Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Aug. 26, 2003

The immediate point at issue is one of several proposals to make "a midcourse correction" in the Patriot Act.

The fight involves, in addition to the left, heated internal warfare within the president’s constituency. The conservative movement consists of libertarians and the security minded. Some who value both are troubled by a feeling they must make a decision not unlike choosing between one’s mother and father.

Others contend the USA Patriot Act presents no such dilemma.

That law was passed after 9/11 when, for the first time since the War of 1812, the continental United States was attacked by a foreign power, with 3,000 Americans killed.

When Congress resumes next week, a Senate-House conference committee is to take up an appropriations bill that includes money to run the Department of Justice. The House version of that bill contains an amendment to cut off funds for Section 213 of the Patriot Act.

'Sneak and Peak'

Approved by a veto-proof 309-118 majority in late July, the measure prohibits enforcement of the Patriot Act's provision that authorizes the government to conduct a criminal investigation without notifying the suspect that his property has been searched.

Opponents call this the "sneak and peak" law. Tom DeWeese of American Policy Center says Section 213 means that "law enforcement can gain access to your home and take records without you knowing they were there. A warrant must be obtained, but you may never know about it."

"That’s right, and he [a terrorist] shouldn’t know," retorts Herb Romerstein, adjunct professor at Institute of World Politics.

In an interview with NewsMax.com, Romerstein, a former security analyst and investigator on Capitol Hill and in the Reagan administration, says if in fact the suspect is a terrorist or foreign spy, you don’t want to alert him that you’re onto him. Tell him about it and he can protect himself, "and the job of planting a bomb is handed over to someone else, a co-conspirator."

'We're Going to Tear It Down'

The sponsor of the House-passed amendment that the White House hints is veto bait is Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter, R-Idaho. He says his effort "is the first of a whole group of assaults that we’re going to make against the Patriot Act." The Washington Times quotes him as vowing, "We’re going to have to tear it down piece by piece."

The political climate in Otter’s district hints at why he is making it his business to dilute government power. He and his immediate predecessor, fellow Republican Helen Chenoweth, have spoken out on behalf of constituents who felt the jackboot of federal power.

This congressional district is the scene of the infamous Ruby Ridge shootout, where an FBI sniper shot Randy Weaver’s unarmed wife as she held a baby.

Moreover, Idaho is Exhibit A in the "Sagebrush Rebellion," where for years landowners have been up to their ears in battles with environmentalist-driven federal authorities.

The question is whether that concern translates into a good reason to scuttle key parts of the Patriot Act. Attorney General John Ashcroft argues it does not. Last week, he delivered a speech to American Enterprise Institute seeking to rebut critics of the law.

Assistant Attorney General William Moschella has fired off a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert saying the Otter amendment "would have a devastating effect on the United States’ ongoing effort to detect and prevent terrorism, as well as combat other serious crimes."

Other parts of the Patriot Act are at the center of vigorous debate in the conservative movement and on Capitol Hill. More on that later in this series.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Bush Administration

Homeland/Civil Defense

Privacy

War on Terrorism

Editor's note:
Have an Opinion About This? Click Here to Send an URGENT PriorityGram Today