Bad Credit

The new USA PATRIOT counter-terrorism act is poorly drafted, tautological, demagogic and threatens civil liberties, the sanctity of libraries and some of the oldest principles in criminal law.

So says Benson Scotch, executive director of the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, of the bill, which was designed to provide law enforcement agencies with new tools to combat terrorism and passed easily in the aftermath of Sept. 11. Scotch, a Harvard-trained lawyer, was almost unstintingly critical of the law during an April 1 talk sponsored by UVM Libraries.

"What were talking about today is what happens to our rights when words deliberately become fuzzy," said Scotch, introducing his discussion.

He went on to cite at least a dozen examples of such "fuzziness," arguing that the legislation overturned hundreds of years of traditional interpretation of the Constitution, usurping some of the authority of the courts and inappropriately opening the door to adjudicating beliefs rather than actions. Scotch also believes the bill blurs the lines between foreign intelligence investigations (which have lesser standards of evidence and process) with criminal law enforcement.

Even worse, at least in Scotchs view, is that the law is predicated on a loose definition of terrorism. At one point in the bill's text, in what Scotch called "a delicious phrase," the law asserts an act of domestic terrorism must "appear to be intended" to influence the policy of government. The conditional word "appear" makes the tricky business of divining intent even fuzzier, Scotch said.

That vagueness has consequences. In what he acknowledged is mostly a theoretical example, and one borrowed from a right-wing Web site (the new law, Scotch said, created "strange bedfellows" between liberals, civil libertarians and the far right), the act of peacefully chaining oneself to the White House gates could be a terrorist act. Its at least potentially "dangerous to human life" (passerby could be forced to step from the sidewalk into the street, putting themselves at risk), its illegal and its clearly designed to change political policy. Thats terrorism, according to the act even though protestors chaining themselves to a gate is well within the mainstream of American dissent.

Scotch allowed that such a prosecution was likely, but he said he found the possibility troubling.

Section 215 of the law, which allows agents to order the production of "any tangible things" with very little regulation from the courts, was troubling to Scotch and many of the librarians in attendance. The provision could allow the government to subpeona computer hard drives, web logs and borrowing records without probable cause.

The result, said Scotch, means that the act has another unintended outcome.

"Librarians are now at the front lines of the campaign to save civil liberties," he said.

[ Comment, Edit or Article Submission ]