Everyone Has an Opinion: Patriot Act Hearings Prompt Many Editorials

When Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and a group of Vermont booksellers and librarians first called attention to Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act in March 2003, criticism of the provision, which eliminated the safeguards for the privacy of bookstore and library records, was hard to come by in the mainstream media.

Now, over two years later, with the Senate and House judiciary committees holding hearings on the Patriot Act's 16 sunsetting provisions (including 215), it is equally clear that the opposite holds true: Hardly a day goes by without some kind of media story on the USA Patriot Act. Included in these stories are numerous editorials and op-ed pieces, many of which side with the position first brought to the fore by those librarians and booksellers some two years ago: The USA Patriot Act needs to be amended.

Here, BTW provides a look at some of the editorials that have appeared in print and online in late March and April, just as the Congressional hearings on the Patriot Act commenced.

On March 24, a guest editorial was published in Florida's Naples Daily News that discussed the growing opposition to the USA Patriot Act, including "an improbable coalition that includes some of Washington's leading conservatives, the ACLU, gun rights groups, libertarians, and medical privacy activists."

On April 5, the Milwaukee Sentinel published an editorial in which it contended that the Patriot Act reflected "the fear, anger, and panic that seized the nation after that attack [9/11]" and that the legislation represented hasty draftsmanship. Furthermore, the editorial stressed that "at least two sections have no place on the law books of a democratic society. These are the much-publicized sections 213 and 215....

"[T]he measures undermine some of our most cherished principles of democracy -- principles that are ultimately a source of national strength and security, as well as national pride."

An April 6 editorial in the Salt Lake Tribune pointed out that the Patriot Act was written in a hurry by a panic-stricken nation and argued that it is unconstitutional:

"[T]he argument for keeping the post-9/11 statute intact comes down to two words: Trust us....

"The ability of federal agents to search people's medical and library records merely on their claim that national security demands it is one of the provisions that ought to be allowed to run out....

"The Patriot Act says: Trust us. The Constitution says: No way."

Also on April 6, Maine's Portland Press Herald published an editorial asking that the Patriot Act be carefully reviewed, and on April 8, Marion, Indiana's Chronicle Tribune published an editorial stating the belief that the act could weaken citizens' rights under the First, Second, Fourth and Sixth Amendments:

"The left-right coalition of the Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances [an organization, chaired by former Republican Congressperson Bob Barr, that is seeking to fix the most extreme provisions of the Patriot Act] has the right idea. Let the sun set on the Patriot Act and reconsider it with a calmer attitude that is mindful of the liberties we're supposedly fighting to protect."

On April 10, the Bowling Green Daily News in Bowling Green, Kentucky, published an editorial in which it stated that it took issue with the renewal of "such provisions as Section 215, which allows the federal government to permit secret warrants for books, records, documents, and papers from businesses, hospitals, and other organizations."

That same week, an editorial in the Billings Gazette in Montana came out in support of the SAFE Act and noted that the "hastily written Patriot Act harbors the potential for abuse. People of vastly different political viewpoints have united because they realize that someday they might not agree with the party in power."

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer also published an editorial in support of SAFE and opined, "Perhaps for the first time since September 11, 2001, it is now possible to see real hope for revisions" to the Patriot Act. "Craig's and Durbin's proposals would address some of the critical problems under the Patriot Act," it noted.

While most critics of the USA Patriot Act are calling for amendments to some of its sunsetting provisions, on April 23, the Daytona Beach News-Journal went a step further and called on Congress to let portions of the law expire and "good riddance." The editorial stressed: "Laws designed to protect Americans with un-American means have no business being renewed, only junked."