Sunshine Week Home Page » Sunshine Week 2006: Shining Examples Gallery » Sunshine Week 2006 Online Gallery Five »

Debate Opening Remarks by Alan English

Published: May 29, 2006
Last Updated: May 29, 2006

Opening remarks by Times Executive Editor Alan English, moderator of the Sunshine Week debate, Liberty vs. Security and the Patriot Act: How to Keep America Safe and Free." The debate was co-sponsored by The Times, the Northwestern State University Student Government Association and the NSU Department of Journalism.

Good evening.

The Times is pleased to join Northwestern State University tonight as part of our newspaper mission to both inform and to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas.

We do this as part of a great tradition and bedrock freedom that allows Americans to openly discuss ideas and to express opinions.

Folks, it doesn’t get any better than this.

Particularly when I think that as a newspaper editor, I haven’t always been encouraged that in this red state-blue state world, Americans are willing to listen to the other side.

Those Founding Fathers who spoke up for independence by criticizing the British crown are today called patriots. Ironically, criticism of authority today might classify one—in some people’s minds—as being UN-patriotic.

In furthering that cause, the name of the act we debate tonight raises that very concern, if you challenge the Patriot Act are you being unpatriotic?

Northwestern and its Student Government Association, then, should be commended for convening this forum.

From The Times' point of view, it is also fitting that the forum corresponds with the observance of Sunshine Week, a time to celebrate America’s right to open, representative government, and to sound warnings about any threats to that ideal.

We are especially grateful for Gov. [Bill] Owens [of Colorado] and Mr. [Anthony] Romero[of the ACLU] for traveling to Natchitoches, to help NSU students and the NW Louisiana public better grasp what the Patriot Act can mean for their lives. Both have been involved in similar forums before and are capable advocates for their respective positions.

Almost a week after President George Bush signed legislation renewing the Patriot Act, you may well ask “Why are we here?”

I submit to you that the issues surrounding the best intentions and worst fears regarding the Patriot Act are still worth exploring. Specifically, the act pits, as our topic notes, "Liberty vs. Security." Others might couch it as National Security vs. Personal Privacy.

The first expectation is what we expect government to provide, safety in our homes and hometown. With the trial of Saddam Hussein and African genocides, we are reminded that what we take for granted isn’t a reality across the globe.

The second expectation, that of personal privacy, focuses on where we expect government to draw the line regarding intrusion. What limits to a free society are prudent to preserve democracy and which ones cross the line. Certainly it can be agreed that the Patriot Act moved that line in response to the realities of a post-9/11 world.

The Patriot Act’s goal was to better equip government to protect us from terrorism.

But only through awareness of its components and vigilance about its limits can the public help prevent unintended consequences.

It is not enough to rely on assurances from one U.S. Attorney who said federal agents couldn’t listen in on every phone conversation even if they wanted to—they don’t have the manpower.

Certainly, there are aspects most can agree about. Better communication among various law enforcement and intelligence agencies, might be one.

But we’re here to find out if ambiguities remain and whether we can accept them.

Consider that in the past two years, a federal judge in Orlando, Fla., has twice rejected Patriot Act search warrants in child-pornography cases ruling Congress did not authorize him to sign warrants for Internet records across state lines in cases that did not involve terrorism or domestic security. In both cases, higher district judges have overruled him.

Is the apprehension of child pornographers a bonus of the Patriot Act or an example of a law adopted for one reason—to catch terrorists—being used for another.

The format tonight will begin with opening statements from our two guests.

A flip of the coin will decide who goes first and each will then have 10 minutes.

Then we will take up three points surrounding the Patriot Act, with each gentleman having three minutes to respond.

I will exercise my authority as moderator to help direct discussion where appropriate, to follow up.

Next, I will ask questions that have been submitted before hand by NSU students and Times readers. Again responses will be limited to 3 minutes.

Following that, we will open the floor to questions from the audience here tonight.