TheAgitator.com
Lap Dance Terrorism
Thursday, November 6th, 2003The FBI used the USA Patriot Act to obtain financial information about key figures in its ongoing political corruption probe centered on strip club magnate Michael Galardi, federal authorities confirmed Monday.Investigators “used a section of the Patriot Act to get subpoenas for financial documents,” said Special Agent Jim Stern, a spokesman for the Las Vegas field office of the FBI. “It was used appropriately by the FBI and was clearly within the legal parameters of the statute.”
Was it?
The Patriot Act, passed in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, was originally trumpeted by the government as a powerful tool that would assist federal law enforcement officials in combating and preventing terrorism.But the Bush administration has increasingly attracted criticism from civil libertarians for employing the wide-ranging act to crack down on everything from drug traffickers to child pornographers.
The provision used to obtain the information in the Galardi investigation is Section 314, sources said.
That section allows federal investigators to obtain information from any financial institution regarding the accounts of people suspected of being terrorists or laundering money.
Malone’s attorney said it is an outrage that the FBI is using anti-terrorism measures in an effort to gather information on his client.
“The Patriot Act was designed and was sold to the American people as being necessary to combat terrorism. It clearly was not intended for this,” Las Vegas attorney Dominic Gentile said. “I’m confident that the citizens of the United States are on my side on this one.”
Well, at least the unpatriotic citizens. More PATRIOT mission creep.
I was always under the impression that you could subpoena financial docs pre-Patriot.
But anyway, if it allows for subponeas of such docs for (1) terrorism OR (2) money laundering, why does this violate the statute.
Without having the statutory text in front of me, this discussion of the Spirit of the Patriot Act is stupid and banal. All statutes are defined by their terms, not the rhetoric used to implement them. Law enforcement can and should use the letter of the law to go against anyone they think is bad, e.g., Al Capone for tax evasion. The law limits their power, and periodic elections limit their discretion and provide a check.
Roach, the point is that the methods existed before Patriot, but that Patriot makes it easier than ever before for law enforcement to get that info.
It was supposed to be reserved for cases of National Security, and they’re working like mad to increase the scope.
Datarat you say “it was supposed to be reserved for National Security.” Who says that? Who said that? Which part of the statute said that?
That’s what I mean; we can all talk all day long aobut what a law really means or was supposed to do, but w/o referencing its text we’re all talking out of our asses.
The Patriot Act was sold as something to “get the terrorists” . . . the fact that it’s been expanding into other areas shouldn’t be suprizing, but the speed at which this has taken place is rather remarkable. I expect that drunk drivers, shoplifters, and people who sell bongs on the internet will soon be prosescuted under the Patriot Act.
“That’s what I mean; we can all talk all day long aobut what a law really means or was supposed to do, but w/o referencing its text we’re all talking out of our asses.”
If the letter of the law is what counts, then the people who passed ought to have read it first.
It really is depressing sometimes to realize just how on the fringe I am these days. While I certainly respect the right of my fellow countrymen to disagree with me, I just don’t get how they can sit back and watch this kind of crap with anything less than horror. I wish the FBI would get it over with and just change its name to the KGB.
So I am unpatriotic for wanting to put my government on a short leash? Who are you and what have you done with my country?
While such abuse is unsurprising, it certainly is unacceptable. [sotto voce]: Then again we went to War on a pretext that there were weapons of mass destruction so why not raid strip clubs on the idea that they may be tied to terrorism?
If you don’t see my point you are too late to get that tin-foil hat you’ve been needing.
The whole slide towards police state under the guise of national security is terribly disturbing. More disturbing is how many people defend all this with a: “well, if you’ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear”. We only get the liberty we demand and take for ourselves, there is always someone out there who does not want you to do what you want to do and sometimes these people get into high office.
Consider prohibition of booze: did it end bcse it was the right thing to do or because too many people were breaking the law and the government had to accept the inevitable? It is the same with many of the rights we enjoy.
For those who think that claiming that the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act has nothing to do with Terrorism didn’t read it and missed the point that this is what the “T” stands for. The money laundering thing was clearly included bcse it relates to the funding of terrorism – it was not a rider.
Here here, Diego. There are a few more of us than you might think.
I’m a little surprised we haven’t seen the “Well, the guy was obviously a crook anyway. What’s the big deal?” argument yet. My bet, tho, is this is the way it passes by virtually unprotested. But then, that’s why it was used in this case: start with an obvious scumbag and work down from there.
“Law enforcement can and should use the letter of the law to go against anyone they think is bad” – roach, 6-11-2003
Good. God. I can’t believe I just read that from a libertarian. Holy. Shit.