Local View: Patriot Act reform a vital issue

 No comments  
 E-mail Story
 Print Story
  Share

 digg it!
 Facebook
 del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Fark It
Reddit

Text Size: 

Tools Sponsor

By Mark Weddleton

“The greatest threat to freedom always is concentration of power in government,” declared Sen. Chuck Hagel to explain his support for renegotiation of a bill renewing portions of the Patriot Act (LJS, Dec. 15). Hagel’s stand reflects a growing willingness among many to express their reservations about the Patriot Act.

In October the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Association of Realtors sent a letter to Sen. Arlen Specter, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stating their readiness to “do our part to keep the nation safe” while questioning whether provisions of the Patriot Act impose unfair burdens on business and unnecessary infringements on individual privacy.

Making “reforms to the business records provisions of the Patriot Act is a vital issue for American business,” the letter explains.

Under the Act the FBI can issue their own order — without court approval — demanding that sensitive financial and personal records of any American be turned over by doctors, travel agencies, video rental stores, credit card companies, financial planners, Internet service providers and many others. This unrestrained power “must be rejected,” the business groups declared.

The law must be changed to ensure “a meaningful right to challenge the order when the order is unreasonable, oppressive or seeks privileged information, as well as the right to challenge the permanent gag order attached to the demand.”

“Reforming the Patriot Act is an important step to ensure that powerful law enforcement tools are focused on those who would do us harm and that privacy rights and businesses interests are protected by the checks and balances our Constitution demands.”

How are these checks and balances working? Not too well, according to the business groups.

They stressed the need for reform of the Patriot Act so that the judiciary can “serve as a vital check over the government’s powers because it can equitably weigh the government’s interests against the interests of individuals and businesses whose livelihoods, legal responsibilities, and civil liberties are in question.”

The president has asserted that post-Sept. 11, 2001, war powers allow him to operate without court oversight in national security cases. This raises a red flag that he believes his authority as commander in chief trumps constitutional checks and balances.

In December it came to light that President Bush has authorized repeated domestic wiretapping without a court warrant despite prohibition of this by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The FISA act set up a special top-level court to approve eavesdropping in national security cases. The law was passed after evidence emerged that previous presidents — both Democrats and Republicans — had abused this power by authorizing the FBI to tap the phones of political opponents, including Martin Luther King Jr.

If court oversight has been hamstrung, perhaps Congress has stepped in to keep on top of things? Not according to the members of the bipartisan blue-ribbon commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, including former Sen. Bob Kerrey. They issued a final “report card” in December on progress in implementing the proposals they made to ensure the terrorist attacks are not repeated.

Congress has been “dysfunctional” in playing its constitutional role of oversight on the use of executive power, Commission members reported. “Congress has provided powerful authorities to the Executive branch. … Congress now needs to be an effective check and balance on the Executive.”

But has the expanded, unchecked presidential power made us safer?

Commission members declared, “We see some positive changes. But there is so much more to be done. There are far too many C’s, D’s, and F’s in the report card we will issue today. Many obvious steps that the American people assume have been completed, have not been. Our leadership is distracted. … Some of these failures are shocking.”

Can the politicians in Washington rise above partisan maneuvering to use the extension of time for debate on renewal of the Patriot Act to craft a bill that truly keeps us both safe and free? That remains to be seen. Hagel’s willingness to take a stand for civil liberties is a promising sign that the widespread calls for reform are being heard and can make a difference.

In 2004 the Lincoln Bill of Rights Defense Coalition engaged thousands of our city’s residents in a discussion on the Patriot Act in civic clubs, neighborhood associations, church forums, union halls and on street corners. This grassroots effort culminated in the passage of the Defense of Liberty resolution by the Lincoln City Council. With that act Lincoln joined what is now over 400 cities and states that have issued calls for changes to the Patriot Act to defend privacy and individual freedom.

In the coming weeks, as Congress discusses Patriot Act renewal, these independent voices from the Heartland need to be raised again on this issue of vital importance to all Americans.

Mark Weddleton is a public school teacher and a leader of the Lincoln Bill of Rights Defense Coalition.