WASHINGTON POLITICS: Bart Jansen

Patriot Act: safeguards or free reign?

Copyright © 2005 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.

E-mail this story to a friend

Despite the cloak of secrecy surrounding the Patriot Act, Congress is expected to extend provisions for hunting terrorists that were approved in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks Sept. 11, 2001.

Some lawmakers and civil libertarians fret about how the law is wielded after being approved hastily. Concerns focus on the government's ability to snoop through business, medical and even library records with minimal judicial review.

"The cloud of secrecy that surrounds the Patriot Act must be cleared," said Gregory Nojeim, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington office. "There are parts of the Patriot Act that went too far, and carefully calibrated changes must be made to provide proper checks and balances."

But Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, FBI Director Robert Mueller and CIA Director Porter Goss each insist the law is crucial to protecting the country.

"Now is not the time to engage in unilateral withdrawal," Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee at a hearing Wednesday.

Congress apparently agrees, although the details are under negotiation. The top committee Democrat, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, acknowledged broad support for extending the law. But lawmakers questioned why so little about the law is revealed.

"I think one of the fundamental issues surrounding the Patriot Act as we consider its reauthorization, I think is a lack of public reporting with respect to the way in which it's applied," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. "I think so often now what I hear from my constituents is the concern that it's used for domestic investigations, that there's excessive secrecy with respect to how it's used."

SECRET VICTORIES

Intelligence officials contend they disclose how sensitive matters are handled in reports that Congress ignores. They also say that they can describe their victories only behind closed doors.

"We provide reports twice a year regarding the use of (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)," Gonzales said. "I'm beginning to learn that sometimes some members of Congress don't take advantage of the opportunity to review that report, and they don't understand what information is already being provided to the Congress."

Mueller said last week's conviction of an Islamic scholar in Virginia, Ali al-Timimi, for waging war against the United States came from provisions that eased the flow of information between intelligence agencies and law enforcement. But such public examples are rare.

"Part of the problem that we have is the fact that, to disclose our successes, we have to do it in closed session," Mueller said.

Because of the haste in approving the Patriot Act, Congress set several provisions to expire Dec. 31, 2005. These provisions are why lawmakers are talking about the law now.

Expiring law-enforcement provisions include: roving wiretaps that don't identify the precise phone number or person targeted, seizing voicemail and e-mail, and intercepting information about computer hackers.

The argument for roving wiretaps is that bad guys can switch cell phones rapidly while authorities are pursuing them. The problem with unopened voicemail and e-mail was that previous wiretap laws were considered slow and burdensome for opening the messages. The provision about hackers allows authorities to eavesdrop on their communications, but not prevent or punish the hackers, according to a Congressional Research Service summary.

SEARCHES ON THE RISE

In terms of foreign intelligence, one touchy subject is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set up a sort of spy court and which was modified by the Patriot Act. The number of requests for secret surveillance or search warrants at the spy court has nearly doubled since Sept. 11.

In 2000, the Justice Department filed 1,012 applications for surveillance or a search. In 2004, there were 1,758 applications. Of those, none were denied, although 94 were changed substantively.

The provision allowing a search for "tangible items" like business records related to terrorism has been used 35 times since September 2003. But Gonzales said it was never used, as feared, for library, bookstore, medical or gun-sale records.

But the ACLU worries that another section of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to obtain financial records, credit reports and bills for phones and Internet service without any court review.

"Congress must find a balance between security and liberty," said Timothy Edgar, ACLU's policy counsel for national security. "Currently, the scales are tipped too far and liberty is being compromised."

Gonzales and Mueller warned, however, that failing to extend the Patriot Act would be "unacceptable" and would hurt their ability to prevent future terrorist attacks. But the officials voiced their awareness of criticism if they overreach.

"The last thing any of us want in the intelligence community ... is a feeding frenzy over a poster child because we abused the authority," Goss said. "This authority is too important. We don't want to lose it."

Washington Correspondent Bart Jansen can be contacted at 202-488-1119 or at:

To top of page