Into 2006, perhaps the first headache the US Congress has to
face is the revision of the Patriot Act. The Houses talked and
worked out a bill last year, but it was rejected by some senators
who stressed civil rights. Finally, the two Houses agreed to extend
by a month some key provisions of the anti-terrorism law, which
were set to expire on Dec. 31, 2005.
The Patriot Act has been highly controversial since its birth
over four years ago. Supporters say it is critical for the US fight
against terrorism, and it's necessary to make most of its
provisions permanent to give enough power to law enforcement
services so that they can effectively collect evidence and beat off
terrorist attempts.
Opponents argue that the Act allows too much authority to law
enforcement so there must be tight restrictions on disputed
articles in order to safeguard people's basic rights.
Apparently, parts of the Act have touched the bottom line of
some basic values of the American society.
In American minds, civil liberties are above all, are the
cornerstone of the country and any acts invading civil rights must
be fully justified before being accepted. Even after the 9/11
incident, the Americans remain divided on the emergence of such a
law. In order not to go too far, the Congress set a period of four
years to renew the Act.
For a long time, the Americans have been skeptical about their
government, and even been on a guard against it. They have been
highly alert to its power expansion since it can mean invasion into
their rights. When the country was founded, the division of
legislative, judicial and executive powers was installed to strike
a balance and prevent tyranny. But now, the Act naturally raises
public doubts by giving more enforcement power to executive
departments.
Worse, what the Bush administration actually did also greatly
added worries in the Congress and among people. Scandals, such as
detainee abuse, secret prisons abroad and telephone call
interception at home, came out one after another at the same time
with the Congressional examination of the revision of the Act. The
public was particularly shocked after learning daily telephone
calls and e-mails were intercepted and their library and business
records taken away.
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution stipulates
explicitly: The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated. For any official surveillance of
international communication (long-distance call and e-mail) of
residents within the United States, an approval from the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is a must. But soon after
the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001, Bush secretly authorized domestic
eavesdropping despite legal prohibitions against the practice.
With power to executive departments misused and individual
privacy and legal rights violated, people worry they will be turned
into a sacrifice to anti-terrorism. For many US lawmakers, it is so
serious a matter that they must interfere in and prevent it.
Besides, Bush's low approval rate in recent days lent them courage
to challenge the president.
The US Congress will make further consultations on revising the
Act in February. As both Houses agreed to extend some key
provisions, it seems most members had recognized the importance of
the law in fighting terrorism and safeguarding homeland
security.
It's highly possible that the Houses, after discussions, will
hammer out a comprise in order to strike a certain kind of balance
between combating terrorism and protecting civil rights. How to
ensure terrorist network tracking and best protect the legitimate
rights of citizens? Perhaps it will always be a hard question
before the Congress.
(Peopledaily.com.cn January 12, 2006)
