Martha Coakley Supports Patriot Act Spying?

With just a week now before the Democratic primary for the special election to replace deceased U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy, some disturbing comments from candidate Martha Coakley have been uncovered. In the comments, Coakley appears to be defending government spying on the private activities of law-abiding American citizens under the Patriot Act.

In response to criticism of the Patriot Act, Coakley is alleged to have said, “Your insurance company knows more about you than the federal government does. When people don’t understand how things work, they’re willing to say ‘can’t do it, won’t do it,’ and they tie the government’s hands.”

In the context of today’s health care reform debate, it’s not very reassuring to see that a candidate for the U.S. Senate regarded insurance companies as an example of ethical behavior. Insurance companies collect information about people and then use that information to deny people the coverage that they’ve been paying for. That’s one of the things that pro-Constitution Americans are concerned about when it comes to the Patriot Act. If the government seizes private information from Americans’ medical records, that information can then be used against people.

Coakley’s comparison between the federal government and insurance companies was ill-informed. The comments, made in 2005, came after revelations of a huge extent of information about Americans personal lives that was being seized by the government. Additional revelations came later. We now know that the U.S. government is seizing huge amounts of email, telephone calls, and other electronic information, in addition to other private records of a huge variety. Does Martha Coakley truly believe that insurance companies are reading Americans’ private emails, and tracking our telephone calls?

Besides, the relationship of an American citizen to an insurance company is significantly distinct in nature from the relationship of an American citizen to the federal government. Americans enter into voluntary relationships with insurance companies, and agree to share personal information with those companies. Individual Americans don’t have the chance to choose whether to be subject to laws such as the Patriot Act. The government and its laws apply to all people within its jurisdiction, whether those people like it or not. No one from the government came door to door, asking people to share their personal information. Under the Patriot Act, they just seized the information.

The American people did have a previously-existing agreement with their government, however. It’s called the Constitution of the United States of America. Part of that agreement, the Fourth Amendment, promises that the government will not seize private information about people without probable cause and a warrant proving that the particular information being seized, from each and every person that it’s taken from, at a particular place, is reasonably related to a violation of the law. The Patriot Act thoroughly violates the Fourth Amendment.

If Coakley, as a District Attorney with extensive legal training, spoke in support of the Patriot Act as she has been accused of doing, then she must have very little respect for Americans’ constitutional rights. Such a politician ought not to be given the power of a United States Senator.

The Coakley campaign has not issued any public statement denying that she spoke in defense of the Patriot Act in 2005. Coakley has spoken privately with reporters, however, stating that she opposes the Patriot Act, or at least some parts of the law. That’s not very reassuring, though, when many current U.S. Senators have claimed to be opposed to violations of our liberty by the Patriot Act, and then voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act anyway.

If Martha Coakley wants to maintain the trust of freedom-loving voters, she needs to come out with a strong public denunciation of the Patriot Act, and pledge that she will vote against all attempts to reauthorize the law. When it comes to some things, like unreasonable search and seizure, the government’s hands ought to be tied.