Patriot Act: To Find Right Balance, Keep Debate Wide Open

The following editorial originally appeared in the July 19, 2005, edition of the Detroit Free Press.

As federal lawmakers wrangle this week over guidelines for debate of the Patriot Act, they should make room for the broadest conversation possible.

The Patriot Act was rushed into law while the nation was still so rocked by the terrorism of 9/11 that it would have traded nearly anything in the name of security. Lawmakers at least were farsighted enough to put sunset provisions on several aspects of the law, so that more levelheaded debate could be held down the road.

Now, just 12 days after the terrorist explosions in London, that road is winding to an end. The U.S. House is set to take up the Patriot Act this week, and its Rules Committee has set 6:00 p.m. today as the deadline to submit amendments.

Submission, of course, doesn't mean consideration, and that's where the committee needs to show strength. House leaders, who pushed legislation through other committees last week that would effectively railroad the Patriot Act into permanency in toto, will want the Rules Committee to follow suit. Its leaders, however, should set the stage for expansive debate by accepting a host of amendments that would allow for wide-ranging deliberation.

Individual freedoms and rights are at stake. Before they are surrendered, lawmakers must make certain each change is truly necessary for security reasons and that it provides the security being sought. In some cases, undercutting liberty may not be worth the costs. In others, the Patriot Act merely strengthens law enforcement tools without diminishing anyone's freedoms.

The public deserves a clearer explanation about what the Patriot Act does and does not do, and the freedoms it does and does not compromise. What better way to sort through these issues than with a robust floor debate that gets down to the nitty-gritty of the government's ability to peruse medical, financial and library records, for instance? And whether warrants may be obtained from traditional judges or secret courts? And when the government is entitled to muzzle citizens about searches?

The public has been largely accepting of the restrictions the Patriot Act imposes but has also asked for some safeguards. The preliminary precaution should be allowing thorough, public debate of all aspects of the Patriot Act that are subject to review.

Reprinted with permission of the Detroit Free Press.