toledoblade.com --

WASHINGTON - A month and a half after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, Congress responded by passing the USA Patriot Act, which was designed to give law enforcement officials new tools to fight terrorism.

The vote for the legislation was overwhelming in both chambers. The House approved it 357-66; in the Senate the vote was 98-1.

Since then, however, the Patriot Act has become a national lightning rod, sparking impassioned debate about the balance between preserving civil liberties and protecting the nation from terrorism.

At least four states and 270 communities have called for changes to one provision that gives law enforcement officials easier access to personal records, including library and medical records.

Attorney General John Ashcroft wants now to expand the law (Patriot Act II) to permit federal agents to get administrative subpoenas to avoid having to go to a judge for approval, to make it mandatory that those arrested on terrorism charges have no access to bail and to make more terrorist crimes subject to the death penalty.

Mr. Ashcroft argues that repealing any part of the Patriot Act would open the door to terrorism. He said recently, "We have used these tools to prevent terrorist from unleashing more death and destruction on our soil. All of this has been done within the safeguards of our Constitution."

Other sections of the law also are controversial. These include the so-called "sneak and peek'' provision allowing law enforcement officials to search a person's property without telling them, and another provision expanding the FBI's powers to use "roving wiretaps'' and nationwide search warrants.

A recent poll by the nonpartisan Council for Excellence in Government found that 56 percent of the respondents believe that the Patriot Act is good for the country. But 50 percent also said that they had questions about how the act is working and want Congress to examine the law before deciding whether to renew it.

As the national debate over the Patriot Act has intensified, the law has become a hot issue in the presidential campaign this year, with each side using it to question the other side's patriotism.

President Bush contends the Patriot Act has provided law enforcement officials with crucial tools to combat terrorism. That sentiment was echoed recently at hearings of the 9/11 commission by law enforcement and intelligence officials from the Bush and Clinton administrations.

Although provisions of the law don't expire until the end of next year, Mr. Bush wants Congress to renew them - and make them permanent - this year.

That's unlikely, however, because Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the Wisconsin Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, has stated categorically that his panel won't take up the Patriot Act again until the spring of 2005.

Undaunted, Mr. Bush took his case for renewing the act on the campaign trail. "The Patriot Act defends our liberty,'' Mr. Bush told supporters at a rally in Hershey, Pa. "The Patriot Act makes it able for those of us in positions of responsibility to defend the liberty of the American people. It's essential law.''

Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, voted for the Patriot Act in October, 2001, and still supports major parts of it. But Mr. Kerry now charges that the Bush administration has misused parts of the law to trample on civil liberties.

If elected president, Mr. Kerry has promised to eliminate "sneak and peek'' searches, as well as "fishing expeditions into people's library and business records.''

"We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night,'' Mr. Kerry said in a speech in December.

Whatever the outcome of the Nov. 2 election, most lawmakers expect Congress to hold hearings on the Patriot Act before deciding whether to renew, expand or curtail it. Nobody, at this point, expects that it will be repealed.

"It is important to provide a balance between security and civil liberties," said Sen. Mike DeWine (R., Ohio) a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Signed into law by Mr. Bush on Oct. 26, 2001, the Patriot Act contains 153 provisions in 300 pages. Most importantly, Patriot Act supporters say, the law has torn down the wall that prevented crucial sharing of intelligence information among federal law enforcement agencies, and between those agencies and local law enforcement officials.

"That changed our world and has made us immeasurably safer,'' U.S. Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey testified at a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Patriot Act.

But David Harris, a professor at the University of Toledo and an expert on criminal justice, argues that the Patriot Act "is more far-reaching than people seem to realize.''

While the Patriot Act was "sold'' to lawmakers as a way to fight terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration "now is making the case for it by saying they're using it to fight all kinds of crime,'' Mr. Harris said.

"If they had gone to Congress and said they needed some of these changes for crime fighting, it's a solid bet that it would never have passed. Many of the things in the Patriot Act have been on the FBI wish list for years and years. This was an opportunity to get them into law.''

Most of the provisions of the Patriot Act are permanent. Some of the law's most controversial elements, however, will expire on Dec. 31, 2005, unless Congress renews them.

The Patriot Act has been in the spotlight during the recent hearings of the 9/11 commission, which is investigating whether the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington could have been prevented. The commission is expected to release a final report on July 26.

In a preliminary report, the commission staff noted that the Patriot Act "provided additional tools and has lowered or removed legal hurdles that were widely believed to have hindered the FBI's intelligence investigations.''

But, the 9/11 commission staff said, nobody is quite certain how the law works or what its limits are.

"There appears to be widespread confusion - even among (Department of Justice) and FBI personnel - over what the Patriot Act actually allows,'' the staff report said.

Meanwhile, an unusual political coalition has joined together to push for changes in the Patriot Act. Members of the coalition include the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Conservative Union, the American Library Association, and the Gun Owners of America.

In the first vote on the law since it was passed in 2001, the House voted 309-118 in July to approve an amendment, sponsored by Rep. C.L. Otter (R., Idaho) that would prohibit spending federal funds to implement the Patriot Act's "sneak and peek'' provision.

Although the amendment eventually was dropped in negotiations with the Senate, those who support making changes in the Patriot Act contend that the House vote was an important show of strength for their side.

A free-standing bill has been introduced by Sen. Larry Craig (R., Idaho) and Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) and Rep. Bud Otter (R., Idaho) that would revamp the "sneak and peek'' provision as well as other parts of the Patriot Act. The legislation, called the "Security and Freedom Enhancement'' or SAFE Act, has been condemned by the Bush administration, which says it would hinder the fight against terrorism.

The bill would end nationwide search warrants, place more restrictions on roving wiretaps and require law enforcement officials to inform a judge every seven days that telling the subject of a secret search would cause the destruction of evidence or a threat to someone's life.

It also would require the FBI to demonstrate suspicion that a person is suspected of terrorism before seizing library or medical records.

Permanent Link