Patriot (Act) Games
Thursday, September 11,
2003; Page A22
"I SUPPORT DRAMATIC revision of the Patriot Act. The last
thing we should be doing is turning over our privacy, our liberties,
our freedom, our constitutional rights to John Ashcroft." So said
North Carolina Sen. John Edwards during the Democratic presidential
candidates debate in Baltimore Tuesday night. Surely, then, Mr.
Edwards voted against the anti-terrorism law rushed through Congress
after Sept. 11? Well, no. When he rose on the Senate floor to speak
on the proposal two years ago, he said: "The bill is not perfect,
but it is a good bill, it is important for the nation, and I am
pleased to support it." Indeed, Mr. Edwards voted against all four
amendments offered by Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) to
ameliorate some of the civil liberties concerns that Mr. Edwards now
seems to feel so keenly -- and that the Democratic audiences he is
wooing respond to with such fervor.
In Baltimore, Mr. Edwards decried "the notion that they are
going to libraries to find out what books people are checking out."
But this authority existed prior to passage of the Patriot Act; the
law extends it to national security investigations, which isn't
unreasonable, and requires court approval. The Justice Department
should be more forthcoming with numbers, and vigilance on behalf of
privacy is certainly in order, but there's no evidence to date of
baseless government snooping. And Mr. Edwards voted against a
Feingold amendment that would have given extra protections to
libraries.
It's time, in short, for a little bit of reality, and not
just from Mr. Edwards, about two favorite, related targets of the
Democratic candidates: the Patriot Act and the attorney general.
We've got our problems with both. The Patriot Act was hastily
drafted and is susceptible to abuse, which is why it was important
that the law's major provisions expire unless Congress votes to
renew, and why congressional oversight is critical. Mr. Ashcroft and
the Justice Department have been insensitive to civil liberties
concerns, especially in the area of rounding up terrorism suspects,
delaying release of those cleared of suspicion and denying the right
to counsel of those who are suspected or accused. The fault,
however, lies not with the Patriot Act but with the administration's
interpretation of other powers. Democrats are wrong when they ignore
the dilemma that led them to support the Patriot Act: how to stop
terrorists before they strike without abandoning cherished civil
liberties.
And they err in making Mr. Ashcroft their all-purpose
bogeyman. Tuesday night Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry -- who at
least has the good grace to acknowledge his vote in favor of the
Patriot Act -- noted, as he surveyed the debate audience, that there
were "people from every background, every creed, every color, every
belief, every religion. This is, indeed, John Ashcroft's worst
nightmare here." Mr. Kerry got his laugh, but he sullied himself in
the process.
Democrats have enough to run on against President Bush.
They don't need to ignore their records, stray from the facts or
take such cheap shots to make their case.
© 2003 The Washington Post
Company
|
|
|
_____Today's Post
Editorials_____
| |
|
|
.gif)
