[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 8 (Tuesday, February 1, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E122-E123]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       DEFENDING CIVIL LIBERTIES

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. BERNARD SANDERS

                               of vermont

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 1, 2005

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 31st, 2005, I held a 
town meeting at the Vermont Law School on the state of civil liberties 
in America. Joining me at the meeting

[[Page E123]]

were Professor Cheryl Hanna of Vermont Law School; Professor Stephen 
Dycus of Vermont Law School; Trina Magi, Past President of the Vermont 
Library Association; and Ben Scotch, the Former Executive Director of 
the Vermont American Civil Liberties Union. Well over 200 people 
participated in the meeting.
  Mr. Speaker, in the United States today there is a great concern 
about terrorism. Our country suffered a horrendous tragedy on September 
11th, 2001--and there is no doubt in my mind that there are people on 
this earth who would like to attack us again.
  Is terrorism a serious problem? The answer is ``Yes, it is.'' Should 
the United States and the rest of the world do all that we can to 
protect innocent people from terrorist attacks? The answer, once again 
in my view, is ``Yes, we should.''
  But the question that we are struggling with in Congress and 
throughout our country is: ``Do we have to sacrifice our basic 
liberties and constitutional rights in order to protect ourselves from 
the threat of global terrorism?'' And in my view, the answer to that 
question must be a resounding ``No.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit an article that ran in the 
Rutland Herald on Tuesday, February 1, 2005, about this town meeting.
                    Panel Discusses Civil Liberties
       Royalton.--Big Brother might not be watching just yet, but 
     many believe George Orwell's nightmare is becoming more 
     plausible by the day.
       ``We need to be aware that a cancer is threatening our 
     basic civil liberties, our constitutional rights and our 
     privacy rights,'' Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., said Monday 
     night to a crowd of more than 200 people at Vermont Law 
     School.
       The audience filled the Jonathan B. Chase Community Center 
     for the panel discussion on civil liberties and national 
     security with Sanders, VLS professors Stephen Dycus and 
     Cheryl Hanna, former Vermont Library Association president 
     Trina Magi and former Vermont American Civil Liberties Union 
     president Ben Scotch.
       Much of the discussion centered on the USA Patriot Act, 
     passed in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001.
       Sanders said the issue alone was not just the Patriot Act, 
     which broadened the powers of law enforcement and the federal 
     government, but also how those who want to keep track of 
     people are gaining more ways of doing so.
       Sanders said there was an effort in Congress last year to 
     require trackable computer chips in all drivers' licenses.
       ``Someone with the right kind of device could track your 
     every movement,'' he said. ``George Orwell, here we are. In a 
     few short years, unless we change it, every single thing we 
     do, every place we go, every person we meet could be recorded 
     in a database.''
       Hanna said the provisions of the Patriot Act that civil 
     libertarians find most troublesome and unconstitutional have 
     been difficult to challenge in court because of the secrecy 
     with which the law allows the government to operate.
       ``In order to challenge something, you have to have a 
     case,'' she said. ``You need someone who has been harmed. 
     With the Patriot Act, so much of the harm has been 
     clandestine. You might not even know if you were the target 
     of an investigation.''
       Scotch argued that the real dangers of the Patriot Act were 
     its vagaries and the ways in which it challenged established 
     legal language.
       Scotch presented provisions of a bill he called ``The Free 
     Speech Enhancement Act of 2005,'' that would outlaw several 
     forms of speaking out against the government during wartime. 
     He then revealed that the law had been passed, under another 
     name in 1918 and had since been repealed.
       ``Bills that restrict freedom are more and more subtle and 
     more and more clever,'' he said. ``That's what we're seeing 
     in the USA Patriot Act. When the Sedition Act of 1918 says 
     we're going to ban disloyal speech, it comes out and says 
     it.''
       Magi said she was worried that the provisions allowing 
     investigators to look at the records of any business, 
     including libraries, without a warrant would destroy the 
     effectiveness of libraries.
       ``As an academic librarian, it is my job to help students 
     really dig deeper,'' she said. ``In order to do that, 
     students must feel that the library is a safe place to seek 
     information.''
       Dycus challenged the notion that ``normal Americans'' who 
     are not terrorists don't need to fear the Patriot Act.
       ``It would be a terrible mistake to believe none of this 
     concerns you,'' he said. ``You might be right to think that 
     you will never be taken away in the night and detained in a 
     military brig . . . but you shouldn't be so sure. Besides, 
     what our government does with our knowledge it also does in 
     our name.''
       The floor was opened to questions from the audience, which 
     ranged from angry rants against the Bush administration to 
     questions about what can be done.
       One student challenged the one-sidedness of the discussion.
       ``I was a little surprised the Vermont Law School would 
     have only one side presented,'' she said. ``I would think 
     they would want both sides presented so we, as law students, 
     could learn.''
       Sanders said the make-up of the panel was his doing and not 
     the school's.
       The student went on to challenge some of the assertions 
     about the Patriot Act, saying her understanding was the 
     ``sneak and peek'' provisions merely expanded capabilities 
     that law enforcement already had.
       Scotch replied that the earlier law on which those 
     provisions were based included a requirement similar to 
     probable cause, but the Patriot Act does not.
       One man asked how to best strike a balance between 
     preserving civil liberties and vigilance against terrorist 
     threats. Magi said it was something people would have to 
     decide for themselves.
       ``I think it's really legitimate to be afraid of 
     terrorists,'' she said. ``We can also be afraid of an 
     overreaching government that stretches too far into our 
     lives. There are plenty of examples of lives that were ruined 
     by a government that was not restrained.''
       Sanders said there was more to the issue than a simple 
     tradeoff and that reductions in privacy don't necessarily 
     lead to increases in security.
       Sanders cited the deportation of people advocating trade 
     unions in the 1920s, the internment of Japanese citizens 
     during World War II, the McCarthyism of the 1950s and 
     government surveillance during the 1960s as examples of how 
     the government can be just as much of a threat to the people 
     as those from whom it is supposed to protect them.
       ``We have got to be vigilant,'' he said.
       Sanders said people need to put as much effort into 
     defending their civil liberties as the Republican Party 
     leadership has put into promoting the policies of the Bush 
     Administration.
       ``Tom Delay works day and night, fighting for what he 
     believes in,'' he said. ``You have to begin to think about 
     changing the political culture. All of us are going to have 
     to roll up our sleeves and talk to our neighbors.''
       The key, Sanders said, lies not in just organizing 
     liberals, but reaching out to conservatives.
       ``It is not moderate Republicans, it is conservative 
     Republicans, people who love their guns and don't want their 
     guns taken away, who are going to join you,'' he said. ``Do 
     you talk to them and or just think they're jerks who aren't 
     as bright as you? Well, that's what they think about you.''
       Sanders said nobody on the left has the luxury of being 
     depressed or defeatist.
       ``On issues like this, I believe that once people hear the 
     issues, they understand we can deal with terrorism without 
     the provisions of the Patriot Act,'' he said.

                          ____________________