EDITOR’S VIEWPOINT/Patriot Act, the sequel

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the library, the sequel to the Patriot Act was unveiled by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Public Integrity in May. Dubbed Patriot Act II, the new statute will broaden the original law that gave the federal government unprecedented surveillance powers to snoop through records, ranging from private medical files to lists of books checked out at libraries.

Similar to the first law, Patriot Act II is destined to be a hit — directly on our civil liberties. Like the first version, I expect the new measure will alarm many local government leaders.

In fact, more than 100 cities have passed measures that range from condemning the Patriot Act to fining local officials who cooperate with federal agencies on investigations or arrests as a result of the law’s powers. Philadelphia became the nation’s largest municipality to protest the anti-terror measure when its city council passed a resolution in late May. The resolution criticizes the federal law because it says it allows racial profiling and invasion of privacy and denies due process. The council also suggests that its congressmen help repeal the law or the parts “that violate fundamental rights and liberties.”

The Justice Department dismissed the cities that dared to criticize some of its powers as “liberal college towns.” In a more substantive effort to explain the Patriot Act’s benefits, however, the department released a report that discussed its use of secret search warrants, research into thousands of intelligence files and reviews of library reading lists. The Justice Department declared the report proved the Patriot Act has been used for “valid reasons that often involve life and death.”

Apparently the Justice Department still doesn’t think it has enough power, so it is seeking more through Patriot II. For starters, the new law would expand the definition of who can be watched secretly, alter the justifications for a warrant and eliminate warrants under certain circumstances. It also would end or change the consent decrees, which have been used to lessen the illegal surveillance by local law enforcement authorities. The new law also would allow federal officials to conduct autopsies without permission under certain conditions and restrict public access to information about potential pollution by private chemical companies, which would affect local governments’ traditional oversight in the area. The measure also defines new terrorism crimes, further restricts public access to information and creates a new terrorist-related DNA database requiring “suspects” to give DNA samples.

The balance between civil liberties and public safety is always delicate. Rather than expand the Justice Department’s power, we need to review and adjust it. Remember, justice, not just terrorism, begins at home.