Scoundrel time
PRESIDENT BUSH'S administration has mounted a spirited defense of the USA Patriot Act, passed after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But it has a compromised champion in Attorney General John Ashcroft. Congress passed the act by large margins only five weeks after the attacks, but aspects of it have come under growing criticism as being too intrusive of civil liberties. Three states and 152 communities have passed resolutions opposing the law, and the House last month overwhelmingly approved a proposal from a Republican member to repeal one of the act's key surveillance provisions.
The very fact that the administration is mounting a counteroffensive reveals its understanding that the law could become a political liability.
As attorney general, Ashcroft is the prime beneficiary of the Patriot Act, along with other law enforcement and intelligence agency heads. Bush's choice of one of his most controversial Cabinet members to recapture public support on this issue is risky.
For one thing, Ashcroft himself has been criticized by civil liberties groups for his handling of several people detained on terror-related charges, some of whom have been denied basic legal representation. Some of those detained have been denied the right to talk with lawyers, to interview a witness who might provide exculpatory evidence, or to challenge their incarceration.
Also, Ashcroft is perhaps the most polarizing member of the administration, often seen as a rigid ideologue not interested in compromise.
In the first speech of his campaign, before the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Ashcroft betrayed no shred of doubt about any part of the act. "We have used these tools to prevent terrorists from unleashing more death and destruction on our soil," he said. "We have used these tools to save innocent American lives."
What is needed, however, is not lock step loyalty to the entire act but a sensible look at its various provisions. There has been little criticism and much justifiable praise, for instance, for lowering the walls between agencies so intelligence reports on possible terrorists can be coordinated more effectively. But the so-called "sneak and peek" warrants for secret searches -- the target of last month's negative House vote -- are repugnant and should be jettisoned.
After 9/11, many Americans said they were willing to trade some personal freedom for more security. Shockingly, one poll said 41 percent felt the First Amendment "goes too far" in guaranteeing rights. But that number has since dropped to 19 percent, and the nation, even understanding that terrorism remains a threat, still wants a sensible balance. Surrendering individual rights that define America's greatness can hardly be called patriotic. After 9/11, many Americans said they were willing to trade some personal freedom for more security. Shockingly, one poll said 41 percent felt the First Amendment "goes too far" in guaranteeing rights. But that number has since dropped to 19 percent, and the nation, even understanding that terrorism remains a threat, still wants a sensible balance. Surrendering individual rights that define America's greatness can hardly be called patriotic.
