RSS Feed
|
|||||||||||||
|
Patriot Act Is Poor Excuse For Rounding Up Usual Suspects
With Republicans holding a majority in both houses, it is likely the president will get his way, but those, including blue- and red-state politicians who’ve opposed the wide-ranging law from its onset, citing several flaws, should continue objecting to its virtually unrestricted and unjust limits that do little to boost homeland security. The law, parts of which expire next year, basically gives law enforcement agencies tools to expand surveillance of terror suspects and allows the government to confine and indefinitely hold them incommunicado. Several so-called “sneak and peek” provisions of the Patriot Act are blatantly unreasonable because they authorize unrestricted government access to medical and tax records. One, in particular, permits the government to obtain undisclosed subpoenas issued by a secret court that essentially allows unwarranted searches of library and bookstore records to uncover individuals who might be reading questionable materials. On one hand the law has some merits, if evidence is valid, particularly in the terror-heightened, post-2001 world. On the other hand, the Patriot Act generously gives law enforcement agencies the freedom to round up and detain the usual suspects — like Claude Rains’ character Capt. Renault in the classic film, “Casablanca” — with little substantiation, except ethnic profiling, and no concern for individual rights. Bush said the Patriot Act has allowed law enforcement agencies nationwide to charge more than four hundred people in connection with terrorism investigations, half of which have reportedly been convicted. However, hundreds of suspects languish in prison without ever having been tried for any alleged crimes. The president seems to be keen on the Patriot Act for all intents and purposes because his administration was criticized for its shoddy security procedures before the 2001 terrorist attacks in the report issued by the independent 9/11 Commission. However, by remaining steadfast about the Patriot Act, Bush is in danger of making the same wartime mistake — detaining suspects unlawfully — that blemished the presidencies of Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Last summer, siding with a Supreme Court majority ruling against the Bush administration in a terror suspect case that Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “The very core of liberty secured by our separation of power has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the executive.” The ruling also said “a state of war is not a blank check for the president” to suspend basic liberties. A lawyer for the New York Civil Liberties Union said the Patriot Act “strips some basic civil liberties and the right to due process…” Last year, the New York City Council overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning provisions of the Patriot Act that “unduly infringe upon fundamental rights and liberties.” Several local municipalities from coast to coast also passed similar legislation. While it is necessary for government agencies to access specific information that gives them the ability to thwart domestic terrorism before it results in death and destruction, it is more imperative to insure that the civil rights of individuals — guaranteed by the Constitution and international laws — are not sidestepped or violated in the process. We can never again let our guard down making us vulnerable to terrorist attacks, but in the battle between national security and personal liberty there is nothing more patriotic than defending safeguards that do not breach the basic civil liberties that are the core of our freedom. President Bush insists that if selected Patriot Act provisions are not renewed, “law enforcement would be left in the dark.” Then again, if they are preserved, the spotlight on basic constitutional privileges will dim.
|
for larger version       Ads have a Patent Pending. Click Here for More Information |
||||||||||||
