Other Columns by Paul M. Weyrich
Paul M. Weyrich Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

I walked in the room the other day and there were seven television cameras. I looked at the sign-in sheet. There were more than 40 reporters in attendance. We don't often get this kind of attention. The "we" is a new group called Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances. The PRCB now consists of a number of prominent groups on the right and the ACLU. Before you gag, remember the old adage that even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

I detest much of what the ACLU stands for and detest even more what they do when they intervene in cases. Most of my colleagues on the right feel the same way. So why would we join forces with the ACLU? Because we know of no other way of getting the attention of the media and the Congress to improve the USA Patriot Act. You will recall that Congress rushed through the Patriot Act just a few days after 9/11. Congress didn't know what to do. They wanted the folks back home to think they were doing something constructive. The FBI had a number of bills sitting on the shelf, a few of which actually had been rejected by the House of Representatives. The agency unearthed those bills and newer proposals not yet given to the Congress. Although very few of these bills had anything to do with catching terrorists, the FBI saw an opportunity and took it. In the House, which then had been under GOP control for more than six years, there was a much better bill, which would have authorized the pursuit of terrorists but still protected our civil liberties.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, after 9/11, said if we gave up our way of life in order to catch terrorists the terrorists would have won. He was quite right. But some Members of Congress were so agitated to want the House and Senate to pass the "better" House bill and send it to the President for his signature. Since the Senate had already acted on another bill, the House bill with its different approach was reluctantly put aside by Majority Leader Dick Armey, who was very suspicious of government power. The best that Armey could do was to sunset some provisions of the bill.

Armey's past action will force the respective Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Arlen Specter (R-PA), to start from square one with those provisions. To help with that strategy, PRCB leaders of the left and right met to discuss which items in the Patriot Act must be modified. There is concern with some twenty issues. We know, however, if we tackled twenty questions, we would get nothing accomplished and the Patriot Act would undoubtedly end up substantially unchanged. So after considerable discussion we ended up with three issues.

They are as follows: Section 213 (which I handled at the press conference). We, the PRCB, say that Congress should modify Section 213 by imposing strict monitoring on the use of secret warrants. Under the Patriot Act, investigators can secretly enter your home or office (the so-called sneak-and-peek provision), secretly examine your possessions, and not inform you that they have done so for a very long time. In fact, there is no time limit in the bill. Not only is that a problem but warrants that are issued can have no connection with terrorists or terrorism. Much of the Patriot Act has been used for other purposes than preventing terrorism because it circumvents the much stricter requirements of the Constitution. I am against gambling and prostitution as well but we had adequate laws to govern those crimes. Yet the USA Patriot Act all too frequently has been used in regular criminal cases. Secret searches are more like KGB practices than USA practices. They violate the Fourth Amendment freedoms Americans count on and are out of line with the Constitution. We don't call for repeal of this section but for Congress to impose strict monitoring policies on the use of secret warrants to ensure that the Patriot Act is focused on terrorists

>> Continued -- Page 1 2 3