In the next few months, a number of provisions in the Patriot Act, passed in the aftermath of the 9-11 terrorist attack, will come before Congress for reauthorization. Without reauthorization, the provisions, which have “sunset provisions” attached, will cease to be law. Thus, over the next weeks and months, the American people and their duly elected representatives in Congress will need to study these provisions and decide whether they have been effective in preventing further terror attacks in the United States.

Many provisions of the Patriot Act have been controversial, almost from the time they were signed into law in October 2001. Several provisions have been condemned by civil libertarians on both the political right and left as far too intrusive into ordinary citizens’ privacy. Law enforcement, on the other hand, has generally been quite supportive of the Act and of the increased powers officers have gained under its provisions.

Many of these provisions, such as those permitting increased surveillance of criminal suspects, “sneak-and-peek” warrants, and greater ability to gain access to electronic information, have been credited with significantly enhancing law enforcement activities in both terror- and non-terror-related investigations. Other provisions, however, such as the notorious Section 215, which permits law enforcement greater access to library and bookstore patron lists, have been so controversial that they have been little used.

But, if one leaves aside the political battles over these provisions, by what criteria should Congress judge the Patriot Act provisions up for reauthorization? I would suggest that the first and most important criterion should be whether these provisions, which do, in very real ways, limit civil liberties, actually prevent terrorist acts. To do this will require a level of openness from the federal government, and especially the Justice Department, which has not yet been seen.

Federal law enforcement agencies need to inform Congress, or at least select members of Congress, of the details of the investigations in which the Patriot Act has been used over the past several years so that Congress can make an informed decision about the provisions set to expire. While it is understandable that law enforcement officials do not want to assist terrorists by giving out sensitive information, a way must be found to permit some members of Congress to see this information so that they can help the entire Congress make wise choices on reauthorization.

During the president’s first term, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, was unwilling to give Congress and the public such information and demanded that Congress believe his statements as to the efficacy of the Act on blind faith. In so doing, he made congressional oversight of the Act virtually impossible. Now, however, we have a new attorney general, who appears more willing to compromise on such issues and, hopefully, will not force Congress into making crucial legislative decisions on national security issues without adequate information.

The debate over the Patriot Act in the next few months will be of utmost importance not only to national security in the United States, but also to the future of civil rights in this country. We must hope that Congress and the executive branch will put aside partisan politics for this debate and make truly informed decisions. We should accept no less.

— Mike Hoeflich, a professor in the Kansas University School of Law, writes a regular column for the

Journal-World.