Passions flared and opinions clashed over the USA Patriot Act Saturday evening in an event in Filene Auditorium examining the legislation's impact on American civil liberties.
Sponsored by the College's legal studies program in conjunction with a local branch of the international writers' group PEN, the evening consisted of a keynote address by Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., a series of readings by Vermont poet laureate Grace Paley and a six-member panel of experts who mostly opposed the Patriot Act.
Arriving last minute from Washington, where he was delayed by a homeland security vote, Sanders delivered the keynote address. He emphasized what he called the "true bipartisan effort" of the anti-Patriot Act movement and praised those who contributed to the fight.
Sanders criticized the legislation, enacted shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and warned against its renewal.
"What could well happen in this country is that an intellectual chill could develop," he said.
The panel discussion focused on the Patriot Act's Section 215, a widely criticized portion of the legislation that deals with the rights of law enforcement agencies to obtain records from libraries and bookstores.
Michael Mello, a Vermont Law School professor, defended the legislation but admitted that it makes for a confusing read.
"This is the most complicated, convoluted enactment of any legislature I've ever tried to sort out and wade through," Mello said.
Vermont librarian Trina Magi, a well-known critic of the act, denounced the FBI's newly-granted ability to obtain library patron records.
"The freedom to speak is really meaningless unless we also have the freedom to hear and to read," said Magi.
Claire Ebel, executive director of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, prefaced her comments by saying, "I want you to be afraid. You should be. And if I do my job you will be."
Ebel condemned Attorney General John Ashcroft's characterization of the Patriot Act as an anti-terrorism measure even though it contains provisions unrelated to terrorism.
Ebel also demonstrated the act's overly broad scope by providing an example of how she could be considered a terrorist for donating money to a whales' rights group.
"Have I scared you yet?" she asked the audience, which mostly consisted of senior citizens.
John MacGovern '80, a former Massachusetts Republican state representative, deemed the outrage over the Patriot Act overblown.
"The Patriot Act is a necessary law enabling law enforcement to carry out its responsibilities," MacGovern said.
MacGovern was clearly in the minority. One of the two panelists who did not completely reject the act, he described the discussion as "one-sided."
When asked if the program would have benefited from a more diverse group of speakers, MacGovern responded, "If the intent was to explore a full range of ideas, then the answer is yes."
He also noted the absence of law enforcement officials, whom he thought would have contributed greatly to the panel.
Mello, who also defended the act, said that the panel's over-representation of the act's critics was inconsistent with its stated goal of encouraging dissent.
"I think it's not a bad thing to have a bunch of dissenters on a panel that is titled 'Patriotism and Dissent,'" said Mello.
Some students also noted the panel's apparent bias against the act.
"I think they should have invited more people from the opposite side to make it more balanced," said Jana Paremoud '08.
The panel's two remaining members included Vietnam War veteran and anti-war activist author Nathaniel Tripp and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Thomas Powers.
