Editorialists Condemn Patriot Act 'Compromise'
by TChris
Senators who oppose a “compromise” that would extend the Patriot Act’s most obnoxious provisions are finding support from editorialists around the country. The San Jose Mercury News reminds readers that "[t]he right to privacy -- the right of ordinary citizens to be free from government snooping -- is paramount to America's democracy, and a handful of provisions in the anti-terrorism law ride roughshod over it." The Vacaville Reporter complains that the proposed revision “still doesn't go far enough to protect individual liberties.” The Honolulu Star-Bulletin urges Congress to allow provisions to expire that infringe on people's liberties.
Declan McCullagh at CNet News wants the Bush administration to "explain why laws involving cigarette taxes, methamphetamine possession, and pocket knives are necessary to protect America in the War on Terror." The Allentown Morning Calls timidly asks Congress to tighten the government's ability to issue national security letters, while the Albany Times Union more forcefully argues that "there is no justification to put basic civil liberties at risk for even four minutes, let alone four years."
Florida Today remains "vehemently against provisions reauthorized in the Patriot Act that continue to assault civil liberties and give the government broad authority to invade individual privacy." The Repository in Canton runs an article by civil libertarian Nat Hentoff, reminding us that December 15 is Bill of Rights Day, a celebration that should not be dishonored by circumventing privacy rights with bad legislation.
I congratulate the patriotic resisters — in and out of the Senate — for not allowing the administration to retain sections of the Patriot Act which 399 towns and cities across the country, and seven state legislatures, had told their representatives in Congress to change in compliance with the Bill of Rights.
| < Europe Continues Investigation of CIA Rendition Program | Byrd on the Nuclear Option > |





