PATRIOT Act violates constitutional rights, amending needed

House Editorial

The USA PATRIOT Act will lose some of its punch this December when 15 provisions expire — unless they are renewed by Congress.

Since it was first enacted, lawmakers and civil rights groups have debated the merits of the PATRIOT Act, and among the provisions set to expire is perhaps the most controversial — the provision that theoretically could allow federal investigators to obtain records from libraries and bookstores of whom has been reading what.

Now that the post-Sept. 11, 2001 fervor has worn off, it is time for the PATRIOT Act to be allowed to slide not only back with the bounds of the Constitution, but also of good sense.

A government is rooted in the consent of the governed — the constituents sacrifice their freedom in order to ensure their safety. The PATRIOT Act does not provide an equitable exchange.

While the provisions in question do require court orders, they also allow them to be obtained in secret. Another provision not set to expire allows

investigators to serve delay-notification warrants, where those being investigated are not required to be notified until afterwards.

None of these things were new to the PATRIOT Act, but the context in which they are used is. It is necessary for terrorism suspects to not be warned beforehand that they are suspected, but the PATRIOT Act does not limit itself to only terrorism cases, or require proof of such activities before it issues its warrants and officers.

This vagueness is not without precedent in U.S. law, nor without consequences. When Congress passed the RICO Act in 1970, it was intended for use against the Mafia, and for many years it was used faithfully to that purpose. Over time, however, a little-known provision that allowed lucrative civil suits to be filed if they could connect the defendant to a corrupt organization that came to light. As a result of this loose definition and some legal footwork, many frivolous or baseless suits were filed that led to large awards in the plaintiffs’ favor. The law was redefined in the ‘90s, limiting these suits and correcting a faulty piece of legislation, but it’s lesson remains.

The PATRIOT Act is too broad to assume that it cannot or will not be used out of context. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales admits that provisions in the act have been used in non-terrorism cases and even touts it as a success of the act. Gonzales instead should examine his role of a protector of the rights of his fellow citizens. He should end his call for the renewal of the act in its entirety and instead start the discussions he said he is willing to participate in — discussions that could amend this unfortunate piece of legislation.