Man, the guys who wrote the Patriot Act really thought of everything, huh?

The American Civil Liberties Union disclosed yesterday that it filed a lawsuit three weeks ago challenging the FBI’s methods of obtaining many business records, but the group was barred from revealing even the existence of the case until now.

The lawsuit was filed April 6 in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, but the case was kept under seal to avoid violating secrecy rules contained in the USA Patriot Act, the ACLU said. The group was allowed to release a redacted version of the lawsuit after weeks of negotiations with the government.

“It is remarkable that a gag provision in the Patriot Act kept the public in the dark about the mere fact that a constitutional challenge had been filed in court,” Ann Beeson, the ACLU’s associate legal director, said in a statement. “President Bush can talk about extending the life of the Patriot Act, but the ACLU is still gagged from discussing details of our challenge to it.”

Unlike many on the left, I’m not one of those people who hates the Patriot Act. I’m open the the argument that law enforcement’s hands have been tied in certain ways, and if the Justice Department is able to prove that they’ve caught and convicted any terrorists based on information that could have only been obtained via the Patriot Act, then I’d support those provisions being renewed next year.

But that isn’t the reality here. While there are probably some long-overdue changes in the Patriot Act, the vast majority of it seems to be a series of blank checks to the executive branch that were granted in the reactionary haze that immediately followed 9/11. Yeah, these provisions are probably unconstitutional, but they’re also likely to flood our thinly-stretched intelligence agencies with even more data than they need. When our problems are with analyzing and sharing intelligence, wouldn’t adding more data to the pile just make things worse?

Also, this is a little off the subject, but I hate, hate, hate the name of the Patriot Act. The implication behind the name is clear : If you don’t vote for this, you aren’t patriotic. Is there any more transparently chickenshit way to coerce someone into voting for your legislation than impugning their love for their country?

If I were in Congress, I’d bundle together a bunch of my pet projects (higher minimum wage, closing tax loopholes for the rich, etc.) and call it the “Jesus is Awesome” Act. If any Republicans voted against it, I’d accuse them of being communist bastards who hate the Lord. After all, if you don’t vote for it, then you’re just making it clear that you think Jesus isn’t awesome, right?