This So-Called PATRIOT Act

Yesterday, as a conference committee was about to consider the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), one of only 17 Republicans to vote against the House version, reiterated his objections:

Contrary to our history, our Constitution, and cherished legal principles, this bill gives the government vague sweeping powers, instead of specific limitations. It does not contain effective checks and balances on these powers. None of these extraordinary expansions of power for the government should be made permanent….

Under this so-called PATRIOT Act, each of us faces the prospect that the government could treat us as guilty with very little evidence. It could investigate us in secret based upon unproven complaints against us. That puts all of us as individuals at risk and at the mercy of any disgruntled neighbor or coworker who alleges we are involved in terrorist activity. It could be me today, or a neighbor or member of a labor union or church group tomorrow. No one can say where it would end….

Supporters argue Americans should have no "sanctuaries" of privacy. The government should be allowed to investigate us and search for evidence against us anywhere with as few limitations as possible. With this permanent expansion of government powers, we will no longer have areas, such as our homes, that deserve greater privacy protections. That is not the America that I know and love.

I first heard from Bartlett's office after I wrote a column criticizing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which he wants to amend so that interest groups organized as nonprofit corporations don't have to check the calendar before they can criticize politicians. Soon after I was added to his mailing list, the press releases assuring me that Bartlett is determined to protect me from the threat of gay marriage made me wonder if campaign finance was the only area where we agreed. I'm glad to see there are a few others (he's good on gun rights and eminent domain too).

Of course, I used to assume that Republicans who criticized the PATRIOT Act and other aspects of the war on terror as threats to our civil liberties must be acting on principle. But now that Dave Weigel has explained that such a stance may be politically savvy, I'm not sure what to think.