|
Asheville Citizen-Times - Feb. 18, 2004
Patriot Act should be fixed, not expanded, this year
There was a striking moment during President Bush's 2004 State of the Union address before Congress.
The president was pitching the importance of the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,'' known commonly as the Patriot Act. After summing up how vital he thought it was, he said "Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year.''
That news was greeted with a round of applause. The president was undoubtedly planning to roll smoothly into his next lines, which were "The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens. You need to renew the Patriot Act.''
Those lines were also greeted by applause. The applause in both cases appeared to cross party lines.
This episode summed up opinion on the Patriot Act. It's popular in some corners, very unpopular in others, and odd political bedfellows can be found in both camps.
Attorney General John Ashcroft mounted a public relations campaign last year to fend off criticism of the Patriot Act, but opposition to it continues to grow. Earlier this month, the New York City Council approved a resolution condemning the Patriot Act.
Many towns, cities and other local governments - including three states - have passed acts opposing the Patriot Act. The total number of entities passing such resolutions is nearing 250.
Glenn C. Devitt, an organizer with a group that helps craft such resolutions called the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, told the Washington Post, "So much is being done in the name of New York, we are saying don't use our name to infringe on people's rights.''
The response from the Justice Department in the same Post story was not encouraging. "Mark Corallo, a Justice Department spokesman, dismissed the local governments' resolutions, saying the majority were passed in locales with left-leaning constituencies and based on `erroneous' information about the Patriot Act.''
Pardon? When a city council that is within range of Ground Zero voices opposition to a piece of legislation purportedly designed to prevent a future Ground Zero, it's time to sit up and take notice, not to pass it off as a mistake - or to infer their action is something less than American by pinning it on "left-leaning constituents.''
Indeed, opposition to the Patriot Act is a bipartisan affair.
http://cgi.citizen-times.com/cgi-bin/story/editorial/50144
|
