Andy Thibault

Andy Thibault

Cool Justice
Chris Shays' Unpatriotic Act
By ANDY THIBAULT, Columnist
Law Tribune Newspapers
June 27, 2005

"Say it ain't so," Chris.

So I said to U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, The Maverick, The Knight in Shining Armor, The Congressman With Backbone and Integrity. This guy, Shays, I had admired. As a state representative 20 years ago, he stood up to judicial corruption.

"I feel safer in jail than I did in court," Shays said then. He was a beacon, an inspiration. Yes, I could occasionally trust the system because of guys like Chris Shays.

Now, Shays is towing the line for the reprehensible, phony, suck-ass Patriot Act. How could this be? Why support the codification of the FBI's traditional black-bag jobs and suppression of dissent?

In reality, the government doesn't need the Patriot Act to justify unconstitutional break-ins, detentions and harassment. From the notorious Palmer raids of the 1920's to the Red Scare and the infiltration of the Black Panthers and the anti-Vietnam war movement, the law has rarely been a deterrent when the government decides to target certain groups.

Some cops and FBI agents conduct illegal searches as naturally as walking down the street. Rarely are they caught or held accountable. Quite simply, the so-called Patriot Act empowers law enforcement officers to break the law more often and more easily with even less oversight and less accountability.

Shays recently voted against an amendment to the Patriot Act that - in theory -- would protect privacy rights at libraries and bookstores. A token gesture, but it's as good as it gets from a weak-kneed Congress that has failed to put the brakes on a police state.

The way the law works now, the government can go into libraries or bookstores demanding information - and no one is allowed to talk about it. There is no burden of probable cause. There is no grounding in the Constitution.

"We want to detect and prevent a crime," Shays told me. "We don't want a nuclear or chemical or biological action … It's an outrage that we can go into a library for a crime, but we can't go in if we suspect they're a terrorist ..."

Understandably, Shays is wary of routine, unencumbered evidence-gathering by federal prosecutors using the grand jury mechanism. "I have much more trust," he said, "in the Patriot Act process before a federal judge." That trust is misplaced. It assumes FBI agents and others will actually go to the secret court before they secretly search the files or property of law-abiding citizens or the evil-branded immigrants du jour. It assumes federal judges consistently stand up against government wrongdoing.

The failures of 9-11 have nothing to do with government power. They have everything to do with leadership, competence and accountability. No one was fired for poor leadership or incompetence after 9-11. The only ones punished were whistleblowers.

This is why conservatives including groups like the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform and the Free Congress Foundation have called on Congress to rescind aspects of the Patriot Act that trample on the fundamental rights of Americans.

Shays is out of step on this one. His vote cuts against the maverick image of a Mr. Smith standing against government wrongdoing. The rest of the Connecticut delegation voted as expected: Republicans Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons with Shays and Democrats John Larson and Rosa DeLauro to rescind the library search powers.

Larson put it well: "The first victim of the war on terror should not be the Constitution. The over-reach is incredible. The Patriot Act can be misused, all without your knowledge. It's Orwellian - and scary."

The illegitimate Patriot Act should be opposed with civil disobedience, necessity defense, jury nullification and actual Congressional oversight of law enforcement.

Back to Top