Congress Holds Hearings on Patriot Act

As White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales approved the use of torture writing that the usual prohibitions against barbarism did "not apply to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants." He also wrote that the war on terror "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." Now, as Attorney-General, he is pleading with Congress to renew all the provisions of the Patriot Act. If his judgment about torture doesn't call his judgment here into question, then a look at the alliance against him should -- it includes the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Conservative Union, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of blue state Illinois and Republican Senator Larry Craig of red state Idaho.

The Patriot Act could equally be called the "Steal Their Freedom" Act according to the opponents of the legislation. Officially known as "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001," the act passed a Congress reeling from the Al Qaeda murders of September 11, 2001, without a single legislator reading it. Introduced on October 23, 2001, and signed by President Bush three days later, the act was a rushed job. And like most hurried things, it was done badly in some respects.

The current hearings address some of the provisions that were done well, that is, those that will expire unless renewed by an affirmative act of Congress. The whole act should have been under a sunset provision, but even a few bits coming up for review gives the nation a chance to reconsider. Five states and 375 communities in 43 states have passed resolutions in their legislatures condemning the Patriot Act. Perhaps, reconsideration is in order.

Two of the more troubling features of the act are the so-called "library provision" and the "sneak and peek" warrants. Both are clearly an affront to freedom even if courts ultimately decide they are within the bounds of the Bill of Rights. The library provision essentially gives the government the right to check up on what a person has been reading by accessing library records and credit card receipts from book stores. While the government says it has never used this provision to look at library records, what is the point of government having a power it doesn't use? As for the sneak and peek warrants, the cutely named court orders let investigators toss a person's home in his absence and tell him about it a while later. The words "unreasonable search and seizure" spring to mind, a violation of Amendment IV. Justice says 155 such warrants have been requested since 2001. No word on how many were granted by judges who should know better.

Another worry is the FBI director's demand for even more power. He is asking Congress to give the FBI greater subpoena powers, by which the bureau can get hold of records without getting an order from a judge or a grand jury. Yet, the government is pleased to say that the Act has resulted in some successes outside of terrorism. A woman who killed a pregnant woman and cut the fetus from her body was arrested thanks to the Internet tracking the act enabled. Officials did a great job, and a tip of the cap for catching the perpetrator of this abomination. But that isn't what the act was for. Just as RICO wasn't designed to take out Wall Street crooks.

The Bush administration claims that the terrorists hate "our freedom." If so, it has struck upon an ingenious way to fight the battle. Rather than go after the terrorists with increased human intelligence and force directed at meaningful targets (rather than wars of choice), Mr. Bush's crowd seem to want to get rid of the freedom the terrorists hate so much. They won't have reason to attack America then. Only a former C-student could have thought of it.


© Copyright 2005 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.
Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home