Bush signed that bill

[Burzhui]

i never likd him :angry:

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush (news - web sites) on Friday signed a sweeping anti-terrorism bill into law, giving police and intelligence agencies vast new powers to ``counter a threat like no other our nation has ever faced.''

``Today, we take an essential step in defeating terrorists while protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans,'' Bush said in an East Room ceremony even as the government grappled with a series of anthrax cases that may be linked to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

``This government will enforce this law with all the urgency of a nation at war,'' Bush said.

The legislation, while somewhat weakened from the administration's original proposal, expands the FBI (news - web sites)'s wiretapping and electronic surveillance authority and imposes stronger penalties for harboring or financing terrorists. It increases the number of crimes considered terrorist acts and toughens the punishment for committing them.

The bill also gives police wide-ranging new anti-terrorism powers to secretly search people's homes and business records and to eavesdrop on telephone and computer conversations.

``This law will give intelligence and law enforcement officials new tools to fight a present danger,'' Bush said.

The ceremony, attended by Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites), lawmakers and uniformed law enforcement officials, came one day after Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) said the Justice Department (news - web sites) will begin using the new powers immediately.

``Upon the president's signature, I will direct investigators and prosecutors to begin immediately seeking court orders to intercept communications related to an expanded list of crimes under the legislation,'' he said.

Lawmakers, worried about possible abuse of the new wiretapping and surveillance powers, placed a four-year cap on that part of the legislation.

``It gives us the time to investigate whether there were any outrageous abuses,'' Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news - bio - voting record), D-Calif., said.

The House and Senate approved Bush's anti-terrorism package in less than two months, skipping much of the normal committee process in their haste. Lawmakers say they still came up with a good bill.

``The gestation period has been a few weeks. But it's a heck of a lot better than to have given birth to a monster, and we didn't do that,'' said Sen. Patrick Leahy (news - bio - voting record), D-Vt., the Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) chairman.

Critics disagreed. ``It is still dangerous legislation, and unfortunately there are still too many weaknesses in the bill that could end up curbing and infringing fundamental civil rights and liberties,'' said Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People For the American Way.

Sen. Russ Feingold (news - bio - voting record), D-Wis., was the only senator to vote against the package. ``This bill does not strike the right balance between empowering law enforcement and protecting civil liberties,'' Feingold said.

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch (news - bio - voting record), senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, retorted: ``I don't know anybody in this country who's afraid of their law enforcement people at this time. They're afraid of terrorism.''

The new legislation allows nationwide jurisdiction for search warrants and electronic surveillance devices, including legal expansion of those devices to e-mail and the Internet. It also authorizes the use of roving wiretaps, in which officials get orders that allow them to tap whatever telephone a person uses instead of one telephone at a time.

Senators also insisted on tacking money-laundering stipulations into the bill to thwart the flow of money to terrorist groups and protect the U.S. banking system from illicit money.

The House inserted an expiration date for the new wiretapping and electronic surveillance powers. Under the bill, Congress has to renew the anti-terrorism legislation before Dec. 31, 2005, or the eavesdropping sections expire.

Ashcroft and Bush fought strongly against that provision, but Republican leaders in the House told them the bill could not muster a majority without it.

-

The bill is H.R. 3162.

[topane]

Originally posted by Burzhui
The House inserted an expiration date for the new wiretapping and electronic surveillance powers. Under the bill, Congress has to renew the anti-terrorism legislation before Dec. 31, 2005, or the eavesdropping sections expire. Thank God. That's the only good part of this bill.

[Burzhui]

Originally posted by topane
Thank God. That's the only good part of this bill.

but we get 3.12 years of this stupid crap, who knows what will come next

[Nanotech9]

its way too easy to renew that crap too.

[johnnymk]

Amendment IV of the United States Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Burzhui]

Originally posted by johnnymk
Amendment IV of the United States Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

*FLUSH*round and round and round it goes*FLUSH*

[Apex]

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2001&rollnumber=398

See how your house rep voted. 357-66.

For the senate, it passed 98-1, with only Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) voting against it.

[Markel]

A vote like that, and Burzhui blames Bush for this bill???? :confused:

[pennypinch]

Well, now we know how to get stuff done in Congress. Fire a few powdery envelopes around and the government is your oyster.

[mojo]

Originally posted by Burzhui


but we get 3.12 years of this stupid crap, who knows what will come next
at a time like this, i am wondering if anyone else would have done any differently

[Apex]

Originally posted by mojorisin

at a time like this, i am wondering if anyone else would have done any differently

No, but complaining about it is very easy and offers hours of diversion.

If he didn't sign it, you'd probably hear the very same people complaining about his lack of concern for the safety of the American people.

[Markel]

Originally posted by Apex
If he didn't sign it, you'd probably hear the very same people complaining about his lack of concern for the safety of the American people.
And what would be labelled his refusal to acknowledge an obviously bipartisan decision by Congress.

[Sir_Froggy]

ah well

if it gets all messed up we can always blame the terrorists....

[Y2J]

Worst Episode Ever

[johnnymk]

Let's hope that the term "terrorist" doesn't get expanded to "dissident". If history proves anything, it will.

[topane]

The President doesn't make the laws, Congress does. He couldn't have vetoed that if he wanted to. At least the RIAA wasn't able to tack their **** into an amendment.

[johnnymk]

WASHINGTON — The Federal Bureau of Investigation is seeking to broaden considerably its ability to tap into Internet traffic in its quest to root out terrorists, going beyond even the new measures afforded in anti-terror legislation signed by President Bush Friday, according to lawyers familiar with the FBI’s plans.



Stewart Baker, an attorney at the Washington D.C.-based Steptoe & Johnson and a former general consul to National Security Agency, said the FBI has plans to change the architecture of the Internet and route traffic through central servers that it would be able to monitor e-mail more easily.

The plans goes well beyond the Carnivore e-mail-sniffing system which allows the FBI to search for and extract specific e-mails off the Internet and generated so much controversy among privacy advocates and civil libertarians before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

“From the work I’ve been doing, I’ve seen the efforts the FBI has been making and it suggests that they are going to unveil this in the next few months,” Baker said of the plan.

FBI Spokesman Paul Bresson said he was unaware of any development in the e-mail surveillance arena that would require major architectural changes in the Internet, but acknowledged that such a plan is possible.

Any new efforts would “would be in compliance with wiretapping statutes,” Bresson said. “We would be remiss if we didn’t.”

Such a move might have been unthinkable before Sept. 11.

Last year, privacy groups and civil libertarians howled in protest when the FBI trotted out plans to start using the Carnivore system. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Washington was ready to go full rounds with the government in court over Carnivore, and House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, asked Attorney General John Ashcroft to take another look at its constitutionality.

Now, though, the country is asking for more, not less, law enforcement on the Internet, and even those who once complained are coming around.

“I have two minds on this,” says Fred Peterson, vice president of government affairs for the Xybernaut Corporation, which manufactures computer technology for military and law enforcement. The past six weeks have left little doubt in most peoples’ mind, he said, that new measures must be taken.

“I think that the threat has increased and while (FBI) demands were unreasonable at a time when the threat was less immediate and less fatal – it’s just not the same story anymore,” he said.

Others are still skeptical, though not as much.

“I don’t think (FBI) motives are bad, but I do think they’re using people’s current state of mind – they’re using it to their advantage,” said Mikal Condon, staff attorney for EPIC.

The new FBI plans would give the agency a technical backdoor to the networks of Internet service providers’ like AOL and Earthlink and Web hosting companies, Baker said. It would concentrate Internet traffic in several central locations where e-mail and other web activity could be wiretapped.

Baker said he expects the agency will approach the Internet companies on an individual basis to ask for their help in the endeavor.

But Jim Harper, staff counsel for privacy advocate Privacilla.org said the FBI may have a hard time convincing some companies to redesign the Internet on its behalf. “It’s not really surprising, but I would be shocked to see if it gets done,” he said. “Restructuring the Internet? I don’t think so.”

Others say the Internet companies will not put up much of a fight.

Sue Ashdown, executive director of the Washington-based American ISP Association, an Internet company trade group, said most Internet companies aren’t healthy enough financially to take on the government in court to protect their subscribers’ privacy rights. And no one, she says, wants to appear hostile to law enforcement right now.

“I know there are a lot of members in the association with feelings on both sides,” said Ashdown.

“In the current patriotic climate, enterprises of all types will likely play along with the FBI in order to avoid a public relations disaster,” said Gene Riccoboni, an Internet attorney with the Stamford, Connecticut-based Grimes & Battersby.