Guest column

We need to speak out to end Patriot Act and keep liberties

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the last in a series of guest columns written by Hernando County Bar Association members that are being published on this page during National Law Week, which began Sunday. The theme this year is "The American Jury: We the People in Action."

By PAMELA J. MILLS
Published May 6, 2005

The controversial law known as the Patriot Act was passed by Congress just 45 days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It is now well known that a majority of those lawmakers who voted for its passage did not read the act they approved.

Since its passage, it has become a symbol of the unjustified assaults on civil liberties that have become a defining characteristic of our government's response to terrorism.

Later this year, the sunset provisions of the Patriot Act will force Congress to either make certain dangerous provisions of the act permanent, let them expire or make amendments to finally bring the law in line with the U.S. Constitution. This is what is at stake:

It creates a new legal definition of "domestic terrorism," which exposes political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment and criminal action for political advocacy.

It expands the ability of law enforcement to conduct secret searches, and gives them wide powers of phone and Internet surveillance, as well as access to highly personal medical, financial, mental health and student records with minimal judicial oversight.

It allows FBI agents to investigate Americans for criminal matters without probable cause of crime if they say it is partly for "intelligence purposes."

Permits noncitizens to be jailed based on mere suspicion and to be denied re-entry into the United States for engaging in free speech.

If the Bush administration and other Patriot Act advocates get their way, this will be the year Congress votes to permanently give the government the right to break into your home, invade your privacy and rifle through your possessions with only minimal judicial oversight. That would mean providing government agents with a permanent ability to spy on the books you read, the Internet sites you visit and the credit card purchases you make, without even informing you, for an indefinite period of time.

If you haven't yet read George Orwell's book 1984, please read it now. The government-controlled society he describes in his book is eerily similar to what we could face as reality in the not-so-distant future when a government - our government - has unchecked power over its citizens.

There are times when challenges to our liberties cut to the very core of what it means to be free. This is one of those times. Certain leaders in our government are arrogantly turning a blind eye to fundamental principles of our Constitution, including the checks and balances between our three branches of government.

This year could well be the year in which the president makes, and the Senate affirms, one or more Supreme Court justice nominations. There is a negative attitude against our current system of civil justice among some in Congress and many suggestions are in the planning stages to strip America's courts of their ability to review the constitutionality of some of the most controversial laws and regulations emerging from Capitol Hill, including the Patriot Act.

An example of this attitude can be seen when one analyzes a statement made by Rep. John Hostettler at a recent Christian Coalition legislative briefing: "When the courts make unconstitutional decisions, we should not enforce them. Federal courts have no army or navy. The court can opine, decide, talk about, sing, whatever it wants to do. We're not saying they can't do that. At the end of the day, we're saying the court can't enforce its opinions."

What exactly are the types of "unconstitutional" decisions he was referring to? The ones he doesn't like, of course! And what is he really saying? That the legislative and executive branches are superior to the courts because they have an army and the judicial branch does not? Or is he saying the courts can declare the laws Congress has passed unconstitutional, but Congress doesn't have to listen? Our Constitution says the three branches of our government are equal, each to have checks and balances on the power of the others, doesn't it? So, what exactly do Rep. Hostettler and other leaders like him want to do to our courts?

One plan is to strip the courts of their independence by impeaching judges when they issue unpopular decisions. Chief Justice William Rehnquist recently stated that such a decision "would destroy judicial independence. Instead of trying to apply the law fairly, regardless of public opinion, judges would be concerned about inflaming any group that might be able to muster the votes in Congress to impeach and convict them."

The willingness of highly placed leaders in the executive and legislative branches of our government to directly threaten the constitutional separation of powers indicates the fundamental and deep-seated nature of the challenges to the independence of our judiciary and ultimately to our freedom.

What can we do? I don't really know, but doing something has got to be better than doing nothing. Join a political group that supports and defends our civil liberties in court and in Congress, such as the American Civil Liberties Union. They support the Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act, which adds safeguards, including enhanced judicial oversight, to key provisions of the Patriot Act.

Voice your dissent about the stripping of judicial independence to your representatives and senators in Congress. Write editorials. Sit up and pay attention to political discussions. Ask questions and, above all, don't assume the provisions of the Patriot Act will only be applied to foreign terrorists. They don't; they apply to us all.

Pamela J. Mills is a lawyer in Spring Hill. Guest columnists write their own views on subjects they choose, which do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.

[Last modified May 6, 2005, 00:38:16]