The USA Patriot Act, recently signed by President Bush, seeks to combat terrorism. But while this labyrinth legislation aims to defend America, it ironically threatens to compromise basic rights that define the nation.

The Uniting and Strengthening America By Providing Appropriate Tools Required To Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot) Act was rushed through Congress with remarkable speed.

This quick movement, combined with a fear that the administration calls the “new normalcy,” allowed for legislation that would have been difficult to pass pre-Sept. 11 or even months from now. While it is important to defend the country against terrorist acts, it can and should be done without whittling away America’s liberties. For instance, the act unnecessarily impinges upon Fourth Amendment protections because it significantly changes how search warrants are executed. Previously, before the government could enter a house and search through an individual’s property and documents, a warrant had to be obtained and notice had to be given to the person being searched (except in very limited circumstances where a person’s electronic communications were being searched).

Notice is important to ensure that the individual being searched can assert his or her Fourth Amendment rights. For example, making sure that the police are only searching the areas allowed by the warrant.

The new law changes this so that police can delay giving notice when conducting searches in any criminal case. That means the police can search your home or office when you’re not there and tell you about it after the fact.

This ability to search secretly gives government broader powers, justified as a means to protect America against its enemies. Unfortunately, law enforcement has a history of snooping on “enemies” that are a far cry from terrorists, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and John Lennon.

The law also expands Internet surveillance by making Carnivore, the controversial e-mail wiretapping system, official even though there is a real danger that it over-collects information. And while a judge must monitor Carnivore use after the fact, now the system can be installed by order of a U.S. or state attorney general without going to a judge.

Financial privacy is at risk, too. Without a doubt, there is a need to freeze the assets of known terrorists and that’s already been done. But the USA Patriot Act goes too far, forcing financial institutions to monitor daily financial transactions of all customers more closely and requiring that information be shared with other federal agencies, such as the Central Intelligence Agency.

The re-integration of the CIA with the FBI in this way is unsettling. The functions of the two agencies—foreign and domestic intelligence—were separated in the 1970s after evidence of surreptitious spying in the United States and the collection of data overseas by means that would be illegal under U.S. law.

The terrorist crisis is pulling America back to circumstances that did not work well in the past and do not bode well for the future.

The law also takes steps toward making legitimate political dissent a terrorist act—a problem for a country that values free speech and political association. It does this by creating a new crime called “domestic terrorism.” It is unclear why this new category is necessary as the Sept. 11 attacks violated the three definitions already on the books: international terrorism, terrorism transcending national borders, and federal terrorism.

Under the new law, someone is guilty of domestic terrorism if he engages in acts of political protest that are dangerous to human life. The American Civil Liberties Union asserts that this means the World Trade Organization protesters “have engaged in activities that could subject them to prosecution as terrorists.”

Obviously, acts such as damage to persons or property should be prosecuted, but that already can be done without these new provisions.

To equate protest acts with terrorist acts goes too far and threatens legitimate political association—especially since the law also makes it a crime to allow a terrorist to stay in one’s home. There’s also a new crime called “cyberterrorism,” which classifies computer hacking as a terrorist act—a rather extreme move.

While much of this act is unsettling, at least parts of it were given sunset clauses. Perhaps when the sunset clauses expire in four years, Congress will come back to its senses and reaffirm America’s fundamental liberties.

Sonia Arrison is director of the Center for Freedom and Technology at the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute. She can be reached via email at sarrison@pacificresearch.org.