Defining what is patriotic and what isn't can be tricky

As Congress returns to Washington, there will be less than a month to debate renewal of the Patriot Act.
President Bush has made it clear -- and reiterated his position Tuesday -- that he sees no need for a debate. All he wants to see is an extension of the act, making some of its most controversial provisions permanent.
We have to ask why. Why does this president or any president need a permanent Patriot Act?
We understand that the world has changed and that the security risks facing America today are not the same as they were five years ago or 10 years ago.
But that is exactly why the Patriot Act, which gives government agents an ability to intrude into the private lives of citizens that would have been unimaginable before Sept. 11, 2001, should only be approved on a temporary basis.
Hard to turn back
Once freedom is relinquished, it is very difficult to recapture. Powers given to a particular president under particular circumstances may not be appropriate years later, after circumstances and the person sitting in the White House have changed.
Having sunset provisions in the Patriot Act is a good thing. The Patriot Act was passed in haste and, appropriately, Congress reserved to itself the right to re-examine the law's provisions and how they had been followed by the administration after four years.
While four years have elapsed, that is still barely the blink of an eye in history. Congress should not allow itself to be backed into a corner where it approves as permanent changes in the way our government watches the behavior of its citizens.
Four years ago, some in the administration attempted to paint anyone who questioned any aspect of the cleverly named Patriot Act as unpatriotic. Incredibly, such a charge was used in a political campaign to unseat a triple amputee veteran of the Vietnam war by a man who never served in the military. That is a demonstration of how strong the word patriot can be, that it can be used so easily to cloud voters' minds.
There is nothing unpatriotic about questioning the need for government agencies to have extraordinary powers, powers that arguably were not envisioned by the Founders of this nation.
Worthy of debate
As Congress returns, let the debate begin. And President Bush, rather than demanding that he not only needs every provision of the act, but needs it made permanent, should encourage the debate. The administration should be eager to demonstrate to Congress which powers it needs and why it needs them.
Instead, sitting at a table in the Roosevelt Room of the White House Tuesday, President Bush accused Congress of failing to renew the act for "partisan reasons." He added, "people have not stepped up and have agreed that it's still necessary to protect the country."
The administration has turned Franklin D. Roosevelt's inspiring words -- we have nothing to fear but fear itself -- upside-down. President Bush appears willing to play on peoples' fears, suggesting that unless the government is free to poke and pry and watch the American people we can never feel safe. That's unfortunate.