Patriot Act I headlines

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following are headlines associated with Patriot Act I. Also see main article Patriot Act I, as well as Patriot Act II, Patriot Act abuses, and the Patriot Act industry.



Continuing News Links

General News Links



  • Anita Ramasastry, "Patriot II: The Sequel Why It's Even Scarier than the First Patriot Act," FindLaw's Legal Commentary, February 17, 2003.
  • Editorial: "In the Aftermath of Sept. 11," The New York Times, May 23, 2003: "The Justice Department has been relatively restrained in the use of the new terrorism-fighting powers it was granted after the Sept. 11 attacks, but the potential for abuse still exists. That is the message we get from the department's report to Congress this week on how it has employed provisions of the Patriot Act, which greatly expanded the government's authority to investigate potential terrorist threats within the United States."
  • Eric Lichtblau, "U.S. Cautiously Begins to Seize Millions in Foreign Banks," New York Times, May 30, 2003: Using provisions in Patriot Act I, "The Justice Department has begun using its expanded counterterrorism powers to seize millions of dollars from foreign banks that do business in the United States, creating tensions with the State Department and some allies."
  • Bill Adair, "Graham quiet about his role on Patriot Act. On the campaign trail, he isn't bringing up that he co-wrote the controversial bill in the Senate," St. Petersburg Times, June 14, 2003.
  • Elaine Cassel, "Not Clueless in Chicago. The War at Home," Civil Liberties Watch, August 28, 2003. Series of articles regarding Patriot Act I.
  • Eric Lichtblau, "U.S. Uses Terror Law to Pursue Crimes From Drugs to Swindling," New York Times, September 28, 2003: "The Bush administration, which calls the USA Patriot Act perhaps its most essential tool in fighting terrorists, has begun using the law with increasing frequency in many criminal investigations that have little or no connection to terrorism.... But critics of the administration's antiterrorism tactics assert that such use of the law is evidence the administration is using terrorism as a guise to pursue a broader law enforcement agenda."
  • "US anti-terrorism law debated," AFP (Yahoo), October 22, 2003: "A controversial package of anti-terrorism laws praised by authorities for making the United States safer approaches its second anniversary under fire as a threat to civil rights."
  • David Sarasohn, "Patriot Act's chief backer is a no-show," The Oregonian, October 22, 2003: "... the most striking thing about the hearing probably wasn't who did or didn't show up, but that it was being held at all. In the first of six scheduled hearings, the Judiciary Committee was looking at the USA Patriot Act, a bolstering of government power passed six weeks after 9/11, with only one senator voting no. ... Now, at least eight times as many senators -- four from each party -- are co-sponsoring bills to cut back the powers granted in the act. It's one of those annoying occasions when Congress may actually have to respond to constituents."
  • Anita Ramasastry, "Why We Should Fear The Matrix. The Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange Program Threatens To Revive Total Information Awareness," FindLaw's Writ, November 5, 2003.
  • Curt Anderson, "Ashcroft Chips Away At The Constitution...Again," CapitolHillBlue, November 6, 2003: "The FBI will be able to more easily check a person's background for potential terrorist activities under national security guidelines issued Wednesday by Attorney General John Ashcroft. ... Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the guidelines raise another caution flag in the nation's fight against terrorism. The ACLU and others have criticized the anti-terrorism Patriot Act that expanded government's surveillance and detention powers after the Sept. 11 attacks. ... 'This is exactly what Americans are worried about,' he said. 'It's the notion that the government can put your life under a microscope without any evidence that you're doing anything wrong.' ... Edgar said the changes could mark a return to the days when the FBI routinely opened investigations on Vietnam War protesters and other dissidents, before the first national security investigation guidelines were issued in 1976."
  • Gina Holland, "Attorney General Defends Patriot Act," Associated Press (Yahoo), November 15, 2003.
  • Jim Lobe, "Going Backwards. Patriot Act Expansion Moves Through Congress,", November 21, 2003.
  • Ryan Singel, "Congress Expands FBI Spying Power,", November 24, 2003: "Congress approved a bill on Friday that expands the reach of the Patriot Act, reduces oversight of the FBI and intelligence agencies and, according to critics, shifts the balance of power away from the legislature and the courts."
  • Richard B. Schmitt, "Patriot Act Author Has Concerns. Detaining citizens as 'enemy combatants' -- a policy not spelled out in the act -- is flawed, the legal scholar says," Los Angeles Times, November 30, 2003.
  • Gina Holland, "Supreme Court Intervenes in Kidnap Case," Associated Press (Yahoo), December 1, 2003: "The Supreme Court said Monday it would decide if federal agents can sneak into foreign countries to arrest suspected criminals and bring them to America for trial, a case that tests the reach of the government's terrorism-fighting powers. .. The Bush administration said covert kidnappings of suspects overseas are rare, but the government needs that authority."
  • Jesse J. Holland, "Anti-Patriot Act Measure Drops From Bill," Associated Press (Yahoo), December 2, 2003: "House measure rolling back part of the USA Patriot Act won't make it through Congress this year, but the measure's GOP author (Rep. C.L. Otter) says he'll try again next year."
  • "Bush Signs Bill Expanding FBI Authority," Associated Press (Yahoo), December 14, 2003: "The bill expands the number of businesses from which the FBI and other U.S. authorities conducting intelligence work can demand financial records without seeking court approval. ... Under current law, 'national security letters' can be issued to traditional financial institutions, such as banks and credit unions, to require them to turn over information. The bill expands the definition of financial institution to include other businesses that deal with large amounts of cash."
  • "US gets access to airline details," BBC, December 17, 2003: The "EU and the US have agreed a deal on sharing data on all airline passengers crossing the Atlantic as part of the fight against terrorism. ... It means that most personal details given at check-in will be sent to the US as soon as passengers leave Europe. ... The deal ends months of talks and comes despite protests over loss of privacy from the European parliament." [1]