How to Read the New York Times

Forget the front page of the New York Times, the real news is buried on page A8 and A12.

On page A8 is an article about comments by Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, in which he describes the conflict in Iraq as a "war" in a conscious effort to "inject some realism" into the discussions in Washington. Gen. Sanchez also says that the failure to capture Saddam Hussein was "critical" and has impeded US efforts to make headway in Iraq. [link]

Now can we legitimately say that there's a disconnect between what's going on in Iraq and what the Bush administration is saying is going on in Iraq? Certainly, the commanders in the field think so.

* * *

On page A12 is an article noting that the House and Senate have passed a bill that significantly expands the FBI's ability to get access to financial records without a warrant. The section, tucked away in the intelligence appropriations bill for 2004, is a masterstroke of hiding in plain sight. At the end of this post is the link to the Times article, but in the interest of this academic exercise, don't click on the link until you get there...

The section in question, Section 354, reads as follows [link]:

The Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq.) is amended--

(1) in section 1101(1) (12 U.S.C. 3401(1)), by inserting `, except as provided in section 1114,' before `means any office'; and

(2) in section 1114 (12 U.S.C. 3414), by adding at the end the following:

`(c) For purposes of this section, the term `financial institution' has the same meaning as in section 5312(a)(2) of title 31, United States Code, except that, for purposes of this section, such term shall include only such a financial institution any part of which is located inside any State or territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the United States Virgin Islands.'.

Ask yourself how any reasonably intelligent person is supposed to know what that means. The title of the section gives you some clue that we're modifying the definition of "financial institution", but from what and to what? Hard to say. So perhaps an enterprising senator would look to the Senate committee report, which would simply tell you that

The definition of `financial institution' in the Right to Financial Privacy Act--essentially unmodified since the Act became law in 1978--significantly excludes certain entities that provide financial services to the public. Financial records maintained by these entities are not covered by the Act and, thus, are not accessible by counterintelligence and foreign intelligence elements of the U.S. Government under the Act, limiting the effectiveness of national security investigations. In order to expand the definition of `financial institution' for purposes only of section 1114, this subsection adopts, in part, the definition of `financial institution' found in section 5312(a)(2) of title 31, United States Code. The expansion of this definition is consistent with the definition used in section 804(5) of the Counterintelligence and Security Enhancements Act of 1994, Public Law 103-359 (50 U.S.C. 438). [link]

Not very helpful, huh? But hey, we all know what "financial institutions" refers to, don't we? We could all make a list of financial institutions and it would be pretty exhaustive, wouldn't it? It would have banks of various stripes (federally insured, thrifts, foreign charters, etc.), and broker-dealers, and credit-card companies. If you thought about it, you might include insurance companies and currency exchanges on the list, right?

But would your list include jewelers? Mine does. It also includes telegraph companies, travel agents, car dealers, marinas, casinos, Indian bingo halls and the U.S. Postal Service. I'm willing to bet that your list doesn't have those things on it. In fact, section 5312(a)(2) of title 31 of the US Code contains no fewer than 24 types of entity that are considered to be "financial institutions", many of which no reasonable person would suspect of being on such a list. [link to statute] [link to Times article]

So there you have it -- a sweeping new invasion of the Fourth Amendment gets hidden in plain sight and made into law with no one knowing what they've done. On the bright side, however, we now have another reason to hate used car salesmen...