Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (39069)	3/8/2004 10:00:12 PM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

GOP, Democrats banking on Patriot Act as key issue By Charlie Savage WASHINGTON -- Justice Department officials met behind closed doors with congressional staffers last week to argue against a bill that would roll back the USA Patriot Act, insisting that the new surveillance rules rushed through Congress after the 2001 terrorist attacks should raise no fears about compromising civil liberties. But if that argument is true, a staffer demanded, why is his congressman constantly hit with questions about the Patriot Act whenever he goes home to his district?, one participant recalled. The officials threw up their hands, the participant said. They noted that Attorney General John D. Ashcroft traveled around the country giving speeches last fall in defense of the Patriot Act, only to be criticized for using public money for a political purpose. What else could Ashcroft do? The exchange foreshadowed an emerging wild card in the 2004 campaign: Republican and Democratic strategists alike are gambling that the Patriot Act issue will be a win for their side -- and each side is eager to make its play. On the primary campaign trail, wild applause has resounded through auditoriums whenever a Democratic presidential candidate has called for changes to the Patriot Act. But President Bush has aggressively called on Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act a year early, ensuring that it will be debated before the election. And Ashcroft has threatened to wield the administration's first veto if critics succeed in passing any rollback of the Patriot Act, saying it would undermine his ability to prevent another disastrous terrorist attack. "Both sides see it as red meat for their base," said Steve Rabinowitz, a Democratic media consultant and former Clinton administration aide. "It has come to mean extreme things for both extremes. Liberals see it as a gross infringement on individual liberties, and conservatives see it as a long-needed tightening that was always reasonable and, post-9/11, is critical." A recent Gallup poll indicated that many voters surveyed said they are confused about the Patriot Act. In the popular mind, it has come to mean far more than a law that allows prosecutors to share intelligence with spy agencies, obtain business and library records, freeze the assets of suspected money launderers, and expand a form of wiretap surveillance that follows targets around. Instead, analysts agree, the Patriot Act has become a symbol of general unease about whether the war on terrorism is curtailing individual rights, and so carries a political branding encompassing much more than the law's content. "The campaign trial doesn't lend itself to much more than sound bites because most of the candidates have to talk about a variety of issues," said Laura Murphy, Washington director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The Patriot Act has become a symbol of government excesses in the post-9/11 environment, a symbol of the government's assault on our civil liberties." Thus, the words "Patriot Act" conjure up unrelated policies -- the Pentagon's "Total Information Awareness" project; the passenger information database for airline screening; and Bush's assertion that his powers as commander in chief include the ability to lock up US citizens without charges or access to a lawyer if he decides they are "enemy combatants." Supporters of the Patriot Act are frustrated by the suggestion that whichever side can control the public definition of the law will prevail on the issue in the general election. Barbara Comstock, a former Justice Department spokeswoman, said a "rational discussion" would prove the law is only about sharing information and using the same legal tools against terrorists that the government has long used against drug dealers and organized crime. Paul Rosenzweig from the conservative Heritage Foundation said Bush's demand in his State of the Union speech for Congress to renew the Patriot Act a year early is a gambit intended to regain control of the issue before the November election. "The move to discuss the Patriot Act earlier will focus people on the real act, not [unrelated issues] they're afraid of," Rosenzweig said. Rabinowitz said the push for a new vote also will put the Democratic presidential nominee in an uncomfortable position. Presumptive nominee John F. Kerry voted for the Patriot Act in 2001 but later criticized it on the campaign trail. If the law comes up for a vote before the general election, any side Kerry takes will call attention to the fact that he changed his position, Rabinowitz said. "They think Kerry is vulnerable for being wishy-washy and flip-flopping on the issue," he said. "It's . . . an opportunity they can use as a character trait lever against Kerry." But Democrats also hope to use the renewed attention on the Patriot Act as a political weapon of their own. Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way, said that the issue would help Democrats siphon off enthusiasm for Bush among the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Murphy, from the ACLU, said, "Peeling libertarians off could make a substantial difference in the election." That sentiment has led to the introduction in Congress of a bipartisan proposal called the Safe Act, which would amend the Patriot Act to provide privacy protections for libraries, bookstores, and other holders of personal records that might be sought by federal authorities. The Safe Act also would strengthen the government's requirement to report to Congress how it is using these powers and make the Justice Department seek permission from judges more often to extend secret searches or some wiretap orders. Although the Justice Department officials who recently briefed Congress insisted that no library records have been requested under the Patriot Act and that most of the other powers have long since been available for other investigations, Representative Martin Meehan, Democrat of Lowell, said his side will not let the issue drop. "This administration is in no position to ask the Congress and the American public to `just trust them' when they say the Patriot Act won't be abused," Meehan said. "From the indiscriminate roundup of immigrants after Sept. 11th to the alleged surveillance of peace activists, this administration has had an abysmal record on civil liberties. Taken alone these violations may seem insignificant, but when you look at the big picture, you can see that many of our essential freedoms are at risk." boston.com lurqer