Don't expand the Patriot Act

When liberal and conservative groups as diverse as the ACLU and the Eagle Forum join hands to oppose something, it ought to send a powerful message.

That's the case with the second Patriot Act, also known as "Son of Patriot" or "Patriot II," a draft copy of which was leaked recently. It's also the case with a move to strip the original Patriot Act of a sunset provision that automatically would do away with many of its broad new police powers in 2005.

These police powers rob Americans of many freedoms previously taken for granted, and they grant the government powers that easily could be abused. Last weekend, about 300 people protested the Patriot Act on the grounds of the Utah State Capitol. Clearly, they were voicing the widespread and well-considered concerns of patriotic Americans who consider the law unpatriotic. These powers may have been necessary during a time of national emergency, but the government needs to justify reasons for continuing them.

Influential Republicans in the House, such as Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, have said the administration has yet to make that case effectively.

Utah's Sen. Orrin Hatch, however, appears to be on the opposite side, issuing vague statements through his staff that he may support making the act permanent. He ought to change his mind.

The case against the act is simple. The first version allows the government access to student information and to the records of private businesses and public libraries. As a result, some librarians have taken to regularly shredding records to keep authorities from knowing who has checked out what. It also allows the government to imprison American citizens under certain conditions without filing charges or allowing those citizens a defense, and it allows immigrants to be detained in secret.

The act was passed in an era of frenzy following the attacks of 9/11. At the time, the administration and law-enforcement agencies felt it was necessary to take unusual steps to counter terrorist cells that may be operating within the United States. Those were, indeed, unusual times and circumstances. But Americans value the basic human rights spelled out in the Constitution — rights the nation's founders considered endowed from on high, and they should guard them jealously.

Those rights were articulated as weapons against government abuses. No one could be held indefinitely without the right to face his or her accusers, nor without a speedy trial. The government couldn't search private effects without probable cause and the permission of a judge.