The scary side of 'patriotism'

In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, then U.S. Rep. Butch Otter of Idaho was one of just three Congressional Republicans to vote against The Patriot Act. Otter believed that while some components of the act were important for security, on the whole it represented a serious constitutional threat — a belief later supported in part by the courts.

To Otter and to others among us, particularly in retrospect, The Patriot Act of 2001 was an over-reaction to the horrific assault on our soil. A seemingly impenetrable wall had been breached by a handful of nobodies. We needed to do something, something big — right? Hence The Patriot Act was quickly conceived and embraced. To vote against it was, in many Americans’ minds, like slapping Uncle Sam’s face before plastering it with an apple pie. How could anyone vote against something with the word “patriot” in it?

Fifteen years later, we might be charting a similar course.

The two-part analysis by local writer, researcher and decorated warrior Uyless Black, published Monday and Tuesday in The Press, should give us all cause to pause. Legislation adopted last month by overriding a presidential veto strikes a similar patriotic chord to the 2001 act opposed by Butch Otter and only a handful of other elected leaders. This time, Congress has opened the door to lawsuits aimed at terrorists, which on the surface is a noble pursuit. The problem is what lies beneath that surface.

A fair question is, why now? Is it possible that the overwhelming veto override was powered by the fact that a historic national election lurked only weeks away, and many incumbents would benefit from the perception of pounding terrorism in the pocketbook? Should we be surprised that the override came mere days after the 15th anniversary of 9/11?

Even if the timing was coincidental, we should all be on the alert for unintended consequences, which Black enumerated well. Of particular concern is even the remote possibility that many of our veterans, the men and women who have risked their lives while carrying out orders mandated by their government, could end up in some unfriendly courtroom where they’d risk losing civil lawsuits and face financial disaster.

Emphasizing that these might be fears never actually realized, we believe the veto override example is one that bears careful consideration and, perhaps, legislative revision somewhere not far down the road. The reminder to voters and legislators alike is, when there’s a passionate urge to push “patriotic” legislation to new heights, think very carefully first. That’s emotion talking when reason should stand alone at the podium.