David A. Keene

Ashcroft shows shortcomings with 'victory'
September 16, 2003

Attorney General John Ashcroft began his recent "victory" tour at the American Enterprise Institute where he disingenuously justified his campaign-like appearance as necessary, lest those lacking his unique dedication to the war against terrorism succeed in "repealing" the USA Patriot Act. He then took his show on the road, speaking primarily before closed meetings of law enforcement officials assembled to applaud and nod as he not only defended the vast investigative powers he and they have acquired since Sept. 11 but argued that more were needed.

Meanwhile, his spokespeople were hinting publicly that anyone who even dares question the need for such power or suspects that it might actually be abused by those to whom it is being entrusted are at the very least insufficiently committed to fighting terrorism and might, indeed, be "soft" on the whole question. Indeed, his people began charging that critics of the Patriot Act, ranging from the ACLU to the Eagle Forum, have been lying and misrepresenting the whole thing from the beginning in an effort to stir up fears about actual or potential government abuse of the rights of innocent U.S. citizens. One of my conservative brother's questions were dismissed by a Justice Department representative, who told him that he should just "trust the government to do the right thing."

I have always considered John Ashcroft a friend, and I certainly appreciate the difficulty of his current job, but like many of those who have supported him in the past, I find myself stunned not only by his failure, rhetoric aside, to understand the need to balance the demand for security with the need to safeguard individual freedom but with the way in which he is trying to consign anyone who questions anything the government does to the ranks of terrorist sympathizers. He knows better, and those he is now attacking have every right to resent the mischaracterization of their motives and integrity emanating from his office.

Many in the administration seem to believe that this helps President Bush who, rightly, continues to get high marks for his conduct of the war against terrorism, but they are missing the straws in the wind. The Patriot Act passed in the weeks following Sept. 11 because in times of crisis people want action and don't pay much attention to details. Many of those who voted for it did so without even reading it, and everyone in Congress knows that the recent Justice Department assertion that the act was seriously debated and examined for six weeks before passage is laughable nonsense.

Since then, many in Congress have had a chance to step back and ask whether the 342-page bill the administration cobbled together in those dark days might have gone too far. Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) believes today that his vote for the bill was perhaps the worst he's ever cast, and dozens of others from both parties are suggesting that Congress revisit some of the provisions they might not have passed those provisions had they not been stampeded by an administration insisting that a vote against a bill they hadn't even had a chance to examine was a vote against bringing terrorists to justice.

It should be noted, however, that regardless of what Ashcroft claims, no one is urging repeal of the Patriot Act. Even the act's harshest critics acknowledge that the government needed new tools to deal with the unique threat posed by international terrorism and would do nothing to deny government those tools. However, they are now asking that it be reviewed and perhaps modified with an eye to protecting the traditional and constitutional rights of innocent Americans. Ashcroft's response to this has been to demand that the sunset provisions that would eventually force such a review be removed and that Congress expand rather than restrict the investigative powers "needed" to effectively fight terrorism.

Fortunately, Congress has been less receptive to the attorney general than the handpicked audiences he addressed during his tour. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) has introduced a bill in the Senate to reform the act, and the House recently voted 309-118 for a floor amendment offered by Idaho's Butch Otter restricting the utilization of what are known as "sneak and peek" warrants. One hundred thirteen of those votes came from Republicans, and, regardless of whether the amendment passes the Senate or survives a conference, represent a warning that neither Ashcroft nor the president can afford to ignore.

Americans demand both security and freedom and believe that we can have both.

The administration is tasked with protecting us but should be on notice now that Americans are simply unwilling to give up their rights to make that task easier just because Ashcroft's bureaucrats say we should trust them.