After Talk of Compromise, Panel Is Again Split on Patriot Act By ERIC LICHTBLAU http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/politics/25patriot.html?pagewanted=print
WASHINGTON, May 24 - Just a few weeks ago, critics and supporters of the sweeping antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act had reduced their differences to only a handful of substantive issues, and the two sides were talking openly about finding room for compromise in renewing the law. But now, a new proposal in the Senate Intelligence Committee - backed by the Bush administration - has sent the two sides scurrying back to their war camps. The central question is no longer whether the government's antiterrorism powers should be scaled back in the face of criticism from civil rights advocates, but whether those powers should be significantly expanded to give the F.B.I. new authority to demand records and monitor mailings without approval from a judge. The divergent views were on full display Tuesday as the committee began its debate in earnest over the future of the Patriot Act and 16 provisions in the law that will expire at the end of the year. On Thursday, the committee will hold a closed-door hearing on a proposal to renew and expand major provisions, but critics are attacking the committee's decision to hold the debate in secret. The ranking Republican and Democratic leaders on the committee set the tone for Tuesday's hearing at the outset. "We expect the men and women of the F.B.I. to protect us," said Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who leads the committee, "and yet some advocate constraints that would tie their hands unnecessarily." Minutes later, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the panel, fired back by urging the Senate to explore fully any proposals to expand the F.B.I.'s authority, including one provision in the committee proposal that would allow the bureau to demand records in terror investigations through what are known as administrative subpoenas without going before a judge. "Has the Department of Justice demonstrated to the committee that any investigations have faltered, even for one critical moment, because of the lack of administrative subpoena authority?" Mr. Rockefeller asked. One witness, Valerie Caproni, the F.B.I. general counsel, said that while the new subpoena power would allow investigators to move much more quickly in terror investigations, she could not point to a specific instance in which national security had been harmed because of a delay in getting records through already-available means like intelligence and criminal warrants. "Can we show you that, because we did not get the record, a bomb went off?" Ms. Caproni asked. "We cannot." At a separate hearing nearby, the Appropriations Committee gathered to hear from Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Director Robert S. Mueller III of the F.B.I. on budget matters, but several senators quickly moved off agenda to ask about the future of the antiterrorism law. Both Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Mueller offered forceful defenses, arguing that it would do significant harm to national security if Congress failed to renew the law. "It would be going back 10 years if the Patriot Act were not reauthorized," Mr. Mueller said. Critics of the law acknowledged that the Bush administration and Republican leaders, through the proposal to expand the F.B.I.'s powers, might have succeeded in shifting the focus of the debate and putting advocates of civil liberties on the defensive. "We should be placing additional safeguards on the Patriot Act, not expanding it," Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said. Republican and administration officials said the proposal drawn up last week by the committee was a natural outgrowth of months of discussion on how to refine and improve counterterrorism law, and they noted that the administration had repeatedly talked about the need to expand the F.B.I.'s subpoena power. But Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat on the committee, said she was caught off guard by the proposal because, until now, the administration had suggested giving the F.B.I. greater subpoena power in criminal cases, not in more wide-ranging intelligence investigations. Some civil rights advocates said they considered the new proposal to be a stealth "power grab" by the F.B.I. and the administration at a time when the Senate had been preoccupied by debate over judicial filibusters. And they said the proposal might dim chances for future compromise and lead instead to a drawn-out legislative battle in Congress. The committee's proposal "really does fly in the face of some of the rhetoric coming out of the Justice Department lately," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been leading the push to scale back the antiterrorism law. "If these are the types of changes they are open to considering, we are not optimistic about being able to find much common ground." You are a subscribed member of the infowarrior list. Visit www.infowarrior.org for list information or to unsubscribe. This message may be redistributed freely in its entirety. Any and all copyrights appearing in list messages are maintained by their respective owners.
