Answer: Apparently Everything

Yesterday, I asked why the FBI was characterizing the LAX gunman, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, as a "terrorist" even though he acted alone and there was no evidence he intended to effect political or societal change or cause widespread fear through his actions. Perhaps the answer can be found in this article from today's Salt Lake Tribune:

Hatch's amendment to make permanent Patriot's expanded law enforcement authority to wiretap, electronically eavesdrop, monitor personal Internet use, require Internet Service Providers to disclose subscriber information and allow greater access to financial records was to be attached to the so-called "lone wolf terrorist" bill now pending in Congress.

Currently, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) only authorizes FBI surveillance or physical searches of noncitizens when there is probable cause to believe he or she is an agent of a foreign government or an international terrorist organization.

Hatch said he supports amending FISA to allow surveillance of suspects not associated with an organization or country, but opposes allowing the new provisions, like the Patriot Act, to expire in 2005.

"As everyone knows, I opposed including the sunset in the Patriot Act and I oppose applying that same sunset to this provision as well," he said in a statement. "If enacted, [it] will only serve to jeopardize legitimate law enforcement and intelligence agency efforts to disrupt terrorists and protect our country."

It certainly sounds like the FBI is lobbying Congress to expand the "Patriot Act" to alleged crimes where no link to terrorist organization groups exist. If no proof of a tie to a terrorist group or foreign country is required, almost any premeditated crime could be considered a "terrorist act." Shouldn't the Congress be investigating numerous abuses and failures of the F.B.I. rather than writing the F.B.I. a blank check?