Washington Post Editorial Stampeded in the House THE HOUSE Republican leadership made a mockery of the normal
legislative process last week in forcing a vote on a major anti-terrorism
bill that had been anonymously written only the night before and that not
even most members of the Judiciary Committee had had more than a fleeting
chance to read. The bill has enormous implications for civil liberties, on which it
arguably infringes in a number of serious ways while conferring additional
powers on law enforcement officials to combat terrorism. Days after the
vote, no one knows the extent of the infringement, save that there is
some. Some parts of the bill are worthy; it is not clear that others are
even needed. The contents have not been subject to serious hearings or
other searching examination. The House had had before it a better, more thoughtful bill, reported
out of the normally deeply divided Judiciary Committee by a unanimous and
bipartisan vote of 36 to 0. It, too, would have greatly expanded the
government's powers, but not enough, the administration said -- and the
leadership junked it. There followed a charade in which all manner of
members of both parties complained they had no idea what they were voting
on, were fearful that aspects of the substitute bill went too far -- yet
voted for it anyway, lest there be a further terrorist attack and they be
accused of not having provided the government sufficient means to defend
against it. Democrats made a show of objecting to the substitution, voting in favor
of taking up the Judiciary Committee bill instead. But when they then
lost, all but 79 voted in favor of the substitute, thereby having the
issue both ways. Minority Leader Dick Gephardt was one of those who put
himself on both sides of the issue; many Senate Democrats, including
Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick
Leahy, had earlier done much the same. The committee had conferred greater surveillance powers on the
government, but had sensibly limited them to two years, on the theory that
a subsequent Congress could then better decide whether they were
justified. The administration resisted this "sunset" provision. Under the
new bill, the provisions could remain in effect for five years and, in the
case of continuing investigations, even longer. The administration had originally asked for the power to detain
indefinitely noncitizens whom the attorney general even suspected of
terrorist activity. The committee bill rightly hedged that power. The
substitute weakens the hedge. The committee had granted the government
greater authority to conduct surveillance and to share sensitive
information across jurisdictional lines -- let intelligence officials see
normally forbidden grand jury information, for example. But the grants had
been subject at several important junctures to judicial review, which the
substitute drops. There are other examples. They call this the PATRIOT
act, for "Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism." The politics are pretty obvious. But some of the tools in this
bill are not appropriate, and in the long run those who ignore the risk to
civil liberties in seeking to meet the risk of terrorism do the country a
disservice. Copyright © 2001. Washington Post Company. All rights reserved. saved from url: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63817-2001Oct15.html
October 16, 2001
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
