Patriot Act is ineffective, says Ohio ACLU official

Don't trade freedom for the illusion of security, the official said.
By PETER H. MILLIKEN
VINDICATOR STAFF WRITER
YOUNGSTOWN -- The legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio says the USA Patriot Act encroaches on civil liberties without effectively fighting terrorism.
"The government has arrested thousands of people and held them in detention and then concluded the vast majority of them did nothing wrong," said Jeffrey M. Gamso, ACLU legal director.
"Law abiding citizens are, in fact, subject to having their rights, their freedom, severely abused by the government in what is largely, it appears, a fanciful effort to do something to prevent terrorism," he added.
Gamso discussed the Patriot Act at a Thursday evening forum at Youngstown State University, which was sponsored by the ACLU, the university's James Dale Ethics Center and the Valley Coalition for Peace and Justice.
"It allows great government abuse, and it doesn't provide any means for us to find out whether or not they're abusing it," Gamso said.
About the act
In the weeks immediately following 9/11, Congress overwhelmingly passed and President Bush signed on Oct. 26, 2001, the 340-page USA Patriot Act, whose stated goal was to combat terrorism.
The act gave the government broad new powers of detention and surveillance, authorized the Secretary of State to designate domestic or foreign groups as terrorist organizations, and defined a new crime titled "domestic terrorism."
Under certain circumstances, the act allows indefinite detention of non-citizens suspected of being a threat to national security. The act also expands the authority of government to use wiretaps, computer surveillance and searches of medical, financial, business and educational records.
Some of the expanded surveillance powers in the act expire on Dec. 31, 2005, unless Congress re-authorizes them. The Bush administration is asking Congress to reauthorize those provisions, but Gamso said the public should write to their Congressional representatives asking that these provisions be allowed to expire.
Surveillance
Gamso objected to surveillance provisions of the act, which he said conflict with First Amendment rights of free expression and Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
"When you trade freedom, not for more security, but for the illusion of security, you're not making yourself safer, but you're giving up an awful lot," Gamso said.
Because government activities under the Patriot Act are conducted "in great secrecy," he said, "It is essentially impossible to know how the government is using these things, and therefore it's impossible for us to hold the government accountable for doing it right."
milliken@vindy.com