Lawmakers, many Americans, having second thoughts about Patriot Act
www.christiansciencemonitor.com
When the USA Patriot Act was passed by Congress in the days after the 9/11 attacks, it seemed to give the government, and in particular the Justice Department, a blank check to look for terrorists in whatever manner it deemed necessary. At the time, only one lawmaker, Senator Russ Feingold (D) of Wisconsin, voted against the bill.
But if recent events are any indication, the Justice Department's blank check may have past its expiration date. A growing number of lawmakers, communities, and individuals across the US are speaking out against the act.
The Associated Press reports a group of civil rights lawyers filed a challenge to a section of the Patriot Act that makes it illegal to provide "expert advice and assistance" to groups with alleged links to terrorists. The federal ban is unconstitutionally vague and should be struck down, the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights argued in a motion filed Tuesday in federal court. A week ago, the American Civil Liberties Union and several Muslim and Arab groups launched a suit challenging Section 215. Under Section 215 of the act, agents of the federal government do not need a search warrant or probable cause or suspicion of a crime to go through private records and search homes, in the name of rooting out terrorism.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill also seem to have the Patriot Act in their sights. GovExec.com reports that last Friday, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska introduced bill S. 1552, which was co-sponsored with privacy advocate Sen. Ron Wyden, (R) Ore. It seeks to curtail the expanded surveillance powers granted to law enforcement by the act, which was enacted into law shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Kenai Peninsula Clarion of Alaska reports that Ms. Murkowski's bill would allow a delay in announcing a search warrant but only in terrorism cases and only when the delay was necessary to protect someone's safety, to prevent a suspect from fleeing or to prevent evidence tampering.
"My goal is simply to make sure that our laws are balanced," Murkowski said in a statement. "I want to make sure that law enforcement has all the tools they need to protect us, while also protecting our individual freedoms and liberties—the very same principles upon which the United States was founded and that make this nation so great today."
Also last week, Mr. Feingold introduced legislation to limit the FBI's ability to obtain library, bookstore, medical and other records under the Act. The legislation is similar to that introduced by Independent Rep. Bernie Saunders of Vermont. Mr. Saunder's bill suffered a setback this week when GOP leaders barred additional amendments to the fiscal 2004 House Appropriations bill. Mr. Sanders said he is looking at other ways to get his bill passed.
One amendment that didn't have any problems was an anti-"sneak and peek" measure recently attached to the appropriations bill for the departments of Commerce, State and Justice by Republican Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter of Idaho. On July 22 the House voted overwhelmingly (309-118) in favor of this amendment, which will prohibit the Department of Justice from conducting "sneak and peek" searches of private property. The Billings Gazette of Montana reports the Patriot Act allows the government to secretly search the homes of suspects, confiscate property and monitor computers, without notifying the subjects of the search, or only informing them later that a warrant had been issued to conduct such a search.
The Justice Department angrily denounced the passage of the amendment, saying that the legislation should be the "terrorists' tipoff" amendment. Justice says it plans to fight the legislation. Writing in the National Journal, Stuart Taylor says "misguided libertarians" are hurting the war on terrorism with these kinds of actions.
We need less media misinformation, less libertarian hysteria, and more judicious congressional oversight of the (unfortunately uncooperative) Justice Department. The Patriot Act's critics have pointed to precious little evidence that it is anything like the engine of McCarthyite witch-hunts they depict it to be. And while a few sections do pose some risk of overly intrusive FBI spying, there are worse things than that. One of them is being murdered by terrorists.
But an editorial in the Visalia Times-Delta of California argues just as strongly that challenging the Patriot Act is not unpatriotic.
Dissent and discussion are not only guaranteed by our freedoms, they strengthen and nurture them. Failing to take the time to raise that dissent is the beginning of the loss of those freedoms. Dissent can also be the act of a patriot. In this country, it has been from the beginning.
Meanwhile, In These Times magazine comments on how opposition to the Patriot Act has created strange bedfellows.
Backlash against the Patriot legislation has created a fantasyland of political concord: Gun Owners of America nodding in agreement with the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), with the Green Party happily concurring. Organizations across the political spectrum, from village councils to national advocacy groups, are going on record opposing this newest potential assault on Americans’ civil liberties.
And it is on the local level where opposition to the Act has been growing most rapidly. Librarians have always been one group opposed to the bill. But The Bill of Rights Defense Committee reports that "three states and 140 cities, towns, and counties have passed resolutions protecting the civil liberties of their 16,800,342 residents." The group will hold its first national conference on Oct. 18 and 19 in Washington DC to provide individuals and organizations opposed to the Act a platform to express that opposition.
Declan McCullagh, writing for CNet.com, says the success of these anti-Patriot Act measures on the national and local levels signals a "rebirth of privacy." But he may be speaking too soon.
Attorney General John Ashcroft continues to defend the act, and says that he wants ever broader powers in the future. With the help of Sen Orrin Hatch of Utah, he wants to push the Victory Act (Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act). He plans to promote the new Act this month in a 10-day, 20-state Victory tour. If passed the bill would allow the government to clamp down on Arab hawala transactions, where cash exchanged in an honor system has been funneled to terrorists, and get business records without a court order in terrorism probes and delay notification. |
