---

Parts of Patriot Act
should be revised

THE ISSUE The House has approved a bill that would make permanent most provisions of the USA Patriot Act that are due to expire.

WITH added impetus from the recent bombings and terrorist attempts in London, Congress is moving toward extension of 16 provisions of the USA Patriot Act before they expire at the end of this year. Most of the provisions deserve being extended or made permanent, but others should be allowed to expire or scaled back because of their unwarranted infringement on civil liberties.

The Patriot Act was approved overwhelmingly six weeks after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Most members of Congress agree that most of the law is useful and should be made permanent, but other provisions unreasonably allow the government to demand library and bookstore records and to use "roving wiretaps" directed at a person instead of a particular telephone, both without a judge's approval.

The House last week approved, 257-171, a bill that would make 14 of the provisions permanent and extend the book-records and surveillance provisions for 10 years. Rep. Neil Abercrombie voted against the bill while Rep. Ed Case joined 42 other Democrats in voting in favor.

By a large margin, the House last month approved an amendment to an appropriations bill to prevent the government from reviewing library records, but the rules committee refused to allow a similar amendment to be considered for the Patriot Act. Other amendments aimed at protecting civil liberties were similarly blocked.

Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee reached unanimous approval of a bill that would require greater judicial oversight on government demands for library records and the use of roving wiretaps. The Senate Intelligence Committee approved a competing bill that would expand the government's power. Contrary to the recent rancor associated with judicial appointments, the Senate is more inclined to reach reasonable compromise.

The Judiciary Committee's proposal is more likely to gain full Senate approval. It also should be the final version to be reconciled in a House-Senate conference.

---

BACK TO TOP
|

Counties should have control
of fireworks laws

THE ISSUE A City Council resolution asks that the state return its control on fireworks to the counties.

IF the Legislature won't enact a statewide ban on fireworks apart from public displays, lawmakers should let Hawaii's counties impose more stringent measures if they choose.

Though a City Council resolution seeking that would have no force of law, it should be approved to prod legislators toward eliminating the incendiary devices that have caused serious injuries, respiratory problems and, recently, a string of brush and structure fires on Oahu.

In 1995, the Legislature took away from counties the power to make laws governing fireworks, reasoning that a consistent policy was needed statewide. However, that has not resulted in increased safety from the dangers of fireworks.

Since the Fourth of July holiday, Oahu has seen a record number of fireworks-related blazes that have threatened public safety and exhausted firefighters and city resources. One brush fire believed to have been sparked by leftover fireworks burned an apartment building in Waipahu, leaving dozens of people homeless.

As accidental and deliberate fires flared up across the island, Honolulu Fire Chief Attilio Leonardi called for an Independence Day ban as the mid-summer holiday coincides with one of the driest times of the year. However, the city is powerless to enact a ban.

Council member Charles Djou, who introduced the resolution, correctly views fireworks control as a home-rule issue. More sparsely populated islands might not have the kinds of problems Oahu does, but the city should be able to ramp up controls beyond what state law directs.

Further, since counties pay for firefighting and law enforcement, they ought to be allowed to set their own limits, especially because state lawmakers have been too timid to take on the problem, other than requiring puny permits that have been ineffective in lessening the harm.

---

---

---