The
indictment of three current and former Clark County and Las Vegas
officials in connection with a probe of alleged kickbacks from a
strip-club owner would be a fairly routine story - a lucrative activity
lots of people in government want to regulate heavily, which almost
always leads to opportunities for corruption - but for one detail.
As the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported, the FBI used the USA
Patriot Act to seize financial records of nightclub owner Michael
Galardi and others.
Wait a minute. Didn't the administration say, shortly after Sept.
11, 2001, that this act was needed to give the government more tools to
go after terrorists or plots that threatened the lives of innocent
Americans? Why invoke it in a relatively simple and localized case of
alleged municipal corruption?
Well, it seems that Sec. 314 of the act allows federal investigators
to obtain information from any financial institution regarding the
accounts of people "engaged in or reasonably suspected, based on
credible evidence, of engaging in terrorist acts or money-laundering
activities." Not money-laundering in connection with terrorism but any
money-laundering.
Nevada's Democratic U.S. Sen. Harry Reid is outraged. "The law was
intended for activities related to terrorism and not to naked women,"
he told the Review-Journal. Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley said, "It
was never my intention that the Patriot Act be used for garden-variety
crimes and investigations."
Maybe the legislators didn't intend it that way. But the act was
written broadly. We have heard U.S. attorneys acknowledge that it
included powers they have long sought for ordinary criminal
investigations as well as terrorist-related inquiries.
Those who insist that the lawmakers who passed it were well aware of
this, however, are not quite correct. The bill was passed in haste. The
final draft in its complete form - it had been cobbled together from
Clinton-era proposals Republicans had rejected as dangerously enhancing
federal power - was not available to most lawmakers at the time they
voted on it in October 2001. That may reflect poorly on our elected
representatives, but that's what happened.
All this strengthens the case for letting parts of the Patriot Act
expire in 2005, when they are scheduled to do so. It is dubious whether
federal authorities needed to be involved in a local corruption case at
all. And law enforcement already has tools to go after corruption.
As for terrorism, the emerging evidence suggests that the biggest
problem in pursuing suspects is overlapping bureaucracies that don't
share information, or bureaucracies that are too big and sclerotic to
operate efficiently and let terrorists slip through surveillance nets.
America needs to reform federal law enforcement in the direction of
leanness and efficiency rather than giving more power to agencies that
don't know how to properly use the power they have.