The full title of the PATRIOT Act, signed into law less than two months after the twin towers fell in the most deadly act of terror ever on American soil, is actually the USA PATRIOT Act.
That’s an acronym for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,” a title that pretty well sums up what it’s all about.
It gave sweeping powers to law enforcement and intelligence agencies to uncover and pursue suspected terrorists, enemies who had just demonstrated the damage they could do.
Ever since it became law, the Act has stirred controversy, with defenders arguing that its provisions are absolutely necessary and that some should be made even stronger.
Opponents argue that it dangerously curtails freedoms that are the fabric of this country, and America is in danger of becoming a surveillance state — a “Big Brother” that obsessively pursues its citizens, depriving them of the right to privacy and other civil liberties we hold dear. Those rights, they argued, are what distinguishes this country from so many others that have cast aside those values.
The battle lines are drawn, but not along the standard party political lines. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, for example, a liberartian Republican, and Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon are threatening to team up to filibuster renewal of two important provisions of the law, set to expire at the end of May.
One of those provisions is the justification intelligence authorities used, at least until very recently, to run the government’s vacuuming up of all our phone calls all the time, a secret operation that shocked many Americans when it was first revealed by Edward Snowden, traitor or hero, depending on how you see the mess.
A new complication is the recent appeals court decision that ruled the vacuuming operation is not actually permitted in the wording of the provision and must stop unless it’s not simply renewed but rewritten, a much more difficult political task for a splintered Congress.
This is complicated and dangerous. But we have to pay attention even if it’s hard.
To say there is no risk from terror is foolish on the face of it. Just scan the national and world news.
To assert that our basic liberties are not at risk with implementation of the many provisions of the PATRIOT Act would be equally foolish. We all must understand that.
To walk the line between liberty and security is a delicate task. But that is what we and our elected representatives must do.