by TChris

As President Bush makes his support of the deceptively-named Patriot Act a central pillar of his reelection campaign, an editorial in the New York Times reminds us that there is more to the Act than provisions allowing the FBI and intelligence agencies to share information. The Act was a John Ashcroft wish list, giving law enforcement agencies unprecedented power to pry into private records and to conduct "sneak and peek" searches -- allowing government agents to sneak into a home, conduct a search, and sneak out without notifying the residents that their privacy has been invaded.

The President contends that the Patriot Act is a vital tool in his war on terror, but the Times reminds us that he isn't telling the rest of the story.

Mr. Bush's own Justice Department told Congress last fall that the act's loosened restrictions on government surveillance were regularly being used in nonterrorism cases, like drug trafficking and white-collar crime.

People who have seen the Patriot Act in action believe it gives the police too much leeway. The Times is not alone in criticizing the Act as Bush calls for its extension. Lawrence, Kansas just joined "nearly 300 communities and four state legislatures across the United States in expressing opposition to the act."

Congress passed the Patriot Act in the wake of 9/11 without serious debate. Rather than blindly supporting the Act's extension, it is time to have that debate. Rather than pretending that every element of the Act focuses on terrorism, it is time to decide which (if any) features of the Act deserve to be extended, and which are inconsistent with the fundamental values that underlie our nation.