Patriot Act provisions renewed in House

Mostly following party lines, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 257-171 to renew the USA Patriot Act last Thursday. \nThe Act, which has been described by President Bush in a statement as "a key part of our efforts to combat terrorism and protect the American people," was introduced and voted into law almost unanimously after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in Washington and New York. \nWith the law set to expire at the end of the year and at the behest of the administration to renew it, the House voted to make 14 of the Act's 16 provisions permanent. The two more controversial provisions, which deal with roving wiretaps and secret searches of individual library and medical records, were recommended 10-year "sunset clauses," which means that in that time they will expire and be reviewed again. \nIn Bloomington, reaction to the Act's renewal was mixed. \n"I'm very pleased that the House has voted to extend the Patriot Act," said Julia Aud, press secretary of the IU College Republicans. "I truly believe it has been fundamental in preventing terrorist attacks on U.S. soil."\nCivil rights organizations from both sides of the isle have expressed concerns over the possible erosion of civil liberties and the increase of government intrusion into the private sphere. However, Aud contends this is not the Act's intent, and that the average citizen is not targeted by it.\n"The objective of the Act is not to violate the public's rights, but rather to monitor any suspicious activity that could lead to any deadly attacks," she said.\n"While some of these measures may seem sort of extreme, they are designed to keep Americans safe by intercepting communications that are related to terrorists. ... If federal intelligence has enough cause to suspect an individual of involvement in terrorism, there is nothing unreasonable about a thorough investigation."\nCity Councilman Chris Sturbaum, who was on the council two years ago when it passed a resolution in open opposition to the Patriot Act, suggested its renewal was a step in the wrong direction.\n"We have to be careful," he said. "If we're going to lose our democracy, this is how it's going to happen."\nProfessor Jeffrey Hart of the IU political science department also voiced concerns over the renewal. \n"Our country has experienced previous periods of overzealous law enforcement that seriously abridged individual rights and freedoms," Hart said in an e-mail. "The Supreme Court has been very careful not to give too much power to the police, as in its series of decisions about random drug searches, and my guess is that there will be similar challenges eventually to the renewed Patriot Act if and when the law enforcers actually start to use their new powers." \nThe vote came on the heels of recent terror bombings in London, which if anything was a symbol to its supporters of the existing threat of radical terrorism, and the need to keep the Act in place. However, Councilman Sturbaum feels that the existence of the Patriot Act has little effect on national security.\n"The way we'll be safe isn't going to be from Acts like this but as a reflection of the way we behave internationally," he said. "We need to behave in a moral fashion and treat others as we would like to be treated. I'm afraid that's not what we're up to"