Chicago Tribune
Voice of the People
April 25, 2005

Written by Colleen K. Connell, Executive director, American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois

Chicago -- Steve Chapman's recent column discussing the debate over the renewal of portions of the USA Patriot Act ("The calm after the Patriot Act storm," Commentary, April 10) correctly notes the American Civil Liberties Union's belief that most of the provisions of the Patriot Act are "unobjectionable from a civil liberties point of view."

We do, however, have very strong objections to a handful of provisions in the Patriot Act that radically expanded the government's ability to collect information on innocent Americans without appropriate checks against abuse. Chapman's observation is also misapplied since, after noting the ACLU's position, he then takes up two provisions that are indeed among those we find objectionable to the civil liberties tradition and constitutional values of our nation.

It is critical to note that the provisions discussed in the column--the use of "sneak-and-peek" warrants and the ability of federal authorities to get at a wide range of business records without showing any individualized suspicion--are at the heart of the debate taking place now in Congress about the Patriot Act. These matters are now--and have been since the adoption of the Patriot Act--controversial. Fortunately they finally are getting the full and complete airing they deserve.

Chapman argues, for example, that sneak-and-peek warrants, which permit the authorities to delay telling the target of a search about it for an indefinite period of time, have been used for many years "in criminal cases," citing the prosecution of noted mobster John Gotti. In point of fact, sneak-and-peek warrants have always been available in terrorism, as well as criminal, cases. What the Patriot Act actually did was to include a "catch-all" justification for such warrants (if notice would unduly delay a trial or jeopardize an investigation) and to provide for an indefinite delay.

The ACLU does not seek to "slightly narrow" the conditions, as Chapman claims. Indeed we seek to remove the catch-all justification and re-impose a definite time limit.

Likewise Chapman suggests that it is appropriate for federal law-enforcement agents to have easy, unfettered and secret access to a host of personal records--including library and bookstore records--without any evidence that a person is involved in any criminal act, let alone an act of terrorism.

In support he cites the case of the Unabomber, Theodore Kaczynski. Kaczynski's library records were searched, however, only after a specific tip from his brother. The Patriot Act has very little to do with such a scenario, in which law enforcement actually had probable cause. What the Patriot Act did was allow the authorities to seize Americans' library records without showing a judge any particular reason to suspect the specific person affected.

The Patriot Act also gagged librarians presented with a Patriot Act order from telling anyone, including legal counsel for the library, anything about it, on pain of prison.

Chapman downplays the concerns of the ACLU, prominent conservatives and close to 380 states and localities that have passed resolutions calling for congressional review of the Patriot Act. Although we appreciate his characterization of our objections as moderate or rational, his readers should not come away with the impression that our objections are not serious.