Patriot Act under fire.

Byline: The Register-Guard

It took a federal judge from Oregon to reaffirm what Congress has chosen to ignore since making the USA Patriot Act law in the fear-filled weeks following Sept. 11, 2001: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken struck down key portions of the Patriot Act, ruling that the anti-terrorism law allows federal surveillance and searches of Americans without requiring investigators to demonstrate probable cause, as required by the Constitution.

"The (government) here is asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so," Aiken wrote in her decision. "For over 200 years, this nation has adhered to the rule of law - with unparalleled success. A shift to a nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised."

Aiken's ruling this week came in the case of Brandon Mayfield, a Portland lawyer, Muslim and former U.S. Army officer who was jailed after the Federal Bureau of Investigation botched a fingerprint match and mistakenly linked him to the Madrid train bombings in March of 2004.

Despite Spanish officials' doubts about the validity of the fingerprint match and other discrepancies, U.S. investigators used expanded surveillance powers under the Patriot Act to wiretap Mayfield's conversations and conduct "sneak and peek" searches of his home and law office. Agents seized computer and paper files and other personal items, even his children's homework. He was detained for two weeks as a material witness before a judge threw out the case. The FBI eventually issued a public apology, and Mayfield settled a lawsuit against the government for $2 million, while continuing his legal challenge of the Patriot Act.

Aiken's ruling came just two weeks after another federal judge in New York struck down provisions of the act that allow the FBI to obtain e-mail and telephone data from telephone and Internet companies, banks and other businesses without a court warrant.

The judicial roadblocks are a tribute to the resiliency of this nation's system of government, although it remains to be seen what will happen if - make thatwhen- the Bush administration appeals the rulings and they eventually find their way to the Supreme Court.

The latest ruling comes little more than two weeks after the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. It serves as a reminder that national security must never be used as a pretext for shredding individual liberties and our constitutional system of checks and balances, which is designed to prevent government abuses such as the Mayfield case.

After Sept. 11, a fearful and compliant Congress succumbed to fierce pressure from the Bush administration to pass the Patriot Act, giving the FBI sweeping new powers to pursue terrorists on U.S. soil. As evidenced by the Mayfield case, the FBI has wielded its expanded authority irresponsibly, pledges to the contrary notwithstanding. Yet Congress has responded with revisions that have only worsened the law's constitutional flaws.

In her ruling, Aiken almost wistfully recalled that before the Patriot Act "the three branches of government operated with thoughtful and deliberate checks and balances - a principle upon which our nation was founded. These constitutional checks and balances effectively curtail overzealous executive, legislative, or judicial activity regardless of the catalyst for overzealousness. The Constitution contains bedrock principles that the framers believed essential. Those principles should not be easily altered by the expediences of the moment."

If the Bush administration appeals Aiken's ruling as expected, Congress should move swiftly to fix the flaws in the Patriot Act that prompted it and restore the checks and balances necessary to prevent an overzealous government from running roughshod over innocent Americans.