Looking to Raise Patriot Act Support, Ashcroft Raises Only Questions

August 28, 2003

In a move that many believe was sparked by the overwhelming House vote to withhold funding for "sneak and peek" searches of private property under the USA Patriot Act, Attorney General John Ashcroft embarked on a nationwide tour last week to drum up support for the controversial bill. "I think it [the vote to limit sneak and peak searches] caught the Justice Department by surprise, as it did all of us," said Chris Finan, president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE). "Ashcroft felt he had to shore up his support." The "sneak and peek" provision, Section 213 of the Patriot Act, allows delayed notification of the execution of search warrants and authorizes no-knock searches of private residences, either physically or electronically.

Ashcroft kicked off the campaign on Tuesday, August 19, with a speech before the American Enterprise Institute. In the speech, the Attorney General said the law has given police and prosecutors the tools needed to thwart would-be terrorists within the parameters of the Constitution and provided examples of how it allowed law enforcement to bring charges against terrorist suspects, as reported by the Associated Press.

The next day, Ashcroft went on a road trip, where he spoke to law enforcement audiences in Philadelphia, Cleveland, Detroit, and Des Moines, Iowa. Additionally, there will be a dozen or more future stops, including Boston, the AP article noted.

But while Ashcroft did his best to portray the USA Patriot Act in a positive light -- believing that people simply needed to be educated on the law -- some believe the move backfired. His short stumping tour last week was successful in that it brought the Patriot Act to the attention of Americans and even more media, but "as a result of his tour, the Patriot Act received a lot more negative press," said Finan. "He's only succeeded in raising more questions."

On August 25, for example, a New York Times editorial, "An Unpatriotic Act," contended, "Mr. Ashcroft's efforts to promote the law are misguided. He should abandon the road show and spend more time in Washington working with those who want to reform the law....

"The administration is clearly worried, as opposition to the excesses of the Patriot Act grows across the country and the political spectrum. Instead of spin-doctoring the problem, Mr. Ashcroft should work with the law's critics to develop a law that respects Americans' fundamental rights." (To read the complete New York Times editorial, click here.)

A Brattleboro (Vermont) Reformer editorial came right to the point: "The fact that Attorney General John Ashcroft feels compelled to go on a publicity tour to defend the USA Patriot Act demonstrates what an ill-conceived piece of legislation this is."

However, in a letter to Ashcroft dated August 19, Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) -- who introduced in The Freedom to Read Protection Act (H.R. 1157) to remove a threat created by the USA Patriot Act to the privacy of bookstore and library records -- invited Ashcroft to debate the topic in Vermont. "I welcome this move by you and your Department to more openly address the very serious, and in my view, very legitimate concerns that millions of Americans have about restrictions on their civil liberties," Sanders wrote.

The letter also stated, "Unfortunately, for months, your Department has derided the concerns of these millions of Americans as a 'propaganda campaign' and as 'misleading the public.' The Justice Department's cavalier dismissal has only increased the apprehension that an increasing number of people feel. They understand, and I agree, that if we compromise the foundations on which our society is based, the war on terrorism is already lost."

Said Sanders in a recent press statement, "It is a bit ironic that … Ashcroft is using closed meetings to try to build public support for a law that expands secret court proceedings. That's the way the Ashcroft Department of Justice likes to operate -- without any public scrutiny or accountability. That's just wrong. If he supports the sweeping new powers for federal agents in the Patriot Act then he should be prepared to defend that position in the court of public opinion." --David Grogan

Topics: Free Expression, News - Bookselling,