Giving Up Liberty for Safety

Benjamin Franklin wrote, "Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

In the immediate wake of such a stunning tragedy as befell this nation in the events of 9-11, a certain amount of over-reactive hysteria might have been expected, human nature being what it is.

Stampeded by an outraged public demanding swift and vigorous action, members of Congress literally vied with one another to establish their own anti-terrorism credentials.

Just a few days after 9-11, a swiftly composed bill went to Congress granting government broader powers to crack down on terrorism suspects. It sailed to overwhelming passage.

The bill's official title -- the USA Patriot Act -- virtually dared anybody to vote against it. Who wants to be on record against patriotism? Or for coddling terrorists?

Now, three years later, some thoughtful lawmakers of both parties are having serious second thoughts.

Liberty and safety exist in uneasy balance, and with Franklin's admonition in mind, a determined bipartisan group is gathering forces for a second all-out effort, later this year, to remove from the Patriot Act what they see as a grave threat to some of America's most cherished constitutional freedoms.

At issue now is what sponsors call the Freedom to Read amendment. It seeks to reinforce every citizen's right to read whatever one wishes without fear of being harassed, punished or intimidated by government.

Specifically, they want to protect library and bookstore patrons from federal investigators looking into what books they check out or purchase.

Section 215 of the sweeping Patriot Act grants FBI investigators the power to demand sales and checkout records, as well as lists of customers, from libraries and bookstores. This is probably the single most controversial provision of the Patriot Act.

Its lead sponsor in the House is neither a Democrat nor a Republican. He is Rep. Bernard Sanders of Vermont, the House's only officially designated Independent.

The brewing battle seems certain to be one of the testiest of the year, as well as one of the most fundamental in defining the national character. An earlier skirmish over the issue ended, after muscular presidential intervention, in a 210-210 House deadlock last year.

Freedom-to-read advocates were 18 votes ahead as the 15-minute voting time expired last July 8. But the vote was held open for 29 additional minutes while House GOP leadership prevailed upon nine to change their votes.

On a tie vote, under House rules, the motion fails. So the Patriot Act's controversial power remained intact for the year.

But the issue is certain to come to a head again this year, with the Justice Department lobbying for even expanded powers, and several new converts embracing the Freedom to Read amendment. Hearings began in the Senate last week.

Sen. Arlen Specter, the Judiciary Committee chairman, asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller if they'd agree to exempting public libraries from Section 215.

Gonzales admitted that government shouldn't challenge people's patriotism on the basis of the books they read, but he rejected the idea of limiting government's power to keep special watch on libraries. Suspicious people, he insisted, sometimes use library computers to communicate with one another.

After this exchange Tuesday, Specter seemed unimpressed by the attorney general's argument. The Pennsylvania Republican usually supports the Bush administration on law enforcement matters, and his defection on this issue of individual rights could be crucial in this struggle.

Gonzales, hard-pressed to sustain his position, yielded a begrudging inch. He said he'd accept an amendment allowing someone from whom records are demanded to call a lawyer -- a right not uniformly guaranteed under current Justice Department practice.

Almost two years ago, the American Civil Liberties Union cited 742 cases of individuals arrested and held without charges, legal counsel or notification of next of kin.

Every good citizen abhors terrorism. We want our government to protect our country from it. Still, in the process, we must be wise enough not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

If we allow the terrorist threat to panic us into abandoning our guaranties of individual rights and freedom, that would be the modern equivalent of selling our birthright for a mess of pottage.

"I haven't lost any of my rights recently."

You obviously have not been to airport since the Patriot Act has been enacted.

Just at an airport alone, it violates all or part of the following Bill of Rights, not the bill of privileges:

Amendment II, IV, V, IX, and XIV.

All of the juicy parts of the PA were not subject to sunset, specifically, the parts that allow govt to demand all information relative to anybody on the order of the federal equivalent of the fat lady at the dmv, from any outfit that takes money from you and requires that the subject of the privacy-rape cannot be informed of the fact. The library issue is a throw-away, a snow-job, a diversion. The entire PA needs to be nuked, the useful parts re-enacted, and the police-state wishlist stuff that got opportunistically jammed into the bill jammed where it belongs.

I haven't lost any of my rights recently.

IF you never use them, you don't have them

5 posted on 04/13/2005 11:05:12 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (“Never attempt to teach a pig to sing. It is a waste of time and it annoys the pig.' Robert Heinlein)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.