At least, in their haste to do something after the attacks of 9/11, members of Congress had the good sense to set an expiration date for the Patriot Act.

That meant they had to come back to the law this year, examine how well it is working and decide whether some of its more Draconian measures were worth the intrusions on the liberties of innocent Americans.

That sort of evaluation and accountability is good for the republic. It is especially important when the law in question concerns civil liberties. We support softening or doing away with some of the Patriot Act's provisions because they lend themselves to abuse. But no matter what type of act Congress passes this year, it needs to come with another sunset provision that requires another review in a few years.

We agree with the act's defenders that, to be adequately reviewed, it must be placed in a proper context. But the context of modern times has a couple of noteworthy facets. The first of these, of course, is the war on terrorism, the very thing that inspired the law in the first place. Utah's Sen. Orrin Hatch makes a point of how terrorists have not struck in the United States since passage of the act, and he gives it credit for allowing law-enforcement greater leeway in investigating suspicious people.

His claims take on added significance in light of terrorist bombings on London's transit system and on trains in Madrid. It is reasonable to assume that terrorists have at least attempted to do similar things here during the last five years, although al-Qaida's patience in planning and executing plots is worth remembering.

The other facet to consider, however, is the growing culture of secrecy within government. In recent weeks, officials at the federal information Security Oversight Office have reported that documents are now being classified as secret at the rate of 125 per minute. If history is a guide, many of these items have no business being classified.

A New York Times report said the rush to mark everything as top secret took on new life after 9/11 and is now at a record pace.

Public safety is a huge concern. But Americans cannot afford, in the name of safety, to sacrifice important liberties that were won by the blood of the nation's founders. That sort of thing would put this country too close to Russia, where President Vladimir Putin has been consolidating his own power in the name of anti-terrorism.

Two parts of the Patriot Act are particularly offensive. One allows the government to easily obtain warrants for secret searches, not telling the subject of those searches until long after. The other requires libraries and other nonprofit organizations to turn over information about their patrons if law enforcement requests it.

Both need to be, at the least, softened. Then the act should be set for review again in another four years.