Chicago Indymedia : http://chicago.indymedia.org/archive
Chicago Indymedia

LOCAL News :: Media

Chicago Trib Endorses Patriot Act 2

Ramping up support for the Bush Administration's attack on civil liberties, the Chicago Tribune has uneqivocally endorsed the renewal of the Patriot Act in the paper's June 7 lead editorial. The Trib has invited readers to send their opinions on whether the Patiot Act should be renewed or repealed to ctc-tribletter (at) tribune.com with "Patriot Act" in the subject line. Responses will be published online and in the Saturday 'Voice of the people'.
Editorial text:

The Patriot Act, Round 2
Published June 7, 2005
Chicago Tribune

The USA Patriot Act has been at the center of controversy since it was first proposed in the days following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Critics depicted it as a vast and unprecedented assault on civil liberties, and their opposition is just as fervent today. The Bush administration argues that, though useful, the law is inadequate for the war on terrorism and is asking Congress to grant additional powers.

So Congress has to resolve a loaded question this year: Should the Patriot Act be stronger, be weaker, or should it go away?

The view here is that Congress has good reason to renew the Patriot Act, including the more controversial provisions of the law that are scheduled to expire at the end of this year.

It's worth noting that the fight about the law has been in Congress--not in the courts. That is telling, because it's the job of the judiciary to curb law-enforcement methods that violate the Constitution. With rare exceptions, the Patriot Act has not been found to violate constitutional guarantees, despite the inflamed rhetoric directed against it.

Opponents often focus on the section of the law that allows prosecutors to obtain library records, among other documents, which the opponents portray as a tool of the Thought Police. That provision has been used since the law was enacted--but never to get library records. The FBI apparently has better things to do than keep Americans from reading the wrong books.

There is no reason, though, that terrorists trying to get information on how to make bombs, or discussing plans over computers, should find a safe harbor in the nearest public library, which is why the provision ought to be retained. So should a section making it easier for law enforcement to find out with whom a suspected terrorist is communicating by phone or e-mail.

One of the most important provisions of the Patriot Act permitted FBI agents working on intelligence leads to share information with agents investigating criminal cases and vice versa. That provision, which would expire at the end of this year, must be extended. Of all the changes made in the Patriot Act, that is the one most valuable for heading off future attacks. Had that sharing of information been allowed during the FBI's investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, the Sept. 11 plot might have been uncovered before it was carried out.

The White House hasn't been content simply to defend the Patriot Act, though. It wants more extensive powers. But it has failed to make the case that the additional powers it wants would be worth the possible cost in privacy.

The Justice Department says the FBI needs the power of "administrative subpoena"--the authority to quickly obtain a broad array of records in terrorism cases without going through a judge or a grand jury. But the requirement for court approval serves as a modest check on overreaching by investigators. Indeed, in defending the library records provision, Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales stressed that it requires a judge's approval. It is precisely that protection from an unwarranted search that could be circumvented through an administrative subpoena.

If there have been cases where the absence of this option has seriously hindered an investigation, the administration needs to lay out the evidence for Congress. Failing that, it will be hard to justify the change.

The Patriot Act was passed in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks because this nation learned in stunning fashion that we faced a new kind of enemy--and that better weapons were needed for a fight that involved the highest stakes. The law by and large has proved to be a reasonable and effective response to the challenges posed by international terrorism. There is little evidence to suggest that the powers it granted have been abused.

The Patriot Act has strengthened the government's ability to prevent terrorism without sacrificing civil liberties. Congress should vote to assure that it continues to do just that.

What's your view? Should the Patriot Act be renewed or repealed? Send your thoughts to ctc-tribletter (at) tribune.com with "Patriot Act" in the subject line. Responses will be published online and in the Saturday Voice of the people.
 
 

Donate

Views

Account Login

Media Centers

 

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software