Perhaps the strongest testament to the resiliency of America’s democracy is that so many of us take it for granted. The government has, largely, respected our individual rights for so long that most of us cannot picture life without them.

But as a result of our inability to imagine the repression of our basic rights, we have allowed our understandable anxiety over 9-11 to fuel the introduction and adoption of a number of new laws and policies that both run counter to our basic democratic freedoms and actually, by their general lack of focus on the specific threat of terrorism, make us less safe.

Take, for example, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001. Signed into law less than two months after the terrorist attacks, many sections of the law are worrisome both in their likely inability to prevent terrorism and their long-term adverse effects on our liberty.

The law is not tailored precisely enough to meet the threat of al-Qaida and the other terror groups around the world. All that it really does is compile a hodgepodge of dust-covered ideas that predate 9-11, but which the Department of Justice was unable to push through previous Congresses, both Republican and Democratic, until the tragic terrorist attacks.

Most of these ideas are underpinned by one simple, and flawed, premise: that government agents, if freed from their responsibility to check with a judge before they investigate suspects, will be able to catch more bad guys before they strike.

Such a law enforcement or intelligence gathering approach is actually counter-productive. The requirement that law enforcement obtain a warrant before searching a house is not just to protect our rights – it’s to ensure that law enforcement is not wasting time searching the wrong house. USA Patriot is full of expanded powers that, by removing or lessening warrant requirements and judicial oversight, effectively guarantee that federal agents will now be wasting far more time on these wild goose chases.

If the government implements the new law to its fullest extent, here’s just a sampling of what could happen: You could get put on an FBI watch-list for borrowing a book about the Taliban from the library; your worship services could be infiltrated by plainclothes federal agents; the FBI could begin to investigate you for criticisms of President Bush voiced in a college class; your bank records could be turned over to the FBI after a disgruntled former business partner phones in a phony tip saying you were laughing while watching news coverage of 9-11. Worst of all, of course, you could be hurt in a terrorist act that would have been prevented had the Patriot Act not permitted the government to pursue so many red herrings.

Now, two years after its passage, cooler heads are reconsidering the bill that was rushed through Congress. This reconsideration isn’t just coming from liberals. In fact, some of the most vocal critics are the conservative members of Congress. Consider what Don Young, the Republican representative from Alaska, said: ” … it’s the worst piece of legislation we’ve ever passed.”

For example, section 213 of USA Patriot enables law enforcement to conduct “sneak and peek” searches, allowing places to be searched and records seized and permits an indefinite delay in notifying the subject of the search. This flies in the face of the Fourth Amendment “knock and announce” convention long associated with search warrants. It runs so contrary to Americans’ understanding of privacy and due process that 309 members of the House – including 113 Republicans, almost a majority – voted to prevent it from being implemented. The sponsor of this measure was Rep. Butch Otter, a Republican from Idaho – hardly a liberal.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act reduces the role of the courts in preventing abuse when FBI agents execute orders from Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which permit broad access to financial, medical, mental health and even library records. The agents need only to “specify” that the “records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation,” and if that criteria is met, the judge “shall enter an ex parte order as requested.”

In other words, if the agents claim that the records sought are relevant to an ongoing intelligence investigation, the judge must issue that warrant. This is hardly judicial oversight.

Americans of all political stripes now see that the Patriot Act went too far, too fast. The ACLU is joined by Bob Barr, Americans for Tax Reform, the Free Congress Foundation, the American Conservative Union and other unusual associates in urging Congress to revisit the liberties lost after 9-11. More than 170 communities – including three states – have passed pro-civil liberties resolutions. We join them in calling for a restoration of civil liberties.

History has shown us that we are all too willing to sacrifice freedom in times of crisis and that, in hindsight, we inevitably come to regret these sacrifices. The Palmer raids, the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the McCarthy era – they all are skeletons in America’s closet. They are not examples of what America truly represents.

When I served in the Maine Legislature, civil liberties issues were a common ground for Mainers of all parties, of all parts of the state. We recognize the need to have better security measures in place, but we should not pursue policies that place an undue burden on our freedoms. Fairness, tolerance and equality under the law – these are our strengths as a nation – not weaknesses. We should embrace these values, not distance ourselves from them. We can, and must, be both safe and free.

Charles Mitchell is legislative counsel to the ACLU Washington legislative office, and a former member of the Legislature’s 119th and 120th sessions (D-Vassalboro).