Jennifer Lawless: Patriot Act still deeply flawed

THE "NEW and improved" version of the USA Patriot Act, signed into law earlier this month, appears to safeguard our civil liberties while protecting our national security.

In reality, though, these "safeguards" are merely a bandage on a gaping wound. If we take anything more than a superficial look at the legislation, then it becomes painfully clear that the Patriot Act remains a fatally flawed blow to the privacy and freedoms upon which America was founded.

Because the renewal of the Patriot Act represents little more than a weak political compromise, I guess we should hardly be surprised that the alleged "fixes" to this version are largely cosmetic.

Let's begin with the gag-order "improvement." Under the original Patriot Act, federal investigators could access private business and library records, and the people required to turn over those records - such as librarians - were prohibited from informing anyone about the search. The new version allegedly "protects" civil liberties, because it lets the recipients of some of these court-issued search orders challenge the nondisclosure requirement in court.

What supporters of the Patriot Act don't mention is that the new act still includes a one-year "gag" order. In other words, anyone forced by the government to turn over Americans' private records must wait a full year before challenging the order. As a result, people whose privacy has been violated will not know about it until it is too late. Are we to believe this is a protection of civil liberties?

Then there's the national-security-letters provision. National-security letters are basically the same thing as search warrants, except they are issued by the government, rather than the courts. The new version of the Patriot Act supposedly exempts libraries from being subject to national-security letters, but, again, the solution falls short.

Because of the bill's vague language, it is possible that the government can still use national-security letters to obtain citizens' Internet records from libraries.

Are we to believe this is a protection of civil liberties? And we certainly can't ignore the "sneak-and-peek" provision that lets the government conduct secret searches of Americans' homes. Not only can investigators enter our homes and offices, take pictures, and seize items; they can also do so without informing us that a warrant has been issued. Are we to believe this is a protection of civil liberties?

In the post-9/11 world, we must be vigilant about protecting our national security. But in so doing, we cannot - we must not - trample on the civil liberties that define our America. We must continue the fight to preserve our fundamental freedoms. We must work to find the solutions that fortify our defenses without undermining our freedom. We must demand the protection of both national security and civil liberties.

This doesn't have to be an either/or proposition. In fact, the very foundation on which our country was built demands that it not be. Settling for the facade of compromise that is this Patriot Act is just not the solution our great nation deserves.

Jennifer Lawless, an assistant professor of political science and public policy at Brown University, is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for Rhode Island's Second Congressional District seat.

This column appeared on March 25, 2006, in the Providence Journal.