrictions, which effectively shift the burden of proof from prosecutors to
the defense in determining whether a defendant should be locked up, are already in place
for certain narcotics trafficking offenses and other charges.
"A suspected terrorist could be released, free to leave the country, or worse, before the
trial," Mr. Bush said. "This disparity in the law makes no sense. If dangerous drug
dealers can be held without bail in this way, Congress should allow for the same treatment
for accused terrorists."
Justice Department officials were angered this summer when judges in Alexandria, Va.,
freed on bail four men who were charged with supporting Kashmir terrorists. The judges
said they were not persuaded the men posed a clear danger or a flight risk.
Despite Mr. Bush's concerns, Justice Department officials said they knew of no specific
instances in which a person charged in a terrorism case had fled after being granted bail.
And critics said they were unconvinced the current laws needed fixing.
The third element of Mr. Bush's plan would expand the list of terrorism-related crimes
eligible for death.
Suspects like Zacarias Moussaoui, accused of taking part in the 9/11 conspiracy, already
face the prospect of the death penalty for the most serious terrorist offenses.
But Mr. Specter, who said he had worked on the issue for months before the White House
asked him to sponsor legislation, said his measure would allow execution for "gateway"
crimes like terrorist financing, even if the defendant does not carry out the attack.
"The financiers are really the principal culprits," he said.
The proposal would also extend the death penalty to a number of other criminal activities,
including sabotage of a defense installation or a nuclear facility.
[End Quote]
"-=ô;ö=-" <Not.Telling@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ke49b.7652$1D5.2702@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/na...14PATR.html?hp
>
> Quoted Text Per request...(it is a bit long...but you asked..LOL)
>
> [Begin Quote]
Thanks
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:31:12 GMT, "-=ô;ö=-" <Not.Telling@nowhere.com>
wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/na...14PATR.html?hp
>
>Quoted Text Per request...(it is a bit long...but you asked..LOL)
>
>[Begin Quote]
>
>Bush Seeks to Expand Access to Private Data
>By Eric Lichtblau(NY Times 9/14/03)
>
>
>
>[End Quote]
>
To people who own stock in companies that move their manufacturing and
white collar jobs to China or other countries outside the US, don't
you have any loyalty to America? Sell that stock now!!!
"-=ô;ö=-" <Not.Telling@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MP29b.23464$pd5.10438@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> http://www.MUNGED
>
> Gezzzzzzz...Talk about regression to Nazism....
>
>
abuse@verizon.net
Well, what about abuse@uswest.net for you Mr. Troll, oh sorry, Mr. Doe
"John Doe" <jd@here.invalid> wrote in message news:R0l9b.62$5f6.19202@news.uswest.net...
|
| "-=ô;ö=-" <Not.Telling@nowhere.com> wrote in message
| news:MP29b.23464$pd5.10438@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
| > http://www.MUNGED
| >
| > Gezzzzzzz...Talk about regression to Nazism....
| >
| >
| abuse@verizon.net
|
|
lucat bene, der "-=ô;ö=-" <Not.Telling@nowhere.com> goh, a hunnert
truxx inero, sumwit kowz n' sumwit duxx on Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:54:36
GMT:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/na...14PATR.html?hp
>
all i got was a form begging me for my personal information. f*ck
that...
Read the thread the full text was posted twice as well as the URL
"|3iff //ullins" <biff_mullins3@3premeditatedfun.com> wrote in message
news:ej5cmv4i7p1n6sfhnf0fp13p8e66b4ehti@4ax.com...
> lucat bene, der "-=ô;ö=-" <Not.Telling@nowhere.com> goh, a hunnert
> truxx inero, sumwit kowz n' sumwit duxx on Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:54:36
> GMT:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/na...14PATR.html?hp
> >
> all i got was a form begging me for my personal information. f*ck
> that...
>
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote