Posted on: Sunday, June 19, 2005

EDITORIAL
Patriot Act does need an overhaul

It was a heartening sign last week that a bipartisan coalition took steps to rein in, however slightly, some of the overly intrusive provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

A number of the law's provisions are due to "sunset" or expire shortly. President Bush has been campaigning across the country to make those provisions permanent.

And he has already threatened to veto any measure that would weaken those or other powers found in the act.

That sets up an unnecessary confrontation. The House vote simply would make it slightly tougher for the FBI to gain access to a variety of personal records (medical, library records and so forth).

This targets one of the few areas of the Patriot Act that has raised concern across the country. The Justice Department says it has used this power very rarely and has never used it to obtain bookstore or library records.

But it could. And it says it would if necessary.

All the House did was insist that such personal record searches be authorized by a judicial warrant or a grand jury subpoena, an option that already exists.

Under the Patriot Act, the searches simply require approval from a secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has a relatively low threshold for approval.

The Patriot Act was passed in the wake of 9/11 with relatively little deliberation and under a great deal of pressure to "do something" about terrorism. It is time for a sensible and more reflective look at the law.

We must keep the provisions that are appropriate — and there are many— and to do away with those that unnecessarily erode civil liberties and gain little ground in the fight against terrorism.

In a book written for the Century Foundation, author Stephen Schulhofer argues that the far-reaching Patriot Act grants excessive secrecy and unchecked law enforcement powers to the federal government in ways that erode trust in government.

Schulhofer essentially agrees with the need for new anti-terrorism powers. But he argues persuasively that such powers should be narrowly tailored, that is, focused directly on terrorism, and designed with maximum accountability.

In other words, maximum transparency and an enhanced system of checks and balances.

That sounds like the right prescription. Congress and the White House should cooperate on reaching those goals, rather than battling from all-or-nothing positions.