When a handful of lawmakers were convinced to vote against it, the so-called Sanders Amendment was locked in a 210-210 tie. The amendment would have eliminated Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which gives police and intelligence agencies intrusive powers into the private lives of all of us. In essence, the House bowed to the threat of a White House veto and listened to the rhetoric that has this issue becoming politicized as we move toward the November elections.

That is shallow thinking. Looking at the Patriot Act and its expansion into the world of literature and film, a dangerous precedent has been set.

Section 215 is a stain upon the U.S. Constitution, trampling on the First Amendment (free speech), Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) and the 14th Amendment (due process).

The proponents contend there is a real threat of terrorists using reading materials, viewing videos, using library computers and employing other resources to plot their next move. They contend this despite any concrete evidence that such has happened.

No doubt, terrorists use the Internet to communicate and plot. But they also use the phone and U.S. Mail. Do we also move to open all letters and monitor telephone calls under the pretext of protecting America?

The Patriot Act was enacted in the shadow of Sept. 11, 2001, when we, as a nation, sought some sort of protection from the ugly hand of indiscriminate terrorism. A renewable law, it was hoped it would be throttled back as our confidence returned and our federal intelligence agencies did a better job at ferreting out those who would unleash their hatred upon our way of life.

It gave the federal government stronger investigative powers and the ability to detain people upon suspicion. However, it did retain the need for warrants and subpoena by law enforcement. To expand the snooping powers to include checking book lists, video choices and Web sites at public libraries is converse to that hope and manages to set the stage for more erosion of personal freedom in this great nation.

Curtailing the liberties and freedom of any only diminishes all. For giving up our liberty to preserve our liberty is a losing proposition that would have our Founding Fathers disowning us.

Parting shot

They say the best defense is a good offense, and that’s just what Kenneth Lay, the former chairman of Enron Corp., did. Facing a federal indictment, he pleaded not guilty to 11 counts of fraud and to making false statements. Lay, the poster boy for corporate greed and unethical behavior, claims he was out of the loop when it came to his company’s bankruptcy. He says he sold his millions in stock because he owed his stockbroker, not because the energy giant was going in the dumper. Thousands of shareholders lost their precious savings when Mr. Lay headed Enron. There is little chance they are shedding tears for him now.