Ashcroft needs to listen to Americans'

concerns about Patriot Act

Editorial Board
AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Sunday, August 24, 2003

If U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft wants to know why the USA
Patriot Act is drawing so much fire, he should do more listening than
talking as he stumps the country to defend the act.

Americans of all political stripes and persuasions are alarmed at the
sweep and scope of the law passed in the fearful aftermath of the 9/11
terrorist attacks. The groundswell of opposition -- at least three
states and 140 local governments have passed resolutions condemning it
-- persuaded the Bush administration to send Ashcroft out to defend it.
A resolution opposing the act is on the Austin City Council agenda for
Sept. 25.

Sending Ashcroft is a major gamble because he is easily the most
controversial member of the president's Cabinet, a divisive personality
and a frequent target of civil libertarians. He is scheduled to appear
in 18 cities in the coming weeks to promote the law as an effective
tool to fight terrorism. (Ashcroft's schedule is not public, but a
visit to Austin is unlikely.)

The attorney general has been deaf to concerns about the Patriot Act,
some of them voiced by Republicans in Congress. The House recently beat
back a bid by the Justice Department to enact "sneak and peek" searches
of homes and businesses because of worries about violating civil
liberties. At this point, it's clear Ashcroft needs to listen to his
critics, not lecture them.

The Patriot Act is a complex, detailed law that relaxes
long-established restrictions on government intrusion into personal
lives. It allows more sharing of information among law enforcement and
intelligence agencies, authorizes "roving wiretaps," allows detention
without charges of noncitizens, expands police access to e-mail,
increases monitoring of financial transactions and permits government
access to library records while forbidding disclosure of those searches.

Much of what the Patriot Act allows is reasonable. What is not is the
lack of oversight and judicial review before such intrusive actions are
permitted. Searches, wire taps and record seizures ought to be approved
by a judge or a grand jury that first determines a reasonable cause for
them exists. That review is too lax under the Patriot Act.

The Justice Department's efforts to ease public fears aren't inspiring.
For instance, it contends that the act's definition of domestic terror
groups subject to surveillance and wire taps is limited to those who
break the law. But many mainstream groups, including Greenpeace,
anti-abortion activists and civil rights groups indulge in civil
disobedience to effect change. That doesn't make them terrorists, yet
they're subject to the definition.

Ashcroft is barnstorming now because the Patriot Act expires in two
years and he wants to not only make it permanent, but expand it. The
opposition he is finding in Congress and across the country threatens
to undo his plans.

Balancing national security with the personal liberty Americans enjoy
requires a deft touch. Much of what the Patriot Act allows would be
more acceptable if it were subject to stricter oversight and tighter
control to minimize potential abuses. This country does not want to
return to the domestic spying days of J. Edgar Hoover.

The government can't ensure freedom by undermining it. If Ashcroft
listens as he travels, he will realize that Americans want national
security but fear that the Patriot Act has too few checks  ¶ 10:19 PM