The overall concept of the USA Patriot Act is well grounded, but there are provisions in it that verge on invading citizens’ civil liberties.
The Patriot Act was enacted 45 days after the horrific attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, took place.
The basic premise of the act is well justified. It expanded the government’s surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, financiers and their associates.
At the time it was enacted, there was a pressing need for better security to protect our country and this act provided just that. However, our haste to protect ourselves may have resulted in some provisions that are constitutionally suspect.
However, 15 provisions of the act will expire in December unless they are renewed by Congress.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is leading the charge to have these provisions renewed against arguments that certain provisions intrude into people’s private lives.
We take issue with the renewal of such provisions as Section 215, which allows the federal government to permit secret warrants for books, records, documents and papers from businesses, hospitals and other organizations.
This seems to be taking it a bit too far.
For example, a high school student checks out a book from a public library on building nuclear weapons for a book report.
Does this mean that he or she is a terrorist or should be investigated?
The federal government says that the provision doesn’t specifically mention bookstores or libraries. Critics say the government could use it to subpoena library and bookstore records to snoop into the lives of innocent citizens.
Another provision that seems to go too far is Section 213, which is called the “sneak and peek law.”
It allows federal agents to go into a person’s home, with a court order, and search and confiscate material without telling the person. On the surface, this would seem to be contrary to illegal search and seizure protections U.S. citizens enjoy.
We understand the need for much of the Patriot Act, but it was adopted at a time of fear.
Now an unlikely alliance of conservatives and liberals is urging close scrutiny of expiring provisions to ensure they don’t infringe on civil liberties.
Our country will be best served by striking the right balance between protecting our country and protecting freedoms.
The Patriot Act was enacted 45 days after the horrific attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, took place.
The basic premise of the act is well justified. It expanded the government’s surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, financiers and their associates.
At the time it was enacted, there was a pressing need for better security to protect our country and this act provided just that. However, our haste to protect ourselves may have resulted in some provisions that are constitutionally suspect.
However, 15 provisions of the act will expire in December unless they are renewed by Congress.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is leading the charge to have these provisions renewed against arguments that certain provisions intrude into people’s private lives.
We take issue with the renewal of such provisions as Section 215, which allows the federal government to permit secret warrants for books, records, documents and papers from businesses, hospitals and other organizations.
This seems to be taking it a bit too far.
For example, a high school student checks out a book from a public library on building nuclear weapons for a book report.
Does this mean that he or she is a terrorist or should be investigated?
The federal government says that the provision doesn’t specifically mention bookstores or libraries. Critics say the government could use it to subpoena library and bookstore records to snoop into the lives of innocent citizens.
Another provision that seems to go too far is Section 213, which is called the “sneak and peek law.”
It allows federal agents to go into a person’s home, with a court order, and search and confiscate material without telling the person. On the surface, this would seem to be contrary to illegal search and seizure protections U.S. citizens enjoy.
We understand the need for much of the Patriot Act, but it was adopted at a time of fear.
Now an unlikely alliance of conservatives and liberals is urging close scrutiny of expiring provisions to ensure they don’t infringe on civil liberties.
Our country will be best served by striking the right balance between protecting our country and protecting freedoms.
Comments